Talk:Bombing of Dresden

Template:Controversial (history)

Edit explanation

See previous discussion Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 16#Edit explanation

Jews of Dresden

Colin4C, the section you just added really needs considerable condensation, and/or moving Klemperer's account to the section of witness accounts. A long section on Jewish deaths doesn't belong in "Postwar reconstruction" any more than a long section on the neo-Nazis belongs in "Arguments against bombing."
A good article is NPOV, not an equal balance of POV tangents. Whether or not one editor is wrongly adding POV, that doesn't make it right for another editor to do so. I'll redact it if necessary... but I'd much rather let you do it in good faith. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to clarify and quantify the Jewish deaths in Dresden in order that the article is NPOV. As it stands the reader is implicitly led to believe that evil anti-Semitic Dresdeners took it into their own hands to massacre the Jewish population reducing it from 6000 to 60 and that therefore the allied bombing of Dresden was JUST RETRIBUTION for their sins. This is POV, which is not allowed by the wikipedia. The NPOV facts are different:

• 1 Most of the Jews emigrated from Dresden before the extermination programme began.
• 2 Most of those that remained were killed by the Nazis at Riga, Aushwitz and Theresenstadt, not Dresden.
• 3 Those killed at Dresden were killed by allied bombers.
• 4 The Dresdeners, despite years of anti-Semitic propaganda from the regime, which, inter alia, blamed the Jews for the War, were equivocal in their attitude to the Jews, some being racist and some giving the Jews support.

All the above is true and supported by references from scholarly publications, not the tabloid press. People will come to no harm by knowing the truth. Truth is beautiful at all times and leads to wisdom. It is not up to you or I to censor the truth and decide what readers of the wikipedia should and should not know. That is the province of the tabloid press and the government. In a very recent book about the Dreden bombings: Firestorm (2006) (edited by Addison and Crang) Klemperer and the Jews of Dresden are allocated their own chapter (one out of ten chapters, which is 10% of the allocated space). No chapters are allocated to the Neo-Nazis or the anti Neo-Nazis...Victor Klemperer is an important figure in respect to the bombing of Dresden and should be mentioned. Colin4C (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using your figures to replace the BBC figures. The BBC article doesn't provide a cite, and has already been shown to have an unsupportable generalization that contradicts common sense and other sources. I just think that it should be condensed, because otherwise it's very open to the charge of undue weight.

Klemperer's account is absolutely worthy of inclusion, IMO. Just in a different section. arimareiji (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as long as the general points I have made above are made clear. By the way, after the war, Klemperer unequivocally condemned the allied bombing of Dresden, despite his being a Jewish victim of the Nazi regime. Colin4C (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, I'd rather not rewrite it myself. If you want me to I will, but this is your contribution and I'd rather let you word it in a way that you feel gets the point across. These are just my recommendations for how to minimize undue weight - condense and reorganize. arimareiji (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On questions of undue weight and pov has anybody noticed how the section devoted to those who justify the raid has 22 paragraphs and the section devoted to those who condemn the raid has a mere 6 paragraphs devoted to it (and also includes extra material justifiying the raid!)? The military arguments in favour of the raid are presented at great length and the military arguments against are very briefly mentioned. We therefore have two options in order to make the article NPOV: to cut down the 'Raid was Justified' section or to expand the 'Raid was Unjustified section.' Colin4C (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It has only so many paragraphs because some have been moved up from the far right section, which in my opinion is a mistake, as those arguments were specifically introduced to refute the far right and not as part of the general debate. I strongly object to the far right section as it stands at the moment because it presents a far right POV without a counter weight. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Emphasising at great length that Neo-Nazis think the bombing was unjustified seems to be a very disingenuous way to discredit those who think that the mass killing of women, children and old men is morally wrong. Basically it is POV. Similarly the Vegetarianism article would not be enhanced by a detailed biography of that arch vegetarian Adolf Hitler. Colin4C (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I want to keep sequential time order, so I'm placing this below Colin4C despite the fact that it's in response to PBS' comment above him. PBS - what you're saying is ample grounds for deleting that material from the document altogether. It goes directly to the point I made previously, that if you're writing a lengthy section on neo-Nazis in an article that is not about them, it does not belong. I only moved it on the grounds that it could be viewed as general argument for the bombing. If it's directly addressed to "why the neo-Nazis are wrong," as you just said, then it doesn't belong in the article at all.

If you can give quotes from a Wikipedia policy that will show why it's not an example of undue weight to add paragraphs intended to lengthily refute the viewpoint of an extreme minority - to a topic that is supposed to detail arguments for the broader non-minority viewpoint - please do so.arimareiji (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

POV!

Does anyone here think that this paragraph is POV?:

"Taylor writes that this propaganda was effective, as it not only influenced attitudes in neutral countries at the time, but also reached the British House of Commons when Richard Stokes, a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) opposed to area bombing, quoted information from the German Press Agency (controlled by the Propaganda Ministry). It was Stokes' questions in the House of Commons that were in large part responsible for the shift in the UK against this type of raid. Taylor suggests that, although the destruction of Dresden would have affected people's support for the Allies regardless of German propaganda, at least some of the outrage did depend on Goebbel's massaging of the casualty figures.[94]"

It seems that a considerable effort has been made here to discredit Stokes anti-war credentials by presenting him as a dupe of Goebbels. Also all the above is just the opinion of Taylor, there is no documentary proof that Goebbels massaged the the casuality figures, just that the Germans benefited from exaggerated claims of deaths made in the neutral press (which neutral press had previously wildly exaggerated the number killed in the German air-raid on Rotterdam). I think Stokes deserves better than this shoddy insult to his memory. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not discredit Stokes who had long since taken a moral stand against strategic bombing and is in no way described as a dupe of Goebbels. Have you a reliable source that discredits Taylor's conclusions about Goebbel's? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in Taylor's book does he produce hard documentary evidence that Goebbels massaged the figures. It is merely his opinion, based on supposition, which he no doubt entitled to, but to present it as fact and then berate Stokes for being duped for something about which there is no proof is POV. If you have documentary proof from the German archives that Goebbels massaged the figures I'd like to see it. The figures for Rotterdam were similarly exaggerated. Were those who believed in them also dupes? Colin4C (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if I had such documentary proof it would be original research, and not acceptable in this article. Taylor is a reliable source and the paragraph in question states it as something written by Taylor and makes it clear that it is Taylor's view. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All I wish is that modern historians regain some of the impartiality and humility that was always part of the profession. If something is unknown they should admit it, not treat their own tendentious conjectures as truth and then build a massive POV scaffolding on top...Colin4C (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More POV pushing

