What are they shooting at?

[Gary T]

No one, what has that got to do with anything? Killing civilians in that way still is a crime against humanity. And that goes for both sides but since the winners writes history we tend not to see the allies actions as war crimes which I think we should to make history more nuanced. We hear a lot about the terror of Stuka and so forth but not that much about the pointless terror of American bombers.

You contradict yourself completely in that rambling statement.

And who says British and American bombing was 'pointless'? Certainly not the Nazi leadership, German civilians or any historian since the event.

You reap what you sow.

[Gary T]

Good point - from end 1944 to the end of the war they kept on bombing, just because they had to get rid of their bombs. Without any military logic.

Clairvoyant were they?

Wasnt it Churchil or his "pet" Harris who stated "Bomb the germas back into the stone-age"? This tells all.

Er, no. I think you'll find "Bomb them back to the stone age" is a Vietnam War era statement.

[tracman]

Good point - from end 1944 to the end of the war they kept on bombing, just because they had to get rid of their bombs. Without any military logic.

Wasnt it Churchil or his "pet" Harris who stated "Bomb the germas back into the stone-age"? This tells all.

I'm rather sure the "stone age" quote is much more recent: the 1960s come to mind....

No, the problem was that Arthur Harris in particular was convinced that he was on the cusp of bringing the Third Reich to its knees through strategic bombing. We know that won't work today, but it wasn't obvious back then. To say there wasn't a military logic is blatantly false: there was one. It was, however, completely wrong and based on incorrect assumptions. That the assumption was false doesn't make it necessarily criminal: at the time, nobody had the technology to be as precise as one wanted to be, and the concept of indiscriminate bombing is very much a postwar term. No, the issue from a moral perspective is intent, and as many the Allies had of failings, they certainly did not advocate the elimination of people based on their religion, practices, or beliefs.

I have relatives who fought on both sides of WW2. Those who were on the losing side were very happy to have lost and survived, after they found out what they had been fighting for, and to this day, they remain deeply ashamed of what they did, even in good conscience. Were some individuals unfairly put on trial? Sure. Should some Allied soldiers and officers have been put on trial? No doubt. Did the U.S. or U.K. deliberately knowingly and willingly commit systematic violations of basic human rights and existing laws regarding war? Perhaps indeed, but if so, these pale in what the Nazi regime did, period.

[Gran Sasso]

The "stoneage"-quote might be from the 60s, dont know, been told so by a LW-collector, thought he knew what he is telling.

Anyway, bringing germany (ir the nazis, or the Wehrmacht) to his knees havent worked - but this was already obvious in the spring of 1945, so there was NO way to carry on.

So why bomb Dresden? No military aim, full of women of and childreen.. All said before, but nobody could give good reasons why it has happened.

THOSE responsible for this should be put to trail, to show a sign that things went wrong on both sides. But I am 100% this will never happen...

[tracman]

The "stoneage"-quote might be from the 60s, dont know, been told so by a LW-collector, thought he knew what he is telling.

Anyway, bringing germany (ir the nazis, or the Wehrmacht) to his knees havent worked - but this was already obvious in the spring of 1945, so there was NO way to carry on.

So why bomb Dresden? No military aim, full of women of and childreen.. All said before, but nobody could give good reasons why it has happened.

THOSE responsible for this should be put to trail, to show a sign that things went wrong on both sides. But I am 100% this will never happen...

Well, those responsible for the bombing of Dresden on 13Feb45 are long dead.

We would never, today, bomb a city based on assumptions. Back then, we did. Assumptions were made that the fact that there were flak batteries meant there were military targets there. Assumptions were made that the fact that there had been military industries there meant they were still working at full tilt. Assumptions were made that bombing the city would somehow slow down German production and speed up the end of the war. Assumptions may have been made that bombing Dresden would show the might of the Anglo-Americans to the Soviets. It's easy, 65 years later, to say that these assumptions should automatically have been seen as flawed.

I've been to Dresden, and it just finished commemorating the 65th anniversary of its destruction. It's still recovering from that horrible series of raids. By today's standards, destroying it as the Allies did would likely be viewed as a criminal act. I'll leave it to ethicists to argue the issue of whether or not sparing those who obviously were morally wrong in WW2 from suffering visible consequences didn't indirectly lead to various abuses in many post-war wars. As for Arthur Harris, let's not forget that, after the war, he was essentially shunted aside, sent off to South Africa, and marginalized: it should be rather obvious that, once the Anglo-Americans finally were able to objectively study what their carnage had wrought and found out that it was both militarily irrelevant and morally repugnant, they distanced themselves from those advocating such conduct. Too bad, perhaps, this thatwasn't done in such a manner as to be more educational to the broader population.

[Gran Sasso]

Well, those responsible for the bombing of Dresden on 13Feb45 are long dead.

We would never, today, bomb a city based on assumptions. Back then, we did. Assumptions were made that the fact that there were flak batteries meant there were military targets there. Assumptions were made that the fact that there had been military industries there meant they were still working at full tilt. Assumptions were made that bombing the city would somehow slow down German production and speed up the end of the war. Assumptions may have been made that bombing Dresden would show the might of the Anglo-Americans to the Soviets. It's easy, 65 years later, to say that these assumptions should automatically have been seen as flawed.

