Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Archive
2 Personal essay removed for sixth time
3 Did Churchill approve or distance himself from the bombing
4 Archiving
5 Number of people killed
6 Views of Grass and Churchill
7 Responses to the bombing
8 Dresden morality
9 Original research
10 More questions
- 10.1 The case for the bombing being a war crime
11 USAF case
12 Article content
13 lost in edit clash
14 Wikipedia:Footnote3
15 Strafing of civilians (yet again)
16 genocide

Personal essay removed for sixth time

I have once again removed Philip's opinion about the implications of what Grass and Jenkins said. They called Dresden a "war crime." I do not know what the implications of that are, as I am not an expert on military law. Even if I were, I would still have to quote someone else if I wanted to discuss the implications. Philip will not do this. He just keeps inserting his own views. I am therefore bringing this section to the Talk page and I am requesting a reference, and I will keep on removing it until a reference is supplied:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Philip might like to note that his opinion piece contradicts itself. Just as there is no legal precedent to indicate whether Dresden constituted a war crime, there is similarly no legal precedent to indicate that calling it such necessarily implies that the pilots, navigators, and bombers be tried. SlimVirgin 21:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note this: if Philip's claim is as obviously correct as saying "the Thames flows through London" (which he argues above), then it will be easy to find an authoritative source for it, which is all I'm asking for. SlimVirgin 22:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like original research to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg see: London Charter of the International Military Tribunal which was used at Nuremberg Trials "The charter also stated that official position was no valid defence against War crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so requires" so if the Dresden bombing was a war crime then those who planned it and those who carried it out were guilty. There is no original research in the fist sentence. The second sentence says no one was found guilty of bombing after the war (has to be Axis because Allies not tried for war crimes) so there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime. They are two statments of facts. It is not original research. Without such statments to balance the PVO that it was a war crime it is unbalanced and not NPVO. Philip Baird Shearer 01:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then you've failed to understand what original research is. Original research means no novel narratives, and no new analysis or synthesis of existing information. That is what you're doing. You can't insert after quoting someone your opinion of what the quote means. If someone else has written about what it means, you must quote that someone else. You can't insert your own opinion, no matter how much you believe it to be self-evidently correct. SlimVirgin 01:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Slim here. As soon as you start drawing your own conclusions from the evidence (e.g. "This implies"), you've strayed into Original Research territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion what you saying is nonsense. If all wikipidia articles were written in the way you are suggesting then that way there would not be any narrative in any article they would all be a series of quotes. Take the main page featured article, which as I write this is Graffiti. Not one of the quotes, such as they are, are referenced. In the whole article and none of the text is directly referenced. No where does it say "According to British xxx yyyy..." or anything like it.

If what you say is true then the phrase which Ed Poor added at the start of the article of "Opposing that point of view are several historians" is original research. I an not interpreting the quote, I am giving balance to the article by pointing out that as no one was tried for the war crimes of bombing there is no contemporary legal precedent available to indicate that bombing constituted a war crime. Philip Baird Shearer 02:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Original Research rule does not imply that an article need only consist of quotes, with no narrative. The bulk of this article, which describes the city, bombing raids, etc., are simply recitations of the facts in narrative form. However, in areas where there are disagreements, quotes should be produced, and in areas where analysis or speculation is done, quotes must be produced. Thus the description of the bombings etc. need not be quoted (though, of course, sources in the Reference section are vital); but analyses as to whether or not they were war crimes needs to be done by quoting proponents of both positions, not by synthesizing your own analysis based on your understanding of the International Military Tribunal. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest this compromise text:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. No Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory.

I think this is defensible, in the sense that, based on the good faith assumption, we should assume that Shearer looked for or would have noticed any counter examples, and that there is also the opportunity for those who object the statement about the lack of Axis personnel being tried for these offenses to find a counter example. My compromise removes the last statement because that is argumentative. Lack of precedent does not imply that either this or previous untried axis actions were not a war crime. Standing alone, I think my compromise quote implies that any trial of Allied personnel would be selective and perhaps hypocritical, but leaves that conclusion to the reader rather than making the explicit argument.--Silverback 14:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As soon as you say "this implies", you are heading out into original research territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree with SlimVirgin & Jayjg on this one. Generally speaking, when what's claimed to be implication counts as original research, that's because the implication only holds with the addition of suppressed premises. Appealing to genuine implication, on the other hand, is simply a matter of making explicit what was implicit. In this case, the claim is that part of the meaning of ‘x was a war crime’ is: ‘those implicated in performing x were war criminals’, and that part of the meaning of that is that those people should have been tried as war criminals. I don't really see which of those two stages can be denied. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

There are a number of suppressed premises, the most important of which is that when Jenkins and Grass used the term, they were using it in a legal sense. "This implies . . ." refers to their statements. But neither are lawyers or military historians, and can't be assumed to know what calling something a "war crime" might mean. If you read the Grass article, he refers to the bombing using a number of different terms, all of which are taken to mean "bad". If a Wikipedia editor adds, "And here is how he was using these words," that is original research. Second, it's a suppressed premise, assuming they were using the term in a legal sense, that they meant "should have been tried for a war crime, " as opposed to "could have been tried for a war crime," Third, it's a suppressed legal premise that if anyone in the chain of command could or should be tried for a war crime, then everyone involved in the act could or should be tried for a war crime. Fourth, the section ends with an analysis of the implications of failing to try anyone at Nuremberg for participating in decisions regarding aerial bombardment. That no one was tried for participating is such decisions is not shown to be accurate because no reference is provided; and the analysis is not shown to be legally correct because alleged war crimes can be prosecuted in the absence of precedent, so a reference would be needed to support the legal analysis. Finally, it's a strawman argument to raise the spectre of criminal prosecution, based on no legal evidence, only to dismiss it for lack of precedent. Taken together, Philip's addition constitutes his own "novel narrative or historical interpretation" as Jimbo has put it, of the sort not allowed in Wikipedia. If Philip can find someone else expressing this opinion, that's fine, but he may not express it himself. It's a very clear example of what is meant by original research. SlimVirgin 19:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

The position that Dresden was a war crime, and yet there should be no prosecution is one that has been held by a variety of individuals over time. The implication that one necessarily implies the other is not supportable from evidence. It is an inference, and like all inferences on wikipedia needs to be documented. There is also the distinction between those who believe that there should have been trials, but that the issue is now moot, and those who believe that there is some value to having trials now. There is also the POV that while Dresden was a war crime, war crime trials do not advance "Peace and Reconciliation". There is plenty of room to document each of these POVs in turn, as well as the others. The disputed paragraph is not only POV and undocumented, it is a fairly weak legal argument - it argues

1. That an accusation requires or implies prosecution. This isn't true under international law, there are a number of possible outcomes to war crimes, many of which fall far short of prosecution.