I have restored deleted referenced material. Editors please do not intrude your own unreferenced POV, no matter how much you may disagee with a source, or delete referenced material. For instance this deleted material is found in the source given "Also no documentary evidence has been found to support Allied claims that the Russians requested the destruction of Dresden. It is also seems that most of those targeted were old men, women and children, with few German males of military age left in the City environs." Viz: http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/6/2/Lutton247-250.html . in which it states that:

The Journal of Historical Review is not a reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Colin4C (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See the notes on the Wikipedia article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So the review of Alexander McKee is absolutely false? Alexander McKee does not say those things? I was trying to be helpful in case, like before, you requested a long quote for each and every statement made here for a book which you don't have. Anyway, fire away, if that is what you want to do. Colin4C (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am replacing refs with ones direct from McKee's book. Colin4C (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"At the time of the attacks on February 13/14, 1945, the inhabitants of Dresden wore mostly women and children, many of whom had just arrived as refugees from the East. There were also large numbers of Allied POWs. Few German males of military age were left in the city environs. The author cites the official Bomber Command history prepared by Sir Charles Webster and Dr. Noble Frankland, which reveals that "the unfortunate, frozen, starving civilian refugees were the first object of the attack, before military movements" and

It does not mean that they were targeted. AFAICT the RAF targeted the centre of the city and the USAAF targeted the marshalling yards. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Should that be deleted from the article as well?::

"A 1953 USAAF report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort.[4]" Colin4C (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I have changed 'targeted' to 'killed' just to please you. Happy now? Colin4C (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"despite the claims of U.S. Air Force historians, writing in 1978, that "The Secretary of War had to be appraised of ... the Russian request for its neutralization," the author has unearthed no evidence of such a Soviet request."

Is this a quote from somewhere as there is a quote after request? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with this source please provide sources which state something different do not just delete it. Colin4C (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The statements I deleted did not carry citations in the text. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want a reference after every sentence I will provide one. Done. Colin4C (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced editorialising

This unreferenced riposte from Philip to a information provided from a reference seems to be his own personal comment, justifying on his own behalf the RAF strategy of night bombing:

"Neither of which were something that the RAF, flying at night, could have precisely targeted with the available technology (hence their reliance on night time area bombing)".

Is Philip saying that the RAF could not or should not have flown by day? Are editors allowed to make unsourced personal interventions stating their beliefs on the right way to conduct bombing operations here? Why is Philip justifying the bombing and recommending strategy on his own behalf in a section entitled "That the bombing was not necessary or justified". Were not the 22 paragraphs justifying it in the section saying that the bombing was justified not POV enough? Colin4C (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. PBS, please stop adding material "to refute" the arguments against the bombing to the section for arguments against the bombing (let alone unsourced ones). If you can find a source for this assertion, please do add it to the appropriate section - arguments for the bombing. Finally, although it may seem an odd question, I've been wondering: Would you prefer to be addressed as PBS or Philip? I'm much too old and lazy to type out Philip Baird Shearer every time.

Colin, I agree with the core of your point - but please remember to stay on track. Address only the issue at hand whenever possible, or it can come across as ad hominem. arimareiji (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is Philip saying that the RAF could not or should not have flown by day?" I am not writing that they could not or should not have flown by day. What I wrote says it that the RAF could not precision bomb by night. Do you need a source for such a statement as I would have thought it was self evident? The USAAF did bomb precisely, they aimed for the marshalling yards. These are not a statements for or against the bombing they are a statements of fact.

User:Arimareiji I would like to point out to you the warning in NPOV#Article structure, in my opinion it is better if the text which presents different points of view are as close to each other as possible. For example in my view moving the counter arguments of the extreme right before the extreme right's point of view leaves them floating in the either. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're (again) contradicting yourself with the policy that you say supports you. Unkindly, a continuing pattern of this behavior might be called gaming the system. From the guideline you were indirectly referencing, which I had to surf a bit to find:

• "Pro & con lists are an improvement (for Wikipedia's purposes) over thread-mode discussions." Volleying arguments back and forth, such as you've been adding in (but only to the "against" side), is not preferred.
• "Pro & Con lists have a tendency to encourage forbidden primary research, by encouraging contributors to add to one side or another to balance out the other side-the problem being that the contributor himself thought of the argument." That's exactly what you just did.

There are several reasons gaming the system is inappropriate, and quickly sanctioned. One that comes to mind is that a tendentious editor can frustrate someone to the point of despair by constantly wasting their time with links that actually contradict the editor, if followed up on. arimareiji (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pro and con lists an interesting guideline, I had not seen it before, but the link I presented is policy and it was not my intention that you look for a guideline (other than if you did not find the policy clear). The arguments in the policy (and the guideline) is exactly the reason I wanted to move away from "it is war crime" "no it is not" to "Debate over the bombing of Dresden".[1] because the war crime debate is "yes or no" while the debate over the bombing is wider and allows shades of grey. Once this change was made it is possible to represent the view that think it was unnecessary (probably the majority of modern scholars and commentators, given the proviso of 20/20 hindsight) as well as those who think it was a war crime (a minority) -- those argue that it was a military necessity also argue it was not a war crime. Personally I think it was a retrograde step to introduce the multi heading structure we now have (because it does not help produce a balanced debate), but the majority of those editing the article at the time (January 2008) thought it was an improvement. While I agree to some extent with the "Pro and con lists" to a certain extent, I think there has to be a balance between the two extremes of one section with all the arguments in those and strict segregation between many sections. A better format is arguments for (any refutations). Arguments against any (refutations). Eg Bloxham argues it was a war crime [2] because xyz. If someone has refuted his position then put it in the same paragraph. We don't need to present lots of people who have taken this position. All we have to do is choose a couple of the most reliable sources both ways. But having a section "Allegations that it was a war crime" with not refutation without a section "Allegations that it was not a war crime" is not presenting a balanced POV. But rather than having another section I think it is better to have all the points of view on this in one section.