I've been to Dresden, and it just finished commemorating the 65th anniversary of its destruction. It's still recovering from that horrible series of raids. By today's standards, destroying it as the Allies did would likely be viewed as a criminal act. I'll leave it to ethicists to argue the issue of whether or not sparing those who obviously were morally wrong in WW2 from suffering visible consequences didn't indirectly lead to various abuses in many post-war wars. As for Arthur Harris, let's not forget that, after the war, he was essentially shunted aside, sent off to South Africa, and marginalized: it should be rather obvious that, once the Anglo-Americans finally were able to objectively study what their carnage had wrought and found out that it was both militarily irrelevant and morally repugnant, they distanced themselves from those advocating such conduct. Too bad, perhaps, this thatwasn't done in such a manner as to be more educational to the broader population.

You got it, it was only to show your soviet "friends" the power of the US - IF it was meant for military targets and industries, why the bombings been focused on the old town ONLY?

And for Harris, they put up a memorial for him, so in the end he was a "good" guy...

[tracman]

You got it, it was only to show your soviet "friends" the power of the US - IF it was meant for military targets and industries, why the bombings been focused on the old town ONLY?

And for Harris, they put up a memorial for him, so in the end he was a "good" guy...

Wow. This is disappointing.

The record of who took what decisions when regarding Dresden are very clear, and in that respect, it's quite useful to look at the mindset, limitations, information, technologies, and backgrounds protagonists had when they made their decisions. Dresden was an ambiguous choice at the time: many were not convinced, and many regretted it later. The Soviets did a great job portraying it as proof of Anglo-American barbarism. In light of what did happen in East Germany, I'll leave it to Bavarians to decide whether they would have preferred to spend 50 years under Soviet military control or with U.S. troops present.

Harris got his statue: anything else would have been a slap in the face to the men of the RAF's Bomber Command. He was essentially exiled due to the fact that his single-minded hatred of Germany and destruction thereof was repugnant and an embarrassment. The record on that is also quite clear.

[JG 51]

You contradict yourself completely in that rambling statement.

And who says British and American bombing was 'pointless'? Certainly not the Nazi leadership, German civilians or any historian since the event.

You reap what you sow.

Well I guess you don´t understand my point at all with a reply like that. But that´s ok.

Killing hundreds of thousands innocent children, women and men is pointless. And it´s a crime against humanity which the allied bombers did during the war.

[DennyB]

Killing hundreds of thousands innocent children, women and men is pointless. And it´s a crime against humanity which the allied bombers did during the war.

Hmmm...So the Germans and Russians were not killing any innocents?

[Terry OToole]

Harris acted with the full backing of Churchill who then left him as a scapegoat when the Dresden bombing became controversial, the bombing of German cities did affect war production though USAAF stategic bombing proved the way to go in the end You can view Dresden as a horror but at the time it was still done as a war aim even if it turns out a mistake , v1 and v2 missiles were not accurate, do you think that the chance of not hitting a military target bothered the German civil and military leadership? as has been already said if the Germans had had the same bomber force they would have used it the same,-- quote general Shermann -- "war is hell", my own thoughts are nice guys don t win wars ,the job was done and apretty good job was done of ressurecting Germany too!

[Terry OToole]

after reading my last post i realized no way am i grtting into an apology for various alleged allied war crimes , not every allied soldier was a saint people are people , but no matter the dcent German soldiers etc their cause was not honourable the allied cause was! our hobby comes with the baggage of what the German government of the time did , so does that part of German history , the oppression and extermination of millions of people was STOPPED by the allies -- fact! , all the dead of Dresden would pale into insignificance compared to the further dead if the Germans had won ,so if some of our soldiers and leaders were not perfect in the grand scheme it doesn t matter , we brought to an end the killing of millions of innocent people , of that i m proud , now i m outta here

[JG 51]

after reading my last post i realized no way am i grtting into an apology for various alleged allied war crimes , not every allied soldier was a saint people are people , but no matter the dcent German soldiers etc their cause was not honourable the allied cause was! our hobby comes with the baggage of what the German government of the time did , so does that part of German history , the oppression and extermination of millions of people was STOPPED by the allies -- fact! , all the dead of Dresden would pale into insignificance compared to the further dead if the Germans had won ,so if some of our soldiers and leaders were not perfect in the grand scheme it doesn t matter , we brought to an end the killing of millions of innocent people , of that i m proud , now i m outta here

I think you are partly right, BUT it was not necessary to bomb the german citys into molecules and killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians. Germans are people too you know.

[JG 51]

I´m leaving this discussion too. The same questions are just circulating all over again and have already been answered. It also seems to be way to much feelings around these questions even though I think they are important to discuss. Peace guys

[stevezz1]

One thing to note in these clips is that all but one of the pilots look very embarrassed, as if they would rather not be identified. A stark change from the usual happy smiling faces of conquering heroes we are used to seeing in period films.

There is some often shown period film of a P47 squadron taking off and strafing anything that moved on the roads or in the fields, much the same as these two clips, and in the voice over one of the pilots says they were told to shoot up anything that moved. He said they knew they were killing civilians and that they didn't want to do it, but they were 'just following orders'.......

Now there is a phrase you have heard before.........

But war is a very dirty business and all sides are guilty of over stepping the mark......

Steve.