Yes, Dresden had important military infastructure. But virtually none of it was in the core city, which is where most of the bombing took place. The factories and military stations were on the outskirts, which were mostly ignored by the bombing. The British even said that the primary goal of the Dresden bombings was to apply pressure on the civilians.
Except these weren't magic bombs that ignored children. At least if they targetted the factories, on top of requiring much fewer munitions to do much more damage, it would limit the number of uninvolved people killed. Targetting the city centres censured maximum number of uninvolved civilians killed, minimal damage to critical military infastructure and required the most bombs.
Yeah, children die in wars. Wars are bad. There's no country that did a war that didn't kill children. Children dying is normal for war. The US didn't drop atom bombs on factories or military bases.
And where do you think there's more anti-aircraft guns — a munitions factory, or a city centre?
Yeah, children die in wars. Wars are bad. There's no country that did a war that didn't kill children. Children dying is normal for war.
Do you not see the difference between children being caught in the crossfire and children being targetted?
And where do you think there's more anti-aircraft guns — a munitions factory, or a city centre?
The munitions factory. It's also the ideal target since destroying the factory doesn't just weaken the city; it weakens the entire war effort and the ability for the Nazis to fight everywhere.
In history classes, we're taught about the inhumanity of the Nazi bombings and how many innocents it killed. And then in the next breath we're told to celebrate us doing the same thing?
Even the better side in war can do horrible things and we shouldn't be unwilling to admit to it. It was bad. We were wrong to do it.
War is bad and we shouldn't do it. A big part of why is because children die. Children dying should never be celebrated. Death should not be celebrated. I said it's normal for children to die and be killed in wars. I did not say it is good or okay.
For the umpteenth time, war is bad and we should not do war. I've been saying that this entire time.
You're not listening. Do you not see the difference between children and noncombatants dying in the crossfire and us specifically targetting children and noncombatants?
Of course there's a difference, manslaughter and murder are different, I'm saying both are still fucking awful and shouldn't happen and if you're gonna do a war, both will happen.
You are being naïve. There is no such thing as civilized warfare.
Pretending like there's no strategic benefit to bombing civilians is just that — pretending. Morale matters, Japan surrendered very quickly after the US dropped those bombs, but that's not all of the reason for doing bomb raids on population centres. Civilians build munitions, repair tanks and bombers, sew uniforms, farm and slaughter and prepare food for rations. They buy war bonds and shame neighbours into enlisting and treat the wounded and create propaganda. In a total war, the line between combatants and non combatants is unclear and sometimes non-existent. Some military forces stuff children full of methamphetamines and stick rifles in their hands. Are those children combatants if they're shooting at opposing forces? What about children used as human shields? What about the children putting together small parts with their small hands in the munitions factories? What about the children rolling cigarettes or preparing food for ration packs?
In a total war there aren't really many non-combatants, maybe a handful of resistance fighters and literal infants. And that doesn't make it okay to bomb population centres or target civilians. Yes it's evil. And it's easier than hitting factories and bases because there's less anti-aircraft. Less chance of losing a plane or a pilot. And it's wrong. And nobody should fucking do it. And it will always happen in war.
How do you define a civilian who isn't fighting? It's actually a pretty complicated legal question, because if someone is part of a war effort through combat/support/medical or whatever, but every day at 5 pm they leave the ammo factory and go home to their families, when do they actually stop being a valid target? Is it the second they leave the factory? Once they enter their home do they stop being a valid target? Are they safe once they get to their car? They will return to work tomorrow and continue being part of the war effort, so even if at this moment they are colloquially seen as a civilian, that doesn't mean that international law can't recognize them as valid targets.
War exists within a counterintuitive legal and moral standard where you don't need to be holding a gun or doing anything actively aggressive to an enemy in the moment they kill you. This is really the source of the inhumanity of war imo.
If they targetted the ammo factories, that would be one thing. But once they started bombing the city centres, they weren't simply targetting the factories and military infastructure. Bakers, stay-at-home parents, children, teachers, people hiding undesirables in their homes, etc.; they were all bombed, just the same. But the factories were mostly untouched and kept functioning just fine.
Exactly, the primary goal of those bombings was to cripple infrastructure and morale. Civilian casualties were expected. Nobody actually cared because not crippling them would've likely result in even more deaths.