At the moment the two sections "That the bombing was necessary or justified" and "That the bombing was not necessary or justified" are empty sections which could easily be removed if they are not going to contain any text. At the moment we have the situation where you have moved text that balances the POV of the far right into a section called "U.S. Air Force Historical Division report" which in my opinion is not the place to put it and I don't think inserting a section heading after the "U.S. Air Force Historical Division report" called "Criticisms of the point of view of the far-right in Germany" is the way to go.

One of the things that was done during January was to move all the information about the "U.S. Air Force Historical Division report" into one section. I think the detail about other raids (and the table) should be put back into a section on other raids (probably as a timeline of raids) as the details of the raids have nothing to do with justifying the big raids.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

These are interesting points, but they don't address the actual changes you've been making recently - that is, inserting your own refutations into arguments against the bombing. That doesn't present a multifaceted point of view, that only converts it to thread mode - which, again, is not preferred.

With respect to going on at length (i.e. over half the section) about the "far right," whom many neutral sources have called "neo-Nazis" or the "extreme right," I again refer you to the policy you cited as allegedly supporting you (undue weight): It is a gross violation of the spirit of NPOV to lengthily present the arguments of an extreme minority as though they represented the arguments of the majority.

With respect to your apparent proposal to undo the structure altogether, I believe that would be sharply against the consensus of both present and past contributors. It would certainly need to be discussed first. arimareiji (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"that is, inserting your own refutations into arguments against the bombing." The sentences were neither for or against the bombing. They were statements of facts. The USAAF did use precision bombing and aimed for the marshalling yards, and the RAF could not precision bomb at night. How is either statement for or against the bombing? Also the cut an past move you made from the far right why did you move the paragraphs into the section called "U.S. Air Force Historical Division report"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

• It's disingenuous at best to characterize it as a neutral argument to insert uncited WP:OR insinuating they had no way to hit their targets accurately, immediately after they purposefully started a firestorm in the city center with a concentrated strike of thousands of bombs but did little or no damage to the military targets that were miles away.
• It's likewise disingenuous at best to keep claiming that you're demonstrating good faith in repeatedly arguing for inclusion of a section on neo-Nazis larger than the rest of the section combined, into the arguments against the bombing. Your own words have recently described that section as being a prolonged rebuttal to the neo-Nazis specifically, rather than anything pertaining to the broader view of those against the bombing. And yet, you continue to argue for its inclusion into the section against the bombing.
• When I moved it, it was with WP:AGF that this was simply a misplaced section of arguments for the bombing, because it's made up of arguments implying or asserting the bombing was justified. Since you object to it being included in the section for the bombing, which is correct since you've now attested that it's not an argument for the bombing but against the neo-Nazis specifically, I'm deleting it. I'm sure you will object to this, but I challenge you to show why WP:UNDUE would not apply to trying to make the majority of the section against the bombing about neo-Nazis and argument for or against them:

  We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

• This is verging very rapidly on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For anyone who's coming in late and doesn't understand why this is so, check archive 16 - which PBS was correct in creating, though perhaps less correct in copying back only a fraction of the recent discussion. It includes a large number of arguments which are now being reiterated and/or ignored. arimareiji (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it OR as is well known. If your only objection to the sentences will you accept their inclusion if I source them? I must have missed it where in the section "Military Reasons" is the statement "they purposefully started a firestorm in the city center with a concentrated strike of thousands of bombs but did little or no damage to the military targets that were miles away."?
• Yes I do because I think it is the correct place to put them.
• There is nothing to stop you copying back additional information from the archive if you think that it is correct and relevant, because there is nothing to be gained debating what should or should not have been copied back. You write that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." Yet what you have now succeded in doing is deleting the majority view (that the far right are mistaken) and have left the a minority view as expressed by the far right in place. --PBS (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• My "objection" is to the fact that when you're refuted on one policy, you move to the next. You continue to insert rebuttals which amount to converting the arguments to thread mode - "he said, she said, he said, she said" - but only in one section, apparently the one you oppose. You continue to argue that the majority of the against-the-bombing section should be devoted to arguments for and against a tiny minority of neo-Nazis who say they're on that side. You claim that the reason for this is "to balance" it with "the majority view"...of a topic that is unrelated to the bombing of Dresden. Neo-Nazis are not the article's subject.
• As to my synopsis of the contrast of your insert[3] with the original contents of "Military arguments," it's exactly that - a synopsis to show clarity of contrast. Not article material. Anyone who reads the history can judge for themselves whether it's a fair one, and I'll stand by it. arimareiji (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Philip saying that it was absolutely impossible for the RAF to fly by day and/or hit a bridge? What if a thousand RAF bombers blasted a mile-wide area round a bridge is still physically impossible that they could hit it? On a point of information, were all RAF bombing missions in World War Two, in every theatre of conflict in every Continent flown at night? The argument of the apologisers for the bombing is that the Dresden was a vital communications centre and had lots of industry of crucial importance to the war and was therefore a valid target. But if - as Philip suggests - it was impossible to target these industries and communications then that argument is invalidated. Both McKee and Grayling make this point. Colin4C (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can source these contentions, Colin, please do so in the Arguments Against. They certainly would be powerful arguments complementing the military reasoning. But otherwise it doesn't belong anymore than unsourced claims that they couldn't.

