The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
However, following the first Allied "successes" on the Ruhr, the nazis were extremely effective in scattering their industry across the country, which meant that less of it could be effectively targeted by era's technology. So, the bombing focus changed to area bombing (aka collective punishment) on the basis that cities were economically productive for the reich even if they weren't industrial or munitions centres. In this they were conforming to Sherman's doctrine of destroying the economic basis of the enemy's ability to wage war.
However by the time of Dresden, much of what remained Germany's western productive capacity was already in Allied hands. There wasn't much left to bomb and Dresden was on the list. There were also the claims that a german army was due to use the railway connections through the town to attack approaching Russian armies.
Whatever the reasons, Dresden was destroyed for reasons that barely made sense at the time and look worse as time passes. Was it a crime ? Possibly/probably; but that is war. The doctrine of armies is always the same; until your enemy surrenders you attack and attack. Any suggestions of pulling your blow would only encourage their resistance. The lawyers on the winning side decide at the time who can be blamed on the losing side, while historians have the luxury of hindsight to determine and revise "verifiable" truths.
My parents lived through the war and I'd consider them both typical in their attitudes of feeling that Dresden was regrettable but after 5 years of war and a continent in ruins they wanted the nazis destroyed. Utterly. Bomb every last building until Hitler surrendered. and, as somebody who did not live through it, I cannot answer that lived-experience.
My Dad served in the RAF. My mother was evacuated to S Wales, but returned to the East end during the latter part of the The Blitz. Her family was relocated on several occasions after their home was destroyed. She had a V1 fly over her head at 50' (15m) and a V2 exploded within 300' (90m) of her. On VE (Victory in Europe day) she says that her overwhelming feeling was that she was going to live. Up until then she had literally taken every day, every hour as stolen. Now she had a future that wouldn't be marked by sirens and bombs and missiles and sudden death raining from the sky. And anything that had been done by the Allies to bring her to that moment was perfectly fine with her. Then and forever more.
And nobody, nobody who has not lived through such things has the right to argue with her. Now or forever. keep to the Fen Causeway
It gave them incredible advantages compared to the european allies who may have won the war, but lost the peace due to excessive efforts restoring the war machines they now only needed for the vainglory of their politicians. keep to the Fen Causeway
by gmoke - Oct 4
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 36 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Oui - Sep 3025 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 285 comments
by Oui - Sep 2717 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1336 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment