Birth of the Richthofen Circus?

[Ginger.]

They always do veer wildly 'off topic', it's traditional! Soon there'll be venom filled ( not by my good self I hasten to add ) personal attacks and a Mod will drop out of the sun, all guns blazing and it'll be game over.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by dirtyshirt

Well..........seeing as I have been mentioned, I would suggest that anyone, having opened this thread because of its title, would consider it to have veered wildly off topic and would further suggest that it is plumbing the depths with pseudo-intellectual claptrap.

Again---It can't be deemed off topic when the originator of the thread takes it there....

[Terrencejones]

Did someone mention Monks?

[Chock]

You know very well I'm not saying that. What Manfred was referring to was not the overall bombing campaign of WW2, but some specific targets of the USAAF and Bomber Command. Specifically, the attacks on 'picture book towns' of little military, but considerable historical and artistic significance, by means of heavy bombers in late WW2.

The most famous of such attacks being the raids on Dresden in February 1945. As I'm sure you know, the war was well and truly lost for the Germans by that point, and unlike in 1943, many USAAF daylight heavy bomber crews report having flown their requisite 25 missions in that 1945 period without even seeing a German fighter, let alone having to defend themselves against one.

Nevertheless, between the 13th and 15th of February, the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command put almost four thousand tons of bombs into the area (approximately 15 square miles, which was completely destroyed). The resulting firestorm caused by the attack killed an estimated 40,000 people (that's a guess by the authorities, it was impossible to find remains of most of them, some estimates put the figure at much higher than that, with one or two claiming almost a quarter of a million casualties as the figure).

There have been some claims that Dresden had absolutely no military significance, and was merely a beautiful baroque city on the Elbe, but that's not quite true, there were some war-related factories there, however, the Hague Convention, which both the USA and Britain signed, is quite clear about such circumstances and what constitutes a breach of them.

I've typed out some of the pertinent bits of the Hague Convention for you:

Article 22.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Article 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To kill or wound treacherously, individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.

To declare that no quarter will be given.

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperitively demanded by the necessities of war.

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissable in a court of law, the rights and actions of the nationals of a hostile party.

Article 25.

The attack, or bombardment by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended is expressly prohibited.

Article 26.

The officer commanding an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities

Article 27.

In sieges and bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not at the time being used for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

Now, that is not a comprehensive list of all the articles of the Hague Conventions, but you can see that a massed bombing raid on a culturally significant town of limited military value, such as Dresden is not really warranted. This, especially when you have air superiority and have all but won a war, and know the target is of that nature (you'd have to be living under a stone to have never heard of Dresden China, and might also note the region is the birthplace of Goethe, Mendelssohn, Mahler and Schumann, so hardly a hotbed of industrial fevour). Deliberately wanting to set the place ablaze with masses of incendiaries is definitely breaching most of those articles. Thus it is a war crime as defined by that convention. That's not an opinion, it is there in black and white. But in case you still disagree, here is Bomber Command's chief on the matter...

Arthur 'Bomber' Harris: 'It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale, both at home and on the battlefronts (note that he distinguishes the two here), by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.'

The fact that Dresden suffered a terrible fate is in fact why it is now twinned with Coventry, in an attempt to bury past differences, which is an admirable motive. Conversely, it appears to me that the motivation for bringing up this sort of tangental sidetracking about who was right and wrong, is less about a thirst for historical fidelity, and more about attempting to refight WW2 with German members of the forum. If Dresden and Coventry can get over it, then perhaps we should too.

The First and Second World Wars ended a long time ago, we should learn from them, rather than yearn for them.

Al

[bristol scout]

Absolutely wrong,
To take your last point, or should I say argument, first:

We should remember them correctly ---for posterity. Those country's that forget there past are often condemned to re-live it! As for your quite incorrect reading of my involvment here---well, You must feel whatever it is you feel---I am not answerable to you or your assumptions.

Your accusation of my motives is far from warranted---and remember that the sidetracking was NOT mine.

Bomber Harris was subject--like every commander in Democracies at war---but NOT in dictatorships--to the overall strategy demanded by his political masters.

Dresden has had lots of facts and figures bandied about over the years--and it says a lot for democracy in war that even in England, and in the immediate aftermath of the bombing there were strong words and much soul searching--can you really imagine the same thing in Germany if the roles had been reversed. Indeed was there anyone in Germany in the early 1940's voicing such humanitarian and anti establishment thoughts?---NO.