I trust that you'll refrain from sticking these, sourced or unsourced, into the Arguments For. arimareiji (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008

(UTC)

All I am doing is responding to Philip's unreferenced claim on this Talk page that the RAF could only have did what they did in fact do: bomb the old wooden built city centre at night. IMHO this is not a logically watertight argument. The RAF were not constrained by some physical law to only fly at night and only target old wooden city centres. Also a source I looked at last night casts doubt on his argument that they were technologically unable to do anything else. According to Robin Cross in 'Fallen Eagle: The Last Days of the Reich' (page 107) on 14 March 'the great Bielefeld railway viaduct linking Hamm and Hannover' was destroyed by a force of 14 Lancaster bombers. Also anyone who has seen The Dambusters movie will appreciate that the RAF could use precision bombing when they wanted to. I am of course assuming that people have free will and that everything which happened has not been determined so to happen since the first minute of the universe: as per Aristotle's 'Seafight': Aristotle de Interpetatione 9 Last I heard, the philosophical jury is still out on that one..., though Kurt Vonnegut of Dresden massacre fame seemed to believe it...so it goes... Colin4C (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Crossbow (film) was a good film, also. As I recall the RAF, unphased by the technological impossibility of the thing, were targeting the V2 rocket sites, aided by George Peppard, who was always on hand in impossible situations like these. Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The RAF had several different organisations which bombed the enemy. The two principle ones for mainland Europe were RAF Second Tactical Air Force and RAF Bomber Command. Of the two it was Bomber Command which carried out most of the deep penetration raids (some pin-point raids behind enemy lines and not strictly tactical raids were carried out by TAF see (De Havilland Mosquito#Fighter-bomber versions), but notice that none of those listed were deep into enemy territory). Early in the war the RAF did attempt daylight attacks on Germany see for example Knapsack, but after the Butt report (August 1941) the decision was taken for Bomber Command to concentrate on night-time raids, and in the words of the Official history "It was also obvious that much more force would be required to deliver effective bludgeon blows than rapier thrusts."

RAF did have a few squadrons that were trained in pin point bombing 617 and the lesser know IX squadrons, A list of their priorities can be seen by the usage of Tallboy bombs and bridges inside Germany were not high on the list at this time, Feb 45, it was U-boat pens). BTW The Grand Slam bombs used to destroy the Bielefeld railway viaduct was not operational in February and Tallboys failed to do. But the vast majority of the RAF had spent years training for night time aerial area bombardment and if one looks at the techniques used by 1945 they were very good at it. Retraining the men and equipping the bombers for daytime operations had been discussed but after the January 1945 directive it had been dismissed. A brief example of the problem. The USAAF was trained to fly in a formation to give each plane mutual cross fire support, which along with the Mustang Fighters had by 1945 given them air superiority over Germany. But the RAF flew in a bomber stream (each bomber was independent of the others) and worked on the heard principle, the lions may pick off some but the majority will get through. Such tactics in daylight without fighter support and armoured bombers were know to be suicidal (Losses had to be kept below 5% per raid for a bomber force to remain an effective fighting machine).

Dresden was picked by the RAF because it had two boxes ticked on their priority list. (1) it had industry and dehousing the population was known to be the most effective way for the RAF to disrupt industry (2) it was a communication centre and hitting the centre of a city is known to disrupt communications both physical and electronic. So given the tactics used by the RAF and the technology available to them the only way they could effectively disrupt German war time activities around Dresden was to use their night time bomber fleet. One can argue that when they switched from Germany to France in 1944 they should have retrained and re-equipped, but they did not -- and that is a whole different debate and one that Grayling addresses very well -- and so given their equipment and training (not some physical law) the only realistic option open to the RAF if they were to help the Soviets by attacking Dresden was to area bomb the city at night. --PBS (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Was it technologically impossible for the RAF to destroy the bridges in and around Dresden? Yes or no? Was it technologically impossible for then to fly by day? Yes or no? This statement: "given their equipment and training (not some physical law) the only realistic option open to the RAF if they were to help the Soviets by attacking Dresden was to area bomb the city at night." is merely your own original research, unreferenced POV. Also such unreferenced POV apologies for the bombings should not be in the section about 'Why the bombings were not justified'. You do not seem to understand the NPOV policy of the wikipedia at all. Colin4C (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was in effect impossible. The RAF did not possess the accurate bombsights the USAAF had. Nor did the RAF possess long-range fighter escorts; this made it militarily impossible for the Bomber Command to fly deep penetration raids in daylight, when German fighters were active. Google "Butt Report."

As a result, a Lancaster's Circular Error Probable (CEP), the radius of the circle within which 50% of the bombs could be expected to land, was for all intents and purposes city-sized. Even US "precision" bombing had a CEP of 1000 yards- and for the Brits at night that figure was measured in miles. In other words, the line RAF couldn't hit anything smaller than a city.

The Dambusters are brought up- but the elite 617 Squadron trained for months in specially-modified aircraft delivering very specialized bombs for a specific purpose. And the viaducts? The only successful attack on a viaduct was that at Bielefeld- which was not hit, but rather collapsed from the 'earthquake' caused by the Tallboys and Grand Slams. Moreover, the deep-penetration Tallboy was scarce, expensive, and restricted to high-priority targets, and no more accurate than any other bomb, which it why it was seldom delivered by any squadron other than 617.

It's also perhaps worth observing what I don't think has been mentioned here at all- there was nothing illegal in 1945 in the mass-bombing of cities (unless they had bee affirmatively declared 'open' and undefended). The Fourth Geneva didn't come about until 1949. Solicitr (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your first question: No. If you scroll up in the Tallboys article, you can see they were repeatedly used to destroy viaducts. In response to your second question: No, but the question comes across as somewhat facetious.