Point conceded on the wording. However if the bombing was a war crime, then anyone involved in the bombing would be guilty of participating in war crime (whether they were prosecuted or not). Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They "would be guilty". Even without prosecution and therefore without being found guilty. And "anyone involved" would be guilty, so the PM, his private secretary?, everyone at Bomber Command, pilots, bombers, navigators?; engineers? This is highly POV legal nonsense. Sorry. SlimVirgin 09:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

IF the bombing of Dresden was as war crime. Then anyone directly involved in the decision to commit the war crime or directly involved in the execution of the war crime would be guilty of participating in a war crime. Official position and obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment (London Charter of the International Military Tribunal). Philip Baird Shearer 11:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't follow. If removing your computer from your home without your consent is a crime, it doesn't follow that everyone involved in that act is guilty of a crime. There are issues of intention to determine; and a definition of "involvement" is required; in the case of Dresden, the criminal act would have to be defined. It would be a horribly complex case. SlimVirgin 11:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

To use your analogy. If some one removes my computer from my home without my consent it may not be a crime. It might be a court ordered repossession for example. But if removing a computer from my house has been defined as a war crime, then any one directly involved in planning the crime or directly involved in executing the crime would be guilty of participating in a war crime no matter what their intention or motivation. If the people who executed the repossession were duped with a forged court order, this would not lessen their participation in the crime, because only obeying orders is not a defence for a war crime. The participants should know that taking the computer from my house is a war crime and refuse to take part. As "it would be a horribly complex case" this is why it is important to point out that as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

2. That since no Nazi bombing action was prosecuted, and therefore Dresden should not be either. This is extremely weak since the question would hinge on degree of intent and military necessity, and therefore whether Dresden is different from any Nazi action from the air is a matter of fact to be determined by investigation, not a matter of law. And yet the section inserted implies that the decision is a matter of law.

I wouldn't want to hinge a motion to dismiss charges on such an argument. Stirling Newberry 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that because no Nazi bombing action was prosecuted, so Dresden should not be. What I said was was "as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime."

It is a matter of law not a matter of fact. The facts of the attack are well know, as are the facts in many other Allied and Axis bombing raids. If it was a war crime to bomb a city in 1945, what was the war crime? Do you have a credible source which states what the alleged war crime was? Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, thank you for those edits; you've improved it enormously, and I'd say there's no need for the disputed paragraph now anyway as you've expanded the section and it's nicely balanced. Great work and much appreciated. SlimVirgin 20:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Stirling. Aside from the NOR policy, the passage in question is just editorializing, which is poor style by any standard. On a related note, the second and third paragraphs of this section mention -- vaguely -- far right critics and other critics. These are strong arguments being presented, and should be sourced. Who are these critics? Where can I to to read their arguments in detail? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A few points which are not clear to me and I hope that Stirling Newberry can explain them to me. As I an looking at the current version which has been edited by others, if there are any points below which you did not add then I would not of course expect you to try to explain those:

The nature of the bombing of Dresden --What was the nature of the bombing, specifically how did it differ from may other cities hit around the same time?
placed the general who ordered the bombing -- Which general is this?
Far right politicians in Germany have also used Dresden --- Which far right politicians ?
Many in mainstream politics -- What does many mean, who are they?
Some of the critics of the bombing -- Which critics?
These critics argue that if Japan and Germany had won the war, Dresden would certainly have been prosecuted as a war crime. -- Which critics argue this?
They argue that bombing of German cities was intended as a way of terrorizing the populace, as part of a deliberate strategy to terrorize the German people in preparation for the post-war occupation. -- Could you provide some documentation to back this up. If an Allied paper is to be used, it should be one published after September 25 1944. But I am sure that you can provide a source from one of the critics.
Critics of the idea that Dresden was a war crime -- Why have you not mentioned the major argument that most of those who took part in the bombing do not think that a war crime was committed? As the Allies including the Soviets agreed to the bombings at the highest levels it follows the the Governments of the Allies, including their legal advisors, did not think that they were committing a crime. Why have you not mentioned this?
They further argue that even if Dresden did violate the laws of war against excessive civiliain casualties Who argues this? Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, you definitely got the point of legislature! How about this one: "as noone in the world were tried at any Allied-led trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, dropping nuclear bombs on whatever enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime!" What we're talking about here is not the mere bombing of a city, but rather an unnecessary killing of thousands of civilians by initiating a firestorm over the center of a full-of-eastern-front-fugitives city (whereas the German military was positioned in the outskirts) in the last days of an already decided war! Not to mention the city was one of Europe's most beautiful and cultural important ones. It's the first (and hopefully the last) time in world history that something like this has been committed, and in this case you can't rely on precedent cases. The question also can't be answered with Allied legislature (anyone judged by his own law will seldom happen to be guilty), but by international law from that time like the Geneva or Hague Conventions -- Nesehat

Did Churchill approve or distance himself from the bombing

Ed, you asked my views on the above. My understanding is that Churchill had qualms about area bombing both before and after Dresden, but he did support it, yes, or else it wouldn't have happened, as he was prime minister. What I dispute about Philip's edits is the wording, and the claim that Churchill changed his mind about Dresden in response to public pressure. But I have no problem whatsoever with that claim if a credible published source is cited. That is the position with all my objections here. I don't mind if we say Churchill believed the moon was made of cheese, so long as that belief is relevant to the article and we cite a credible published source. SlimVirgin 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone changed that Gunter Grass called it a "war crime", to "crime". He did call it a war crime (see the link), so I've changed it back. However, I can't find where Jenkins called it one. Could the editor who added that please put the quote from Jenkins on this page?