You may know of a most reprehensible 'historian' by the name of David Irving?

In 1963 he published a book called 'The Destruction Of Dresden' I bought that book then (the only other of his books I have is his work on Goering) and was amazed to learn that---"A best-estimate of the death roll in Dresden was in the region of 135,000---which he compared (for effect) with the Hiroshima dead of around 71,000.

Much of the revulsion against British bomber tactics stem from those figures!

Now when taken up on these figures Irving had to admit (oh! is'nt it pesky when you get caught out) that --in a letter to the Times in 1966---The actual figure is more in the region of 25,000dead with 35,000 missing--which puts Dresden squarely in the realm of, say, Hamburg!

Historian Irving then went on to apologise and said he had "no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends" But I noticed---not with surprise ---about five or six years ago a new edition (in paperback) with the same shock horror 135,000 dead blazoned across the cover...

MYTHOLOGY dies hard, I fear. I also imagine your 'quarter of a million' will die hard also!

Some of the bile over this was no doubt fuelled by nuclear disarmers in the mid sixties and had and have nothing to do with history!

What has to do with history is this;

The war had been going on for five and a half years; only the luxury of hindsight and the detachment of non-participation can undervalue the enormous sense of that weight of time, the intense desire to bring the whole thing to an end as soon as possible.

Any idea or statement around the notion that it was unnecessary to bomb Dresden because the war was nearly over is absurd. That was a thought that could only have reality after May the 7th. In February it was an 'unfact', and what mattered to everybody was to end the war as soon as possible by any and every means.

Dave.

[bristol scout]

One last observation from me;
If we can not ask the right questions--or contest erroneous 'facts' and/or beliefs to enable us to approach a closer to accurate 'perspective' how on earth do you expect us to be able to '"learn from them" anything at all.

It is by talking that we learn!

Dave.

[Chock]

Okay, let's address all that one by one:

I did not direct the comment about motivation at you, read my post, it says 'the motivation', not 'Bristol's motivation'. But if you feel it was specifically directed at you, then one has to wonder why that might be so.

I never said anything about not remembering things of import for the lessons it can teach us, in fact my closing comment on my preceding post says exactly that, if you care to look.

I contest that the sidetracking is indeed yours, since it is what has steered an interesting thread well and truly off course, and I daresay I'm not the only one who has noticed judging from some of the comments on preceding pages of this thread.

Whomever Arthur Harris was subject to, does not in itself provide a vindication for such motives, and nor did I say that was the case. But to proffer the defence that he was carrying out policy from on high is reminiscent of the 'I was only following orders' defence, and I'm sure you know which historical characters used that one, and indeed, what their motivation for doing so was. That's right, it's the guys you are having a pop at that hail from Berlin.

David Irving is a worthless pillock, not to mention a Nazi apologist, I wouldn't even entertaining reading any of what he pretends is historical writing. And further to that point, I did not say that a 250,000 casualty figure was 'my' estimate, I said it was 'an' estimate. My main sources for info relating to Dresden are: Edward M Sion's Through Blue Skies to Hell, Max Hastings' Bomber Command, Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy and Harry H Crosby's A Wing and a Prayer. I don't entertain books by idiots like Irving, I wouldn't even use the crap he churns out to support wonky table, much less support a point of view.

Finally, if you think that the idea of not bombing a town in flagrant breach of numerous points of a treaty aimed at remaining some degree of civility in warfare is 'absurd', then you've just proved what wrote in the preceding post.

Al

[GMU]

Birth of the Richthofen Circus? = Dead as well !

Another thread down the drain.



.

[tcrean7828]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Manfred,
"we knew about the Germans"---very true! Everyone knew about the German way of waging war ---extreme and most callous ruthlessness.

If we admit---and I'm sure you would'nt disagree on this, at least---that the British and dominions--and America --were fighting against a war of aggression for the survival of freedom and of democracy itself---against a ruthless and wholly evil and implacable enemy who resorted to the most inhuman treatment of it's enemies (fighting or prostrate and defeated) AND of it's own people----then the biggest immorality that we could have inflicted on the world would have been to allow that evil to be victorious?

Fighting fire with fire is sometimes the only way.