PBS is right with respect to their priority list. Simply put, such worthies as Arthur Harris weren't trying to avoid area bombing. Heavy use of it was one of the primary aims of his chosen strategy, based on the operational concept of "total war." All resources, including civilians who might otherwise contribute to the war effort, were considered fair game. Dresden isn't a special case, it's simply one of the best-known examples. arimareiji (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the apologias given for civilian deaths in the aerial bombardment of Afghan villages by the allied war criminals. "We aim for military targets and try to avoid civilian casualties, blah, blah, blah" - as though they had some God given right to bomb villages and that it wasn't a deliberate choice they have made. Nobody forced them to bomb the Afghan villages. They chose to do it and kill the unfortunate inhabitants. No amount of Pontius Pilate hand-washing will save these war criminals, who kill women and children, from judgement. The apologists for the aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq and those who defend the bombing of Dresden are the same. See: Rebecca Grant: "The Dresden Legend", Air Force Magazine, October 2004, Vol. 87, No. 10,

Interestingly bombing villages in Iraq and massacring women and children was pioneered by the RAF in the years before WW2. Today Iraq, tommorow Germany, the next day Vietnam and then back to Iraq again. All done according to the standards of the 'higher morality' of the master race. Colin4C (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Colin, thanks for openly declaring your naked POV. Solicitr (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that you have a good point in saying that there are parallels. But my personal opinion is just that, and I can't use it as a basis for editing. Besides, when it comes to emotive arguments about Dresden, Vonnegut is still the unquestioned master.

Remember that Wikipedia is about letting the facts speak for themselves. If someone believes that hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths as a "wartime objective" can be easily rationalized, no amount of debate will convince them otherwise. And vice versa. Weigh out your arguments against how likely it is that anyone could convince you of the opposite. arimareiji (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Far-right in Germany

Please see this version on the text in the section Far-right in Germany as it was before recent edits to this section with the after several edits.

• Note for RfC respondents: The section “Far-right in Germany” under discussion does not currently exist; the surviving material has been subsumed into Allegations that it was a war crime. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Postscript to the above note: The section is again a separate entity. No sources have been provided to link the far-right's actions to serious allegations that it was a war crime. Their use of the strongest possible pejorative language is only coincidentally comprised of words which could be construed as asserting it's a war crime; they make no serious attempt to link the two. arimareiji (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing the arguments which criticise the German right wing is a breach of the NPOV policy, which is why I have added a {{POV-section}} template to that section.

It may be to solve the problem we need to flatten out the section "Post-war debate" removing the empty parent section headings "That the bombing was necessary or justified" and "That the bombing was not necessary or justified" so that the arguments like "Removed arguments for the bombing from section listing arguments against, and placed them in the section for the bombing." in the edit history by user:Arimareiji (03:14, 21 October 2008) are no longer relevant as I think that if the structure is encouraging apartheid POV sections the there is something wrong with the structure.

However this may not be the best solution to the non NPOV problem and I am interested to here what others think. --PBS (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To newcomers: I address Mr. Shearer as PBS. This is not intended to convey disrespect, this is because he hasn't responded yet to my question from weeks ago, of whether he prefers PBS or Philip as an abbreviation. I'm too old and lazy to repeatedly type his full name.

In PBS's version, the majority of "That the bombing was not necessary or justified" (anti-bombing) had been trimmed to a few paragraphs with weak arguments against the bombing, and several paragraphs devoted to arguments for and against a tiny majority of people who say they oppose the bombing: The "far right," or "right wing," as he calls them. Other editors and neutral sources call them "extreme right" or "neo-Nazis." (See sources in this section.)

When I first became involved in the page, I moved the majority of this subsection, which was paragraphs of arguments proving the neo-Nazis wrong, to the "That the bombing was necessary or justified" (pro-bombing) section. This was in the mistaken belief that it was intended as good-faith argument for the bombing, since they were lengthy refutations of an "anti-bombing" position. A short revert war ensued, followed by extensive discussion on the Talk page. PBS advanced several lines of argument for why the paragraphs should be kept in the anti-bombing section, and each was refuted. Often, the material which refuted him could be found in his own links to WP policy that he claimed supported him.

• After, debate continued on other fronts. Another editor began adding and sourcing actual arguments made by the majority anti-bombing faction, rather than straw-man ones such as "Neo-Nazis say they're against it." (The anti-bombing section was much shorter than pro-bombing even before the removal discussed, and became only a fraction of the size of pro-bombing after.) PBS sometimes provided a useful devil's advocate POV, but sometimes reverted useful edits or inserted WP:OR refutations into material added to the anti-bombing section. See Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II/Archive_16#More_POV_pushing for examples of all the above.
  

During this later discussion, PBS held that "those arguments [against the neo-Nazis] were specifically introduced to refute the far right and not as part of the general debate." In my view, this means the section never belonged in the article to begin with. As you can see by checking the actual sources here, they are not about the neo-Nazis contributing to the debate - let alone starting the debate as PBS says. The actual sources discuss the neo-Nazis "hijacking" memorials of the event to get attention by using inflammatory terms such as "Bombenholocaust." They are about the fact that they're not mainstream or even a significant minority, considering that there are open calls for their prosecution and/or banishment for Holocaust minimization - a crime under German law. As I've said several times in the article's talk page, this article is not about the neo-Nazis or their unique polemics - it is about the bombing of Dresden.

One of the red herrings PBS has raised in this process is that he wants to dismantle the pro/con structure the article currently has. This would be admirable if carried out with good-faith intent, and does need to be done eventually. But a careful reading of the above guideline, and knowledge of the edits he's made or defended, show that this is not what's called for either immediately or by this specific editor. His edits do not convert it into a more nuanced structure, they convert it into thread mode. ("Anti-bombing. Why they're wrong. Anti-bombing. Why they're wrong.") And he's only added these refutations to the anti-bombing side. arimareiji (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me User:Arimareiji that you are making an attack on me here an not on my concerns or my suggested solution. Your criticisms of me (an implied bad faith) will have to square the circle that I made an edit back in October 2007 that with the edit comment "Was the bombing a war crime?: ->"Debate over the bombing of Dresden" and changes to the sub-section headings. Also moved the sections into the same order as in the Abomb article."[4] A change I had already proposed on the talk page because it was difficult to include the range of possible points of view if the argument was merely restricted to it was/was not a war crime. Also that I added ( September 2007)

The British philosopher and author A. C. Grayling has described British area bombardment as an "immoral act" and "moral crime" because "destroying everything ... – contravenes every moral and humanitarian principle debated in connection with the just conduct of war", but "it is not strictly correct to describe area bombing as a 'war crime'"

Also that I added (February 2008):

Donald Bloxham has argued that there was a strong prima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case the he could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."

Recently I have not added anything that could be described as "refutations to the anti-bombing side." What I have done is to reinsert text that was deleted that in my view distorts the NPOV balance of the article, and added a couple of sentences to a new section which explained a point in the new paragraph the text was "Neither of which were something that the RAF, flying at night, could have precisely targeted with the available technology (hence their reliance on night time area bombing), and the USAAF did target the railway marshalling yards." Which is neither a statement for or against the bombings.

However, putting to one side personal attacks, thank you for presenting your position User:Arimareiji, but you have not yet presented a solution as to how we are going to balance the points of view where a far right minority view is presented without a counter balance representing the mainstream point of view. (BTW this is a NPOV policy not a guideline issue) --PBS (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've already said all I plan to say on the matter. Several Wikipedia policies contradict your assertion that the majority of the section against the bombing should be 1) a paragraph talking about neo-Nazis, the fact they walked out of a moment of silence for Holocaust victims, and other reprehensible aspects - followed by 2) several paragraphs which in your own words are a refutation of neo-Nazi perspective, rather than related to the majority argument against the bombing of Dresden or the bombing of Dresden in any other aspect.
I'm not going to endlessly refute you on the same points. I've assumed good faith for over a month, as anyone who reads Archive 16 (which includes discussion as recent as last week) and the current page can see. I'm getting very tired of playing counterpoint to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. arimareiji (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, please note that claiming to have added to the anti-bombing section doesn't exactly enhance your credentials, when your additions are most frequently weak straw men followed by immediate refutation. I don't know what ax you have to grind, and I don't think it matters. But I don't think any reasonable neutral third party would dream that you're really an anti-bombing advocate whose extensive additions to the pro-bombing arguments and weakening of the anti-bombing arguments shouldn't be questioned. The article is already strongly pro-bombing by contrast to actual worldview of the bombing, and I hope it can be returned to NPOV. Point of fact, thank you for requesting additional input - it's badly needed to restore a balance. arimareiji (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Recently I have not added anything that could be described as "refutations to the anti-bombing side." [I] added a couple of sentences to a new section which explained a point in the new paragraph the text was "Neither of which were something that the RAF, flying at night, could have precisely targeted with the available technology (hence their reliance on night time area bombing), and the USAAF did target the railway marshalling yards." Which is neither a statement for or against the bombings." (by PBS (talk)
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that adding that sentence right after (paraphrased) "Many critics of the bombing point to the fact that if they were aiming for strategic targets like the railway yards, they did almost no damage and missed by several miles" is not intended as a refutation? And do you think that "recently" means we should pay no attention to a pattern of doing this for years, but "only" a few times in the last month? arimareiji (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please can we set aside personal differences, and get back to concentrating on whether removing all criticism of the far right the section "Far-right in Germany" is within the WP:NPOV policy. --PBS (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "personal differences" or "personal attacks" to provide quotes disproving false assertions, or to post examples of a long history of disruptive editing. I hesitate to use that term, but that's exactly how WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT describes continually reiterating arguments and false invocations of policies that contradict the actual behavior as if they haven't been repeatedly disproven at length - by a series of editors, over a period spanning years.

If you're that eager to write a lengthy section on neo-Nazis, there's an article for that. The bombing of Dresden isn't it. It is NOT in line with WP:NPOV (specificially WP:UNDUE) to keep trying to make the majority of the anti-bombing section about a fringe minority of neo-Nazis. The actual sources discuss the neo-Nazis "hijacking" memorials of the event to get attention, not how they supposedly contribute to honest debate.

If you're that concerned about an "unbalanced" picture of the neo-Nazis, perhaps their section should be cut altogether? They are, after all, not the subject of this article. If they belong at all, it's only as a grace note that they've tried to portray themselves as bombing opponents, though neutral sources say that they're only trying to get attention. arimareiji (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me throw in my C$0.05 (inflation). I'm finding the first edit pro-bombing, but not strongly so. The argument is reasonably balanced, AFAICT (following Terraine, for 1). I think there's too much on the "antis" (or the right wing loonies), which I find OT, & not enough on the anti argument. Discussion of BC inaccuracy is out of bounds; by 1945, it wasn't in play, with H₂S, Gee & Oboe, & Pathfinder Mossies. I don't find the targeting argument persuasive; most of the industrial plants (as at Hiroshima) were on the outskirts, & thus untouched. Moreover, by now BC & AAF had (surely) achieved the "pickle barrel" accuracy AAF'd been bragging on since, oh, 1937, when the Norden was standardized; hitting within around 100m was quite possible, which should've sufficed (& if you can't hit a railyard, you've no business claiming any pretense of accuracy). I'm pleased to see the defended/undefended issue raised; most opponents of bombing ignore it. The "war crime" issue seems glossed over, to me, in the face of def/undef; it was also a war crime, if I understand the Hague Con language, to deliberately target civilians, & Winston, Lindemann, Portal, & Harris unquestionably did that, at Dresden & elsewhere. I'm not persuaded by the "military necessity" argument, because it was using a sledgehammer to crack an egg, & because I may be suffering from 20/20 hindsight. I'm also pleased to see the usual nonsense of "bombing or nothing" wasn't raised. That said, I can't suggest changes that wouldn't push the POV to the other side; it's a knife-edge issue, IMO, & I'm on the anti side, for ethical & effectiveness reasons (which don't bear on bombing Dresden proper). I would ask if there's a source that measures the effect of this attack against using the aircraft on other targets, like oil or transportation (Harris' notorious "panaceas") & see if it did offer a benefit, or actually did harm; as Terraine cogently puts it, "It wasn't that Bomber Command was irrelevant to the war; it's that the war was irrelevant to Bomber Command." TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please feel absolutely free to chip in. I take absolutely no WP:OWNership of the article, and I'm glad for the help of anyone who can put their POV aside to improve the article's quality and neutrality. The task has daunted me somewhat. You might be interested in pulling up older versions of this article for ready-made material that's worth adding back in to correct the imbalances you noted... I've been surprised to see how much good material has been cut to make room for weak straw men that I've been trying to uproot.