Also, Philip, in looking around for a quote from Jenkins calling it a war crime, I found another article from Jenkins where he calls it a "crime against humanity" and also says that Churchill changed his mind about the bombing, which you might be able to use as a reference for the part about Churchill. It's here [1] I wouldn't say this was a good source to use as Jenkins is not an historian, but it would be better than nothing. But if you do add it, please add material; please don't revert or delete other edits. SlimVirgin 02:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

For some reason, Philip redirected this page to the archive, made some changes, then deleted the redirect. I'd appreciate knowing why he did that. SlimVirgin 23:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page. Nothing is lost the text and the edit history are in archive 7 (which along with the other archives are listed at the top of this page). It was necessary because this page had grown to 96K, 3 times the recomneded size. Initally I was going to copy back "Request for references" on down but that put the size of the new page over 32K before any new edits were added so I have put in links for those two headings for ease of access Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's actually no need to abide by the 32 k limit now, as I understand it, as this was connected to people using old browsers. But is moving the edit history the normal way of archiving? I have never seen it done this way before. Also, you made edits to the page as you were archiving it. Ed and I have posted some requests for help, so it would be appreciated if you wouldn't archive just yet so others don't have to search for the discussion. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 00:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am using a dial up line and the 32K limit is of relevence. Check the history I made no changes to the page as I was Archiving it. That is the advantage of keeping the history with the text. Philip Baird Shearer 00:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you say it's affecting you, I've reduced it to 36 k. I'll be archiving the sections I've just deleted in archive 7. Please don't revert them even if they're repetitive, as I'd like to have a chance to read through them later. I'd also like to check with others about the talk page history having been moved, in case it makes things harder to find for editors in the future. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Number of people killed

Since the number of residents who died as a result of the bombing is controversial, let's not try to "settle" the controversy but just report on it fairly.

I suggest we report every figure given, along with its source. Readers who are likely to credit one source over another will be satisfied: your source says it was X, but see here, my source shows it was really Y.

We could sort the sources alphabetically, chronologically, or in ascending/descending order. I prefer the latter, because it tends to corresponde also with the "sides" in the controversy over whether the bombing was justified.

Here's a sample (numbers wildly inaccurate, but it's a start)

6,000 - Allies' record of people actually buried
25,000 - "best estimate" of pro-Western historians
10,000 to 50,000 - Red Cross
250,000 - Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister)

Note that the range varies statistically by a factor of 40 (from smallest to largest). So, the method of estimation is possibly a factor as much as the motive of the estimator. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

A discussion of the range of estimates and sources for them would be valuable, though every estimate is neither a reasonable nor desirable goal for the article. However, the current consensus view should also be made clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see any reason to list David Irving's fantasies for any reason other than to debunk them. Modern serious historians (i.e. not the Holocaust deniers and their neo-Nazi kin) are in general agreement on numbers in the region of 25,000-35,000, and there's no reason for an encyclopaedia to give anything other than those numbers when discussing the death toll. Noel (talk) 20:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some mention of the different estimates, but also see no reason to refer to David Irving as he's a thoroughly discredited source; and I agree that the consensus estimate should be highlighted as such, and not included as though it's just another guess. SlimVirgin 20:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV is not about representing all views equally (otherwise my web page saying that 100 Billion innocent Icelanders were killed by Germans of the 1980s during the bombing of Dresden would have to be given equal weight to other estimates). This formula demonstrates clear anti-NPOV tendancies. "Pro-Western Historians" ??!!!???!! This was a joke I hope? If not, then consider this: please define "Western". It cannot be done without a clear POV. Do you mean Anglo-american? Do you mean NATO? Do you mean pro-Ally anti Axis? Rather you should say something like "according to the officials of the modern Germany" and remember to pick the best source for each.

More important is that methodology appears to have been determined by point of view. E.g., according to the findings of the UK court, David Irving used a methodology known as "lying" and "misrepresentation" to give a number of 100,000. Where there is serious and unrefuted evidence that people are lying, then you have to reduce their weight in an article. Appropriate would be something like "pro-Nazis have attempted to use Dresden as a form of propaganda (reference to court case) and have given much higher estimates, up to 250,000". Later historians such as FT have said that these numbers are discredited". If you don't do this, then my 100Billion Icelanders have just as much right as anyone else to be represented. Thus, equal representation of numbers which have unequal methodology and validity is, in and of its self, POV. Mozzerati 08:41, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

(I got confused as to where I was, and added this to the wrong place (in a talk archive). Here it is again...)

Numbers above 100K (e.g. the Columbia and Encarta numbers) are almost certainly residue from the period when David Irving was giving them, and it wasn't realized that he was a mendacious pseudo-historian. No reputable and knowledgeable source that I'm aware of has ever gone above ~60K (and even that is way high). That some encyclopaedias haven't caught up with recent scholarship on the issue is sad, but not surprising. (I thought about removing the line with the Columbia/Encarta numbers completely, but decided to let it be for the moment.)

There is an extensive discussion of the source of the current wording/numbers at Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 5#The death toll, which includes longish quotes from the main source, the report of Prof. Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, who relied heavily on two contemporary Dresden historians whose numbers come from extensive research in original documentation there.

I have checked in the article and made sure the numbers have proper citation, and that the citations are listed correctly. Noel (talk) 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Views of Grass and Churchill

Let's use exact quotes, rather than summaries. I altered a Gunter Grass reference to war crime' after reading an article cited in the text. I forget whether I included an entire sentence, quoting Grass. The key question is whether he said "it was a crime" or "it was a war crime". The term crime has a different connotation than war crime.

He said both, Ed. If you read the article that we link to, Grass first calls it a "crime," then later calls it a "war crime", though I couldn't find Simon Jenkins calling it a war crime in the link for him, but I'll read it again to check as I didn't have much time yesterday. SlimVirgin 20:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

There's also the issue of wishful thinking vs. historical fact. If someone was charged and convicted of a "war crime" (q.v.), all it means is that some powerful authority got their hands on him and declared him guilty. The historical fact here would be that they found him guilty.

If someone wasn't charged, but your favorite opinion leader wishes they had been, then we have to word it differently: Ima Righter said that what X did was a war crime. It was sheer murder, bombing all those peaceful, innocent civilians. The war was almost over, anyway. This makes it clear that it is one advocates POV that the act amounted to a war crime, regardless of whether he or similar people were ever charged or convicted.

Hope this makes it clear. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Stirling's additions make the disputed paragraph unnecessary now anyway, as the issue is explained better and is more balanced. SlimVirgin 20:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good ol' Stirling! -- Uncle Ed (talk)

I prefer Stirling's structure to Philip's latest change to it. The former seemed to flow better. Also, the second Churchill memo is back. Can Philip please say (fourth time of asking, I believe) (a) what the differences are between the memos that he feels is so significant that he must quote both; (b) if the differences are significant, why doesn't he explain the significance in the article; and (c) could he please quote here on the talk page the sections from the books that he's using as references (just a relevant sentence or two regarding this issue from reference (2), p 430 and p 434, and reference 8, p 346) because they're being used as references but we're not being told what they say; and (d) where does it say the first memo was withdrawn, rather than being just one of a number of memos that were sent by telegram? The two memos are below. SlimVirgin 12:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Memo #1

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land … The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive. [10] 2 p.430