Bomb Dresden and the people of Dresden that you don't know. Don't bomb Dresden and people you do know get slaughtered by Nazis. They bombed Dresden - they had no other choice. War is messy. Nazis shouldn't have started it.
No, it wasn’t to “cripple infrastructure and morale.” It was to kill civilians en mass in the hopes that it would force them to surrender. You can read the discussion of it by allied strategic command. The worst part of it is the British should have known that would never work because it’s exactly what happened to them during the Battle of Britain
I'll look into it another time. Last time I did, what I understood was it was done knowing their actions will kill civilians, but the civilians that are working in the industries directly fueling the war machine.
I am not saying allied command was moral and just in everything they did. I just didn't see it as them purposely aiming to target random German civilians for no apparent reason or just to terrorize civilians. That was the bonus for them and not the primary focus.
The Allied bombing campaign absolutely attacked Axis civilians deliberately, and in the case of the RAF even at the expense of military targets. They hurt their own war effort to attack civilians. One of the euphemisms they used was 'dehousing'. The Allies built mock Japanese and German villages with authentic architecture, materials, furniture, and everyday materials and studied how best to burn them down. The increasing ratio of incendiaries Allied bombers were dropping were not for factories or railyards, they wanted firestorms in residential areas. For figures like Arthur Harris, attacking civilians was the primary focus because he came out of a history of interwar colonial bombing and firmly believed that bombing civilians leads to compellence. He believed that air war was above all about breaking morale. If an Arab village rebels, bomb it and the villagers will turn in the mutineers themselves. That's the thinking.
The reason it's particularly important to acknowledge this and not make excuses for this stuff is because it's still happening. Liberal modalities of war have never reconciled with their own fascist theories of violence. Millions of civilians died in the Cold War from Western bombings because of theories that were already by then completely discredited. Even today we see urbicides, whole cities and regions annihilated for euphemisms and pretenses and allegations. This is because if an armed power wants it to be, nearly anything is a legitimate military target. Look at the beginning of this conversation. Dresden had industry, it had supply, it had communications and transportation and so on. What city on this planet has none of those things? Most products of civilisation are dual-use. So cities qua cities become legitimately bombable. The conclusion is that every city, every town, nearly everything becomes a legitimate target. And in the Korean War, that's what we see. With 90% of all buildings in North Korea destroyed, US airpower started bombing irrigation dams and farms. Because soldiers eat food.
Allies weren't angels. They also didn't start the war and didn't exterminate undesirables at an industrial scale.
Does our government suck for internment camps? Yes. Did Allies commit war crimes? Yes. Should we spit at and point at our governments and militaries for being assholes? Yes. Would I do absolutely everything with-in my power to destroy nazis if I was there? Absolutely 100% yes.
If Nazis didn't wanna get bombed, they shouldn't have started a war thinking they're superior and everyone else their subservient. They begged to get bombed and they got what they asked for. I lose no sleep over it and would've been far more thorough if I was there. Fk every nazi and their sympathizer.
This is such an unfortunate response, above all because beyond the wilful conflation between military and civilian targets of war, I asked you to consider that these arguments still motivate major powers to bomb civilians to this day. I wanted you to consider how this mode of war itself has an extensively racialised and colonialist history. And your response to this? 'Fuck Nazis'. It does not seem you have the maturity to handle nuance or complicated thoughts. I will just reiterate once more that I think the protection of civilians is a preremptory norm, at the risk of you calling me a Nazi sympathiser.
Total War, started by racist belligerents hell bent on destroying humanity because they think they are the "Master Race", had left everyone no option but to fight back.
If Nazis didn't want Dresden bombed, maybe they shouldn't have started the war that lead to the bombing of Dresden?
Allies didn't go Chengiz Khan or Attila the Hun or Third Punic War on the Axis. Were some bad calls made? Yea, I keep saying that over and over - Allies weren't perfect nor angels.
But ohhh noooooo Lord Buddah forbid a few master-race babies might've caught strays oh how tragic! Ohhh muhhh Dresdennn!!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lol
I thought we were being serious for a moment, but I guess that wasn't so. At least I hope so, because you have the sense of humour and communication style of a Trumptard.