If you have a very dark sense of humor - try "diff"ing article mainspace between now and a couple of months ago, to get a firsthand feel for the edits that some persistently defend as being "NPOV." It'll be useful for context when they start arguing for them again, so that you don't have to waste time re-rebutting old claims that have been repeatedly disproven. And it'll be much faster than paging though the discussions. arimareiji (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Comfort break

If I remember correctly, a party getting at least 5% of the vote gets seats in Parliament. I assume this also applies to regioanl Parliaments. If so, the NPD ("Neo-Nazis") are presumably a party represetned in Parliament. Detestible though they are (my POV on them), their political view on the subject is a notable one. It should thereofre be retained. However, I would not want to see it expanded beyond its current short paragraph. I note that this is referenced; I therefore assume it is WP:V as being their view. AS to the subject of the bombing in general, war is a nasty business; and information is frequently incomplete. The result is that things sometimes happen, which their perpetrators regret afterwards. The obvious case of that is so-called "friendly fire". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, albeit only the Parliament of the Saxony region. Somewhat like a state Legislature, IIRC. But their promotion of "Bombenholocaust," and other antics, have come close to earning a ban on the party and/or prosecution of party leaders. arimareiji (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion - I was being a bit too sarcastic in suggesting that the NPD section should be removed. My only point was to assert that it would be better to remove it altogether than to re-expand it to become the majority of the anti-bombing section. arimareiji (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More non NPOV structural problems

The problem with the current structure and the new two quotes added to the article today is that it overemphasise one point of view and makes it difficult to give a balanced POV. For example this edit which added a quote to the start of a section, needs to be balanced with the thoughts of the Telford Taylor council for the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials on Leo Kuper's qualifications to comment on this area of international law When people kill people "The author [Leo Kuper] is a specialist in African studies, ..." "... and that declaration raises legal problems, in the handling of which Professor Kuper is insecure." --PBS (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. One new quote. The other was transposed within the section.
2. I moved the existing quote to the top of its section as a deliberate contrast - it establishes the basis of the argument that it wasn't a war crime, and should be given equal weight to the argument that it is a war crime.
3. Alternately, do you mean that adding material to the arguments against the bombing section is POV if it's... well, an actual argument against the bombing? I'm not sure I understand.
4. You've completely lost me with the last bit - why does someone who's not cited in the quotes, and who per your quotes doesn't seem to be related to the subject, need to be added?

arimareiji (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry wrong genocide scholar. But the point is the same. Yes I mean that not adding material that contradicts those who think it was a war crime to this section (as there is no section called "It was not a war crime" and there does not need to be) it leads to an article with a slant towards a non neutral point of view. --PBS (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From a German perspective

There's an increasing awareness of the German victims of WWII. This can be covered with stories in mainstream media that have no affiliation with the many far right parties. The far right parties have, like they did also during the demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, tried to hijack an idea of the mainstream and represent it sligthly modified within the light of their ideology. I urge to reduce the section about the far right in size and make a difference between them and a mainstream tabloid like the bild. Currently, it sounds like the whole debate is initiated from the Neonazis. That's not true, films like Anonyma are shown now because of the increasing awareness of Germans as victims (what doesn't mean that it's forgotten what many of them did, but that's more an issue of the 68 revolts). I hope that helped to catch the zeitgeist. If you have more questions or need help researching the story in German magazines, just write on my talk page. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a quote from bild, which is the mainstream tabloid of Germany. It's more on the conservative site, but not far right. The other influential German source is the spiegel. It's a magazine with a high circulation among intellectuals. The Dresden bombing was a coverstory of this magazine, but don't nail me to the date. I'm very busy, so going through the last years of the spiegel will take me some time. As part of the wider debate about Germans as victims, read about the controversy concerning the Zentrum gegen Vertreibung. It's part of the starting point of the whole concept of Germans as victims. I can also try to find German history schoolbooks where at least since the 90s the rapes by the Russians and the allied bombing of civilian targets such as Dresden are discussed. Wandalstouring (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should be careful to "judge" actions that were taken more than 60 years ago by moral standards of today. The German Historical Museum (DHM) explains the bombings with the doctrine of area bombardment with its aim to break the German population [5]. Today, we know that this was not successful. The DHM view reflects the views of modern German historians, see also Volker Ullrich's review of Frederick Taylor's book on the bombing of Dresden [6]. Ullrich is a historian working for the liberal German newspaper Die Zeit. Put in the historical context, Harris' strategy was not unusual in the 1940s, Germany's Luftwaffe was just not equipped to have carried out the same strategy. However, it was tried from the Blitz to operation "Springbock" and the V1/V2 rocket attacks. USAAF General Curtis LeMay wanted to bomb the Japanese back to the stone age, and succeeded to kill some 130,000 Japanese in Tokio in March 1945. However, the Japanese did not falter until the A-bombs were dropped, which were the "perfect" weapon for area bombardment. In my opinion, most Germans today share the DHM view, besides a few, who like to have lived 70 years ago. Cobatfor 1:00 13 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about strategy; it wasn't "Harris' strategy", it was Churchill's, based on faulty research by Lindemann, & it was without any confirmatory evidence while it was being executed, Harris' "because it's never been tried" notwithstanding. It didn't take "today's moral standards" to realize Bomber Command had got it wrong. Moreover, it was morally corrupt in its expenditure of Allied lives, sending aircrews (in unescorted bombers! in daylight! what in hell was AAF thinking?!) against known targets, targets the enemy knew bombers would return to, with defenses that would inevitably get stronger with time. If we're going to castigate Haig for this at Verdun (for instance), we damn sure should Harris & Spaatz, et al. for this.

Let's also be very clear about Winston's need (politically) to be seen to be doing something, which is at least part of the reason Hitler supported V1s/V2s.