Memo #2

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort. 8 p.346 2 p.434

SV if you can not see a difference between the memos then lets use the second version rather than the first version in the text ;-) In the second version of the text there is no mention of "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror" or "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing". It shows that on reflection, after talking to others involved in the campaign, he no longer thought it appropriate to use all the phrases in the withdrawn memo. I think that is reverent to this article because one of the phrases not used in the final version of the memo is one referring specifically to Dresden. I am not alone in thinking that it is relevent, as Taylor, Longmate and Justice Keith [2] think that it is worth mentioning and discussing. Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You always answer questions like this, or else ignore them. I would like YOU to tell me what the difference is, and what the significance of that difference is; and I would like you to supply a reference (a quote) showing that the memo was "withdrawn". The "bombing for the sake of terror" comment: he's saying in the first memo that he thinks it no longer appropriate. Why do you believe it is significant that he didn't repeat that phrase? Please explain and provide a quote for the talk page. SlimVirgin 20:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have already supplied you with this reference [3] several times but here it is again with my bolding added. Justice Keith writes:

Winston Churchill, near the end of World War II, made Blackett's point very forcibly and added an economic consideration. In a minute prepared just after the bombing of Dresden that was directed to the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Chief of Air Staff and which, in its first form, had referred to the "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror,"188 he declared:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort.189

188. Winston Churchill, Memorandum to the Chiefs of Staff (Mar. 28, 1945) (first form), in 3 SIR CHARLES WEBSTER & NOBLE FRANKLAND, THE STRATEGIC AIR OFFENSIVE AGAINST GERMANY 1939-1945, at 112 (1961).

189. Winston Churchill, Memorandum to the Chiefs of Staff (Apr. 1, 1945) (second form), in 3 WEBSTER & FRANKLAND, supra note 188, at 117.

Here is the quote taken from Taylor Page 433 second to last paragraph:

When the chiefs of staff met again at 11 A.M. the next morning[(March 30)]( with the chiefs of Imperial General Staff General Sir Alan Brooke once more in the chair), they noted that 'the Prime Minister has instructed that his minute on bombing policy should be withdrawn...'

on the next page second paragraph:

On April 1 the Chiefs of Staff formally accepted a more anodyne formulation of the memorandum. It no longer mentioned terror, or Dresden, though it made essentially the same points.

Longmate at the end of page 345 gives the start of the Letter which Harris wrote of which a later part of it is quoted in the Bombing article:

"To suggest that we have bombed German cities 'simply for the sake of increasing the terror through under other pretexts' and to speak of our offensive as including 'mere acts of terror and wanton destruction' is an insult both to the bombing policy of the Air Ministry and to the manner in which that policy has been executed by Bomber Command. ... We have never gone in for terror bombing and the attacks which we have made in accordance with my Directive have in fact produced the stratigic consequences for which they were designed and from which the armies now profit."

On the next page Longmate goes on to say:

Under pressure from the Chiefs of Staff Churchill withdrew his minute of 28 March and substituted a much milder one dated 1 April.

For further evidence look at the bitmap copy of the memo you put on the Dresden page, it has the word withdrawn on it in red ink written by WC himself.

I think it is significant in an article on Dresden that on reflection Churchill decided to drop the "terror bombing" and the mention of Dresden in the memo of 1 April, as the Chiefs of Staff formulated their response not to the WC's first version of the memo, but to his second one and that had a direct effect on the use of RAF bombers in the last month of the war in Europe [4] and plans to continue the war against Japan. It is also significant because Churchill was inclined to be "self contradictory "(Taylor 432) and without mentioning that the first memo was withdrawn and replaced with a second, the article is unbalanced because it implies that WC had strong fixed opinions, two weeks after the bombing of Dresden, on the moral issues surrounding raid, which is not born out by the two memos. Now you may disagree with both points I have raised here, but neither of these points are mentioned in the article and I am only mentioning them here because you asked me for "what the significance of that difference is" and I am drawing my own conclusions. If the two memos are in the article, people reading the article can draw their own conclusions, (which will probably differ from mine), but they can not do this if the second one is airburshed out. I think that answers your questions in full. Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responses to the bombing

I am tempted to remove this paragraph unless it can be clarified because it adds little if anything to the article:

Dresden rapidly became a potent symbol of the effects of area bombing, and the ability of military technology to inflict death and devastation beyond that which had been possible even a short time before.

The devastation of Hamburg had been greater. So what is this sentence trying to say and who said it?

There were inquiries mounted by both American and British military authorities,

What where the inquires and where are they sourced?

questions raised in the British House of Lords.

Questions were raised in the House of Commons by Richard Stokes. I don't think any questions were raised in the House of Lords about Dresden.

This would culminate in a directive from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to rethink the policy of area bombardment.

The British policy of area bombardment had been rethought the previous year and had culminated in a new policy directive on September 25, 1944 to attack oil and communications. It is already stated in the section on the "reasons for the attack" that the priority (as directed) was oil etc, no longer area bombardment. The second memo from the PM did not lead to a new policy directive.

Longer term responses to Dresden would include adoption of more specific restrictions on the use of bombing against civilian centers as an instrument of war, reflected in the language of later conventions.

The cause and effect is very tenuous in this sentence. It was not specifically the bombing of Dresden which led to the adoption of more specific restrictions 40 years later.

It would also remain an embodiment of the nature of modern warfare, and a lens through which discussions and debates on the morality of warfare and its means could be conducted.

What happened 60 years ago is not the "embodiment of the nature of modern warfare" and it is only one of many incidents in the World War II to be used to discuss the morality military action. 19:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden morality

I have no problem with the bombing of dresden. period. The Germans got what was coming to them. As bomer harris said; The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a dozen other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

I would suggest that this section be deleted. The editor is of course entitled to his opinion, and I am sure we all have one on this subject. But the personal opinions of editors is not matter for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, this passage was added without signature by an anonymous IP (65.61.83.183). If the section is deleted, delete my comment too, of course.--MaxMad 12:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Original research

Philip, your latest edits are original research because you're trying to mount your own argument that this was not a war crime. You have a strong POV on the matter and you're trying to turn this into a personal essay about your POV. You're interpreting law, but you're not an international law expert or a military historian. Perhaps we should try to find an informal or formal mediator. What do you think about that idea? SlimVirgin 09:48, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back and consider what you have done.