"official history" is not alawys written by the mighty----the western democracies went to great pains to attempt to establish the truth with a hugely more impartial stance than would have taken place in a victorious post war Germany-----in both Wars! British 'historians' (i use the word loosely) like John Laffin with his 'butchers and bunglers' nonsense---or Alan Clark with his 'lions led by Donkeys' lies and claptrap would NEVER have been tolerated in a victorious post war NAZI Germany where criticism of the establishment would have been asking for a very unpleasant 'visit' from some chaps in jackboots!!

The freedoms we have here are, if you like, as a direct result of not letting tyrrany and totalitarianism win---and the cost was terrible.

We paid it!

In a post you made on 9th. October you wondered if this forum was "for serious research or fanciful history"---I think you are indulging in 'fanciful history' here!

Dave.

Mate,
As much as I hate to poke my nose under the tent - this site is for talking about WW1 - facts, figures, opinions, etc - but never the less, issue's relating to WW1.

I thank you for taking the time to read this little fact!

I believe,to the best of my knowledge,that in WW1 there was no NAZISM! No SS! No Gestapo! So what has this got to do with the Birth of the Richthofen Circus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I appologize for my rather rude interruption.
ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

P.S. In case someone thinks I am talking out of my hat, please note:
-- My grandfather was in the Scottish KOSB at Passiondale 1917, my step-mothers, cousin, cousin was Ltn. Fritz Höhn, German fighter pilot and ace killed in 1918.
-- Lost 1 British uncle and 2 German uncles in WW2 (one fighter pilot and one in infantry)
'Nuff said

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by Chock

Okay, let's address all that one by one:

I did not direct the comment about motivation at you, read my post, it says 'the motivation', not 'Bristol's motivation'. But if you feel it was specifically directed at you, then one has to wonder why that might be so.

I never said anything about not remembering things of import for the lessons it can teach us, in fact my closing comment on my preceding post says exactly that, if you care to look.

I contest that the sidetracking is indeed yours, since it is what has steered an interesting thread well and truly off course, and I daresay I'm not the only one who has noticed judging from some of the comments on preceding pages of this thread.

Whomever Arthur Harris was subject to, does not in itself provide a vindication for such motives, and nor did I say that was the case. But to proffer the defence that he was carrying out policy from on high is reminiscent of the 'I was only following orders' defence, and I'm sure you know which historical characters used that one, and indeed, what their motivation for doing so was. That's right, it's the guys you are having a pop at that hail from Berlin.

David Irving is a worthless pillock, not to mention a Nazi apologist, I wouldn't even entertaining reading any of what he pretends is historical writing. And further to that point, I did not say that a 250,000 casualty figure was 'my' estimate, I said it was 'an' estimate. My main sources for info relating to Dresden are: Edward M Sion's Through Blue Skies to Hell, Max Hastings' Bomber Command, Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy and Harry H Crosby's A Wing and a Prayer. I don't entertain books by idiots like Irving, I wouldn't even use the crap he churns out to support wonky table, much less support a point of view.

Finally, if you think that the idea of not bombing a town in flagrant breach of numerous points of a treaty aimed at remaining some degree of civility in warfare is 'absurd', then you've just proved what wrote in the preceding post.

Al

I can't remember in Bungays book 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'--which is about the Battle of Britain any references to Dresden----I also have Max Hastings 'Bomber Command' where he says on page 336 " Until the final days the Luftwaffe offered resistance, and Bomber Command's overall loss rate of 1 per cent masked individual nights of 5 or even 10 per cent"

He also agrees with me that the decision to bomb Dresden was Churchills---via Sinclair:
" I did not ask you last night about plans for harrying the German retreat from Breslau. On the contrary, I asked wether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in East Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets. I am glad that this is 'under examination'. Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done"

And on page 344 regarding a different memo. "It is impossible to regard this as anything other than an attempt by the Prime Minister to distance himself from the bombing of Dresden".

As for "having a pop at the guys from Berlin"---well, you are at least dead right on that---This forum is, at it's basic level, all about what emanated from Berlin.

I'm glad that we agree at least on David Irving's worth---I see we will not agree on much else.

I refute your somewhat haphazard logic about my intent or machiavellian 'presence'---which is, to say the least, somewhat dramatic---as I did not 'steer' the thread anywhere-----but there you go ---your opinions are noted.

Dave.