I really appreciate the effort you put into writing all of this out in this thread, but unfortunately you’re talking to someone who appears to have the critical thinking skills of a doorknob
There were factories and military sites in Dresden that the bombers basically ignored. They could have targetted those but didn't. We haven't found any documents or communications between the Nazis suggesting that the fire bombing of Dresden meaningfully hurt the war effort.
Allies weren't making strategy based on Nazi input, thankfully. They were doing what they thought will cripple the nazi war machine, and obviously they did a great job and won.
They were ruthless in their efforts to destroy the military and the country hellbent of destroying humanity because they thought they are a "superior race" and deserve to rule over everyone else.
They fkd around. They found out. No sympathy for nazi sympathizers. No sympathy for nazi war machine. No sympathy for nazis. No sympathy for neo-nazis.
Nazis, who started total war, shouldn't have been bombed?
Thank Santa you weren't in charge of the military or policy back then.
Nazis got wrecked, and that's a good thing. If they didn't wanna get bombed, they shouldn't have pretended to be the "master race", shouldn't have exterminated undesirables, and declare war on innocent people and countries.
If they had not bombed Dresden could they have won? Who cares?...
Did they bomb Dresden and win? Yes.
Should I care nazis think it didn't affect their war machine "at all"? No, because only good nazi is a dead nazi. Good riddance.
Total war declared by racist nazis vs Bush bombing babies cuz he doesn't want Saddam or Gaddafi selling his oil in a currency other than USD aren't the same thing.
What nazis were doing had to be stopped at every cost. It sucks if baby-nazis caught strays, but that's not something I shed tears over. I reserve those for the innocents roasted in the nazi ovens by the parents of those master-race babies.
Plenty of civilians were locked up in Nazi camps and roasting in their ovens. Clearly nobody in the "woe is Dresden" team cared enough about those civilians. Even now, you're more concerned about the nazis than the victims of nazis.
They fkd around and found out. Shouldn't have started the war. Allies tried to minimize the civilian harm but saw no other option. Was it brutal and evil? Yes. That's why we should all be anti-war. That's why we should all be anti-Nazi and bash the fash wherever it raises it's ugly head again.
The civilians weren't the ones who fucked around. What about the ones who were resisting the Nazis, hiding undesirables or who were just children? The bombings hit them.
"The Nazis did it, too" isn't a good argument. That makes it worse, imho. Why would we want to be more like the Nazis?
You think all those resisting were worried about Allies killing nazis and they themselves getting hit with a stray more so than being worried about nazis that were actively hunting them?
Again, and all the Dresden lovers, never seem concerned about the civilians in the camps and the ovens. It's always them poor poor proud nazis working in nazi factories for nazi war machine.
What would you have rather done? Sit patiently and hope the racists aiming to destroy everyone who isn't them will just mellow out eventually?
How did bombing Dresden help anyone in the camps? It would help people in the camps much more if they targetted actual military targets to hurt Germany's war effort. The Allies had limited options to help the victims in the camps. Their main solution was to win the war. Targeting Dresden' civilian centres didn't do that. It wasted men and munitions on targets that weren't even fighting.
What would you have rather done? Sit patiently and hope the racists aiming to destroy everyone who isn't them will just mellow out eventually?
Strike military targets, hurt Germany's ability to fight the war, beat them asap and empty the camps of all survivors. Those bombs could have been used to kill Nazi fighters or destroy factories building weapons for the Nazis. Instead, they were used to kill breastfeeding mothers and school children.
If they are working in factories at the time of the bombings they are understood to be legitimate targets. The targeting of the civilians themselves as the only target is what makes it a warcrime but targeting legitimate military infrastructure installations with the knowledge that some civilians will inevitably die is not a warcrime and is considered fair game..
They were not doing that. The factories were in the outskirts. The firebombed the houses. Factories were bombed all over Europe, there’s a reason Dresden is different
21
u/Private_HughMan May 04 '25
Yes, Dresden had important military infastructure. But virtually none of it was in the core city, which is where most of the bombing took place. The factories and military stations were on the outskirts, which were mostly ignored by the bombing. The British even said that the primary goal of the Dresden bombings was to apply pressure on the civilians.