Why is it original research if I make an edit to a section which already existed, but it is not original research if a whole section is contributed by someone else without a reference in it? I did not introduce the section "International law in 1945" it was introduced by Stirling Newberry at 15:31, on 18 Feb 2005. The major change I made to the section was to put in references and links to the section, and to add a paragraph that by 1945 the Hague conventions bound all nations whether they had signed the treaty or not. The paragraph on "all nations bound", and the other changes I introduced, were copy-edited by Stirling Newberry [5]. This is the normal way which Wikipedia articles develop. As the initial section was introduced into the text by Stirling Newberry and he (along with 212.60.204.44) and myself have made changes to it. If he does not find my changes acceptable to a contribution which he made, then please let him edit them. Please do not revert the changes made to this section by three diffrent contributers again without asking Stirling Newberry, (who is the major contributor to this section,) his opinion on the matter first.

why did you revert the changes I made to the section "The case against the bombing being a war crime". From "the Army with military material" to "the army with materiel". Why do you object to the word "materiel" [6] how is that original research? Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the language in the international law section, though I'd have preferred to focus on the 1899 convention as it also had a short ban on aerial bombardment, which was the basis for the later determination that aerial bombardment is land bombardment . The history as written is largely in line with from Charles Rousseau Droit des conflits armés.

We do need a reference the Greco-German arbitrarion tribunal of the late 1920's- as it was the important body to sit injudgement - and made the important declaration aerial bombardment was the same as land bombardment. The Arbitration tribunal specifically ruled on 2 aerial bombardments by the Germans, and this is key, because if that standard were applied to World War II, virtually every bombing attack made during the war would have been a "war crime" or at least would have been rebuked. It was using the first draft convention as a guideline. The next chapter of the story of the law of war as applied to bombardment is the League of nations vote and the Draft convention of 1938, which is considerably more permissive.

Essentially any war crimes tribunal that applied to Dresden would have two draft conventions, the tribunal, and the broad language of the Hague conventions to go on, plus decisions made at the trials themselves. While what a tribunal would have made of this is speculation, the readers should have this history as a backdrop to whatever material is presented on the bombing being a war crime.

The "nonapplicability" of the two interwar conventions is also an important point, because they are implicitly used in the defense of the bombing cited, which effectively takes the high bar of the 1938 convention.

There is, to my mind, a need for a more extensive case for war crimes section, but so far I've yet to find one that nails down the details in a documentable and lucid form. The view of the British staff at the time was that while Dresden was not a war crime, once it had happened and it was clear that German air defense had broken down and that bombing was now capable of clustering tremendous amounts of firepower in a small space, that continuation of the policy might will represent a war crime, and was at the very least, morally repugnant.

I know this has been a tendentious issue and a difficult page for all concerned, I would like to thank everyone for keeping (mostly) cool and improving the quality of discussion on the article over time. My viewpoint is that the discussion has reached a point where editors should be more careful about reverting- that good faith is back in place and we should let the conflict level drop a bit here - and more be more willing to discuss and ask questions about material. I feel confident that we have made a good presentation of the issues, and that with some work we can get this to being a very good presentation.

My one other comment is that I think the number of incendiaries is important, because incendiaries are the weapon that can create a firestorm, and it is the firestorm, more than the direct damage of the bombing, that was responsible for the carnage, civilian loss of life and powerful images from Dresden.

Stirling Newberry 13:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a reference [7] from a document on the ICRC site which mentions Greco-German arbitration tribunal and sites "Charles Rousseau, Le droit des conflits armés, Editions Pedone, Paris, 1983, Page 360." as a reference for a section "Subordination of the law of air warfare to the law of ground warfare". However it is only one of several alternative ideas put forward and the article makes the point under "Some instances of belligerent aerial action"

Anti-city strategy/blitz

...

In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

Or this article by U.S. Combined Arms Center Military Review published in 2001

The legal justification for these raids has been widely debated; the legal rules affecting aerial bombardment were not codified until after World War II. While some have suggested that "the attack on Dresden might have been illegal," other commentators consider Dresden to have been a "legitimate military target."³ Assuming that the most controversial aspects of the Dresden bombings would be considered a violation of the laws of armed conflict if carried out today, what responsibility does the planning staff bear for such an attack?

3.Telford Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy (New York: Bantam Books, 1970), 143; Michael Walzer, "World War II: Why Was This War Different?" in War and Moral Responsibility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), 101.

I do not think that the mix of incendiaries is significant, according to the last source is was "44% for the RAF and 38% for the USAAF, which I think was within the norm for such a raid. There were other cities were firestormes were created, for example Magdeburg 120 miles north west of Dresden was destroyed in a firestorm on 16/17th Jan 1945 so the technique was fairly standard. What made for very high fatalities in Dresden, was the weather conditions, a relatively unbombed medieval town and a lack of investment in proper air-raid shelters eg Hochbunkers.

There were a number of very large raids by the RAF in March particularly 11th (Essen) and 12th (Dortmund), "In three days the RAF dispatched 2,541 sorties by daylight to Ruhr. Approximately 10,650 tons of bombs [were] dropped through cloud with sufficient accuracy to cripple 2 cities and 1 town." . If you look at the RAF Campaign Diary April and May 1945 you will see that even after the new directive was issued (Early April) raids like 8/9 April 1945 (Hamburg), 9/10 April (Kiel) 10/11 April (Plauen), 14/15 April (Potsdam), 18/19 April (Chomutov) are large raids close to the centre of cities or towns.

I think one particular raid which should be noted is the bombing of Caen (7 July 1944) as well as other towns in Northern France that summer, because it showed that the Allies were just as willing to bomb, allied towns which were being used by Germans in a way similar to Dresden less than a year later. The ICRC source writes under the section "What may be the target of aerial attack?":

The result from the military standpoint is that before deciding on an aerial attack the question of proportionality must be addressed. Because of the degree of subjectivity involved, this principle is considered as the Achilles’ heel of the law of war. The rule could perhaps be seen in more practical terms if it stated that an aerial attack expected to cause civilian casualties would be acceptable should it have the same degree of approval as a similar action taking place over a part of the country’s own territory under enemy occupation, in which case the civilian casualties would be compatriots. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, the mix of bombs is relevant, because it was mentioned in the investigation. It isn't prejudicial to report the mix of ordinance, and note that it was the standard mix.

The existence previous raids aren't necessarily good for the defense - the remove the defense of ignorance, namely "we didn't know it would be that bad" and they instead imply intention - having seen what ordinance mixture could do, no changes were made to decision making procedures. In fact, these concerns, that decision making procedures had crossed the line from being morally repugnant to being excessive was what motivated the British general staff, successfully, to alter bombing policy. And WSC wasn't an easy man to convince of anything.

The "would you do it to your own civilians?" proposal is very much post-war, and has been rejected since then. In fact, it is very likely that part of the bill of particulars against Saddam is going to include that he bombed his own civilians.

What is missing from the article, as stands, is the other side, namely the case for it being a war crime. The challenge of NPOV is not research a large number of references for what you agree with, but researching references for ones you disagree with.

Stirling Newberry 01:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm uncomfortable with any extensive edit that Philip makes because he has a strong POV that he's been trying to push on this page since around October 2004. His modus operandi seems to be to wear other editors down until they go away and leave him to do his thing. The writing isn't good; the arguments aren't good; the citations are almost non-existent without constant badgering; the writing and citation style is not consistent with scholarly standards; and the facts are selected entirely with his POV in mind. Sometimes the facts are plain wrong. When I first saw this article a couple of weeks ago, it said Dresden had been bombed on Feb 14-15. When I pointed out that the worst of the bombing was Feb 13-14, he simply denied it. Saying it had started on the 13th, he argued, was like arguing that Britain had started the war against Argentina when the ships had set sail from the UK, rather than when they had arrived. When I pointed out that the bombers had actually arrived in Germany around 10 pm on February 13, and that he could verify this by, for exampe, noting that Germans ring their church bells in commemoration of Dresden around 10 pm on February 13, he asked how I knew the 10 pm of their celebrations was central European time. This is the type of, I'm sorry to use this word, ignorance other editors have had to deal with. I wouldn't mind so much if he was a new editor coming to this story for the first time and didn't know much about it, but he took ownership of the page many months ago, yet still seems not to know much. Facts apart, he has aggressively reverted back to his own grammar and punctuation errors as though he's proud of them. I'm sorry to write in such hostile terms, but I'm really sick of it. He's one of the most difficult editors I've had to deal with. It seems to me that this is a case similar to the one with Everyking and the page about the album that he took control of (I forget the name). An editor assuming ownership of a page goes against the whole spirit of Wikipedia, and ignores the benefits, albeit sometimes long term only, of collaborative editing. I think this article would improve a lot if Philip would volunteer to stop editing it for a couple of weeks and let others, particularly Stirling, get it into shape; and then he could come back to it and add any extra information that he has, but without re-arranging, re-writing, reverting, or deleting. SlimVirgin 06:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

USAF case

The US Air Force case which is cited is clearly written long after the fact with evidence that was not available at the time, and argues for Dresden being comparable to other raids. The reason I say that the case is "historically based" is that it does not present clear legal arguments based on international law at the time. It's a two edged endorsement of it, in that 1. The facts presented are generally agreed on as historically accurate, but 2. It does not present extensive legal reasoning. If my wording is unclear on this then changing it is appropriate. So historical case, in the same sense that Der Brand is a historical case, and not a specifically legal case.

In researching this there has been a general lack of good legal arguments, even the investigations of the time did not seem to have a clear standard which was set, but instead a kind of ad hoc reasoning. I've tried to make this clear in my edits - that substantial international law wasn't really available, and that the range of interpretation could allow someone to describe Dresden as a war crime - if some of the sentences handed out after the war are taken as guidelines - but that the preponderant military judgment at the time was that such bombing was within the realm of total war, but regarded with suspicion both for its military effectiveness and legitimacy by many in the military command. It is a harder point to hit, but one that several members of military command expressed afterwards - the whole bombing campaign was uncivilized, and though considered necessary, highly regretable and a powerful argument for preventing of future wars. I've tried to keep that POV restrained, since the consensus seemed to be that the war crimes discussion needed presentation (and to some extent I agree, there isn't a good discussion of this issue easily available).

I've tried my best to get this on the right track, I don't feel I can contribute much more positively.

Stirling Newberry 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You improved the article immensely, Stirling, thank you. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on it even if you don't have time to contribute more. Best, SlimVirgin 18:52, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Article content

It strikes me that perhaps the article ought to be split into two: one which is simply a factual article about the actual bombing, and a second which is about the continuing controversy about whether it was moral/legal/justified (these three axes being related but distinct). I think that puttting some distance between these two separate topics would make the first article considerably less troublesome, and might help with the second too. Noel (talk) 19:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noel, I'd have no objection to separating the facts from the was-it-justified issue. The only thing I ask is that good sources be cited in an appropriate way, and that no one engage in personal-essay writing, whether for or against. This means that all the cited facts and all the arguments must have been published somewhere else already. We shouldn't engage in any original research, and that includes no new synthesis or analysis of published information. So long as that's clearly understood by the editors involved here, a separate article might be a good idea. SlimVirgin 20:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

lost in edit clash

I had an edit clash and overrode an edit from User:Get-back-world-respect. I hope I've restored almost all of it, but there was a change "...allegedly claimed to..." which I can't restore because it's not reasonable phrasing. Please at least put "xxx historian has claimed to".. It's clear enough what you meant. Mozzerati 22:26, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnote3

Congratulations Mozzerati, I think that your use of Wikipedia:Footnote3 is a vast improvement of the mishmash which was here previously. Thank you for putting in the large amount of work necessary to clean up the references. Philip Baird Shearer 11:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strafing of civilians (yet again)

We've been over this before, but here we go yet again. User:Get-back-world-respect rewrote my text about Bergander and the strafing claims from:

"these claims have been refuted by recent work by the historian Götz Bergander"

to say he:

"allegedly claims to have refuted eye witness reports about the murder of civilians from US war planes".

This characterization is offensive in a number of ways (do we have to write "allegedly" with to describe the account of every historian?), but I'll get to that in a bit.

(I will further note that I refrained from describing Bergander's account as "debunking" the strafing reports, and settled for the more neutral "refuted", but I see GBWR couldn't pass up the more colourful "allegedly claims", as opposed to, say, "is reported to").

GBWR also added a reference to an online page giving the account of Angela Gill, who was 8 years old at the time, and apparently wrote this account only recently. (Which is a problem right there, as much-delayed eye-witness accounts, and the accounts of young children, are notoriously unreliable.) I was unable to find out anything else about this person in an online search, so I have no idea how credible their account is.

I do note that her account says this incident "was the first time I saw an American flag. It was on the side of an airplane". The fighter planes used by the 8th AAF, the Thunderbolt and the Mustang, carried as insignia on their sides (and wings) a single white star in a circular blue ground, with no American flag anywhere. I have looked at large numbers of historical photos of these planes and have yet to find one showing an American flag on the side of one, which casts doubt on the accuracy of her account.

I would also claim that using this account falls under the (much-discussed here) Wikipedia:No original research rule, since it's a primary source.

Hi Noel, this doesn't constitute original research. Original research would be if you interviewed this witness yourself and reproduced words she had spoken only to you; or if you mounted an argument or analysis based on her published claims, where such an argument or analysis had not been published already. But quoting from a published primary source is not original research. SlimVirgin 17:42, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so if Philip interviews someone and publishes what they say on a web page, I can quote Philip's page and put in the article? Neat, we're set. Noel (talk) 19:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Philip was a journalist, historian, or someone else with a research track record, then yes. If he was publishing it as a private individual, no. If he was a purported eye-witness, it would depend on whether his account had been published elsewhere, and by whom. Wikipedia should only repeat material that has been published, and the publications ought to be, in some sense, credible, authoritative, reputable, reliable etc. etc. SlimVirgin 20:44, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I further note that that page's editor goes on to say:

"The machine-gunning incident described by Angela can also be found in other eye-witness accounts in the two books shown here"

and it then shows a picture of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five! Now, it's true that Vonnegut was in Dresden when it was bombed, but:

That book is a novel.
Vonnegut himself explicitly says the "war parts, anyway, are pretty much true" (my emphasis); i.e. any individual detail may be made up, so it's not really appropriate to rely on it as a source.
He speaks in a number of places of Dresden being "worse .. than Hiroshima" (in the wording used in Chapter 1) but even the most conservative estimate for the death toll at Hiroshima is a factor of two higher than the death toll at Dresden.
It makes extensive references to David Irving's book The Destruction of Dresden, which has been found by a British court to be mendacious.

So I would take that page with a very large grain of salt indeed.

Reviewing what Evans reports of Bergander's book, Evans says:

"The most authoritative book on the Dresden raids is by Götz Bergander, published in 1977 after almost two decades of research. Amongst his aims was to combat the many myths and legends which had come to surround the attacks. One such myth was the strafing of civilians and refugees by Allied fighters during the attack .. Bergander points out that although other authors have cited witnesses for such an attack, Irving's is the last account in which any credence is given to the story. He then proceeds to disprove Irving's assertion that such low-level strafing of civilians took place, either by night or by day."

Evans then goes on to give a detailed account of some of Bergander's work, and of the charges of strafing, of which I will quote only this fragment:

"quoted the Final Report (Schlußmeldung - see below for fuller details) of 15 March 1945 by the Dresden Higher SS and police leader (Höhe SS- und Polizei Führer). .. Details of the strafing of civilians, including time and place, would have had ample time in the month following the attack to have been taken down and noted in this otherwise meticulous report. When noting the various causes of death of those killed in Dresden during the raid, the Final Report contains no mention of machine gun deaths."

Given that Evans is a Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and, moreover, a specialist in modern German history who has "been teaching and researching it for the last thirty years" [8], and who was accepted as an expert witness on that subject by a British court in the Irving trial, if he describes reports of strafing of civilians as a "myth", then I think we need some pretty good evidence to give it any other characterization.

Given the possibility that some civilians were killed by fighter planes, I would rather not use Evans' choice of words ("myth"), though, and am going to go back to my blank statement, that Bergander "refuted" these claims. Noel (talk) 17:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but I'm not sure about the word "refuted," which sounds too definitive. We refute arguments or scientific theories, not claims, points of view, or memories. I would say something like "cast doubt on" or "questioned." Would it make sense simply to quote the eyewitness who was eight at the time, and then to quote Evans etc? We're supposed to describe and characterize disputes, but without engaging in them ourselves or taking sides, so it would make sense simply to quote the various players, making it clear that Evans and Bergander are the specialists, then let the reader decide. SlimVirgin 17:42, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Following your line above, we would have to characterize the work of innumerable historians on Irving's holocaust denial claims as only "cast[ing] doubt on" or "question[ing]" Irving's "claims [and] points of view". So, no, I don't think that line is workable.

Not so. Irving put forward an argument - a thesis - based on what he claimed were facts. The purported facts were shown to be false: not just questioned, but actually shown not to be facts. Therefore the argument that rested on them was refuted. This woman is simply remembering something, or claims to be, so "refutation" is an inappropriate word, that's all I was saying. SlimVirgin 20:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what word would be appropriate for describing the process of deprecating a mistaken memory (not that I know one way or the other about this woman's memory, other than the point about the flag on the side of the 'plane). For me, the difference between showing that a memory is incorrect, and showing that "purported facts .. [are] false" is a very thin line indeed. As a parenthetical note, as I'm sure you know, the human memory can indeed play tricks: I've had a number of personal experiences with this, includingthis rather amusing incident when I was doing some historical research on a completely different topic. Noel (talk) 23:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And as for the eyewitness, I see no grounds for putting her story on an equal basis with a historian who spent "almost two decades of research" on the raids. What's next, pointing out in the article the arcane erroneous details in her story, as a further aid to letting the reader decide? (And I am charitably assuming here that she's a real eyewitness, not a neo-Nazi hoaxer who fooled the author of that site. I'm not saying she is, but without more info on this source, we just don't know.) If someone can come up with a credible modern historian who has done substantial research in primary sources and has come to the conclusion that it happened, then I would definitely feel we absolutely had to mention that it likely happened (since refuting claims A, B and C because of errors in them does not meant that claim D, with difference evidence, is incorrect), but at the moment I don't see any choice but to go with the position that these are just claims, which modern historians do not put credence in. Noel (talk) 19:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that she shouldn't be put on a par with Evans and Bergander, which is why I wrote that the article should make it clear who the specialists are. But if you're convinced there is no credible evidence of the strafing claims, I have no problem with you leaving them out. Do have a good source regarding what the point of the daylight raids was? My understanding was that the point was precisely to strafe emergency workers so as to cause further havoc, but I admit I may have read bad sources on this. But if that was not the point, what was? The raids of the night of the 13th had set fire to the whole city center, so what was the military purpose of the daylight raid on the 14th, according to Evans and Bergander? SlimVirgin 20:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I am "convinced there is no credible evidence" - I think it's more accurate to say that my take is "at this point, I know of no credible evidence, and Evans (who presumably has looked into this in more detail) doesn't know of any either". There may well be some out there that I haven't heard of. Yes, that's only very subtly different from "convinced there is no[ne]", but I think it's an important one.

Alas, I don't have time to research in detail as to the day bombing, but taking a tangent off Philip's comments below, the USAAF generally specialized in day bombing because they were interested in precision bombing, and with one exception (the Oboe (navigation) system) there were no precision bombing aids that worked in darkness. (I don't know if H2S radar had that high a level of precision; from the screen-shots I have seen of it, it wouldn't have.) So the notion that they were after the rail yards seems very plausible to me, particularly as one of the main stated motivations of attacking Dresden was to bollix up German logistics/communications to the Eastern front. Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the rail system would not have been much affected by a fire - only direct, well-aimed High Explosive hits on the yard would put it out of action; rail yards were a problem for the Allies for some years. (The night bombing would have been a more general area bombardment, of course.) Your mention of going after the resue workers is interesting; I seem to recall that this was in part the motivation behind delayed-action bombs, used for years - Philip, do you have any data on that? I don't think they would have hazarded a day raid just to get the workers, although of course by that point in the war day raids were nothing like as unsafe as they were several years before. Noel (talk) 23:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was fairly standard practice for the RAF and the USAAF to bomb a target day and night for a couple of days. The original plan had been that the RAF would have followed up a USAAF raid earlier on the 13th. I guess to paraphrase Colin Powell's they wanted to "make the rubble bounce". On page 365 of "Dresden Tuesday 13 Feb 1945" by F Taylor, he states that the USAAF planned to use used 678.3 tones of HE and 400 tones of incendiaries, not all were dropped on Dresden but those that were, were in the same ratio. [316 B-17s dropped 487.7 tons of H/E and 294.3 tons of incediaries] This he says was an unusual bomb mix because it was more like an RAF city busting mix instead of the usual USAAF precision mix. He also says that there is some confusion over the exact target of the USAAF:

Initial orders to senior officers were the Dresden marshalling yards.
Individual bomber groups mostly were briefed to bomb Dresden or in one cases, the 303 Bomb Group, military targets in Dresden and specifically to bomb the marshalling yards in Chemnitz.
The definiative report from the comander of the 1st division, Brig-Gen Tucker states:
- Primary Target -- visual -- Center of built up area Dresden.
- Secondary Target -- visual -- M/Y Chennitz
- H2X --Center of Dresden.
- Last resort any military target positivly identified in Germany (east of the Western Allied armies's bomb line (and west of the Soviet bomb line))

Taylor on page 495:

8th A.F. FIGHTER FIELD ORDER NO. 1622A

SUPPORT B-17s AND B-24'S

14 FEB 1945

MISSION NO. 830.

It stipulates fighter escorts for all thirteen hundred or so American bombers in daylight action that day and issues instructions for their modus operandi.

Point X in the order for February 14 contains two important provisions:

(3) EVERY ATTEMPT WILL BE MADE TO CONSERVE GASOLINE.
(4) ANY STRAFING WILL BE DONE ON WITHDRAWAL AT GROUP LEADERS DISCRESSION IF NO E/A HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERED OR ARE EXPECTED. ONLY 'A' GROUPS WILL STRAFE. AIRDROMES WILL NOT REPEAT WILL NOT BE STRAFED.

Taylor makes the point two pages later that "withdrawal" does not mean leaving Dresden, but when the order was given to the fighters to withdraw from bomber escort duties which was normally half an hour to two hours after the bombing.

There are American reports of strafing but they are 100 miles + from Dresden (Taylor). (As are the German Army reports of similar activities that day - not sure where I read that). Taylor also mentions that there were several dog fights over Dresden and that some of these might have involved planes diving and shooting at each other, (in which case there may well have been rounds which hit the ground). Most of the research into this has been carried out by German historians and they are credited by Taylor on page 501, they are Götz Bergander and Helmut Schnatz. He goes on to say that "There is not a single expert German historian who will pronounce the incident as fact in any work written now. Tellingly, even the 1982 updated edition of Max Seydewitz's book about Dresden which on first publication in 1955 had played a key role in spreading and legitimizing the strafing story, suddenly contained not a word about the alledged American machine-gun masacre by the river, or the less probable British equivelents during the night before. All references to theses (as well as to American strafing attacks on the Johannstadt hostpital) had been quietly expunged."

Hope this helps -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

H2X radar was a American improvement on the British H2S. I think that because of the horizon range problems with British Oboe (navigation) for Dresden the American LORAN system was used. But I have not looked that up and I am doing it from memory. Sorry I don't not have any information on the type of fuses used in the ordinance. Taylor's book list the type of bombs dropped by the different RAF groups on the second raid but not the type of fuses used. One point though the first American raid was over in just 13 minutes. If the primary motivation had been to disrupt the emergency services then it would have made sense to send the bomber groups in over as longer time frame as possible. As it was 311 planes in 13 minutes works out at one bomber every 2.5 seconds! Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

genocide

Philip, you just added original research again in response to Ed's edit. I agree that the quote Ed added is a bit strong, and I would not have added it myself. However, you should discuss with Ed whether to leave it in, or whether to remove it. You can't counter it by adding a random quote from someone you agree with, unless that person was specifically discussing Dresden, or was specifically replying to the first person. Otherwise, it's just an unrelated quote you found somewhere in order to advance your own idea about what the word genocide ought to mean i.e. it's original research. We could end up with pages and pages of definitions of genocide otherwise. SlimVirgin 21:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

It is no more original research than any other quote given on the BoD page. It is a quote from an article quoting from a section in a book specifically refuting Kuper. If you had followed the link and read it you would have seen that. If you do not agree with the little piece I have quoted then you are welcome to add more of the quote to show that it a "dissenting position". I was trying to keep it as brief as possible.

genocide definition that excludes civilian victimsit

[d]efinition of genocide also excludes civilian victims of aerial bombardment in belligerent states. In this we differ from Jean-Paul Sartre and Leo Kuper. Kuper writes, "I cannot accept the view that. . . the bombing, in time of war, of such civilian enemy populations as those of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hamburg, and Dresden does not constitute genocide within the terms of the (UN) convention" (Kuper 1981,1985). We base our dissenting position on the fact that in this age of total war belligerent states make all enemy-occupied territory part of the theater of operations regardless of the presence of civilians. Civilians are regarded as combatants so long as their governments control the cities in which they reside. This practice was started by the Italians and the Germans, and it "became the practice of both sides in World War II. It seems unfair to single out the Allies for their bombings without mentioning Guernica and Warsaw, Rotterdam dam and Brest, and Rouen and London. On the other hand, the rules of war clearly entittle enemy civilians living in territory occupied by the victor to certain protections, including freedom from arbitrary killing, which would seem to place the Nazi killing of Jews, Gypsies, and others in a quite different category from wartime bombings. In taking this view, we find ourselves in agreement with Telford Taylor, who has written, (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hamburg and Dresden) were certainly not "genocides" within the meaning of the Convention, which limits genocide to "acts committed with intent to destroy . . . a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Berlin, London and Tokyo were not bombed because their inhabitants were German, English or Japanese, but because ' they were enemy strongholds. Accordingly, the killing ceased when the ended and there was no longer any enemy.

[p24-25, The conceptual framework...; Chalk (1990) The history and sociology of genocide]([9])

I am now going to restore your delete and I look forward to you improving the NPOV of the paragraph. Philip Baird Shearer 22:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II INSTEAD.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/m/Talk%7EBombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II_Archive_8_807a.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archive