Let's finally be very clear about the atomic bomb. The Soviet declaration of war did more to cause Japan to "falter" than the Bomb; recall, firebombing had been going on for months, & in the Japanese mind, there was little qualitative difference to the Bomb, despite the popularly accepted view in the U.S. (& doubtless elsewhere). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The context you're all talking about is valuable, and it's something I've been wanting to add. (But please feel free to pre-empt me, as I don't know how long it might take me.) Personally, I think it's a mistake to treat Dresden as though it were a special case - the military aspect is incomplete unless it sets the context that this was part of a wider strategy euphemized as "area bombing" and "total war." Contrasting it to the results of Coventry et al, due to the "improvement" of concentrating firepower within time and space to cause a firestorm, might also be useful. arimareiji (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Took a first pass. Deleting some of the block quotes for appearance reasons; I find it better to summarize. (I had a prof nail me for overuse of quotes, once.)

Also, I deleted this

"Vonnegut was a combat infantryman in the 106th United States Infantry Division. He was captured during the Battle of the Ardennes and sent to an underground POW camp in the city, where he witnessed the bombing and cleanup efforts first-hand. Vonnegut and his fellow American prisoners of war were locked in a cell in an underground meatlocker of a slaughterhouse that had been converted to a prison camp. The administration building had the postal address Schlachthof Fünf (Slaughterhouse Five) which the prisoners took to using as the name for the whole camp.

& the NPD (CCF?) election results as OT.

I'd add in Portal & Lindemann as potential war crime subjects if I could source it as being raised; does them being jointly architects of the strategy get it done? That's in Terraine, IIRC. Also, in re my comments on it being unethical from a purely Allied POV, ignoring fx on Ger civilians, is that worth adding, or is that OT?

FWIW, after looking at the back & forth in the history, I can only say I'm not stepping into that crossfire. I'm gonna stay on the fringe & snipe when something EZ pops its head up. ;D I also am less than certain I can leave by own biases at the door, here, so I'm gonna stay away from the difficult calls, post my concerns, & let those better disciplined (or not, judging by the history...) to handle it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:17 & 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head - the only people sufficiently stubborn to continue work on this contentious subject are those who care about it in one way or another. QED, no one can work on it since everyone's biased...

Having a POV isn't disqualifying - only if you try to insert that POV by removing the other side's arguments or weakening them, twisting evidence, conflating the other side with Goebbels and neo-Nazis (or alternately with Hitler and Pol Pot), exaggerating your own evidence, etc. arimareiji (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's where I (& I imagine lots of people) get in trouble. If you care enough to bother, you risk getting too involved & (deliberately or not) letting your own views slip in. I'm aware of my tendency that way, so I take pains to avoid it. (That's why I wouldn't even touch a Mark 14 torpedo page til it was well established, or it'd have been nothing but a POV screed that would've earned an AfD in a heartbeat, & rightly). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A third perspective

In attempting to respond to this RfC, I have to note that most of the material originally brought up for discussion has been so substantively changed, that this particular RfC ought now be closed. Yes, I understand that the true underlying dispute – a matter of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE remain at issue, but I would like to suggest a different tack from what has been somewhat fruitlessly been pursued to date.

Amidst the criticisms of other editors and argument focusing on “how much of what the other side wants that I don’t want”, I note that there has been to date almost no discussion of specifically what each side would like to see this section – by which I mean the entire post-war debate – be like in the end. The elements needing to be addressed don’t seem to be at dispute, but how to fairly represent point, counter-point, and (possibly) counter-counter-point have not. Such a process framework (as opposed to the structural framework, which can be adapted to suit) might better enable a collegial solution.

I would also suggest that, for the benefit of the reader, more effort be made to provide the context of the evolution of debate in both its moral and military dimensions. The debate has a history of development and the passage of time alters perceptions due to increasing emotional distance and changing cultural mores. Focusing on the evolution of the debate, instead of on who gets in the “last word”, might further help shape a consensual and less confrontational development of this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the current structure:

• 5 Post-war debate
  • 5.1 That the bombing was necessary or justified
    • 5.1.1 Marshall inquiry
    • 5.1.2 U.S. Air Force Historical Division report
  • 5.2 That the bombing was not necessary or justified
    • 5.2.1 Military reasons
    • 5.2.2 Allegations that it was a moral tragedy, but not a war crime
    • 5.2.3 Allegations that it was a war crime
    • 5.2.4 Far-right in Germany

Is that some editors are suggesting that no negative criticism of a position can be added to a section because it is in the "necessary or justified" or "not necessary or justified" and only text with advances those sections should be in those sections. I think this is a misinterpretation of [WP:NPOV]] and I think the quickest way to fix it would be to remove the empty section headings "5.1 That the bombing was necessary or justified" and "5.2 That the bombing was not necessary or justified" then each section can carry both for and against arguments. --PBS (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Pro and con lists

• "Pro & con lists are an improvement (for Wikipedia's purposes) over thread-mode discussions." Volleying arguments back and forth, such as PBS adds (see Examples 1 and 2), are not preferred.
• "Pro & Con lists have a tendency to encourage forbidden primary research, by encouraging contributors to add to one side or another to balance out the other side-the problem being that the contributor himself thought of the argument." (See Example 2)

One of the assertions PBS has repeatedly made in this process is that he wants to dismantle the pro/con structure the article currently has. This would be admirable if carried out with good-faith intent, and does need to be done eventually. But a careful reading of the actual guideline, and knowledge of the edits he's made or defended, show that this is not what's called for either immediately or by this specific editor. His edits do not convert it into a more nuanced structure, they convert it into thread mode. ("Anti-bombing. Why they're wrong. Anti-bombing. Why they're wrong.") And he's only added these refutations to the anti-bombing side.

• Example 1: The majority of "That the bombing was not necessary or justified" (anti-bombing) at one time had been trimmed to a few paragraphs with weak arguments against the bombing, and several paragraphs devoted to arguments for and against a tiny majority of people who say they oppose the bombing: The "far right," or "right wing," as he calls them. Other editors and neutral sources call them "extreme right" or "neo-Nazis." (See sources in this section.)

When I first became involved in the page, I left the single paragraph describing their POV in place and moved several paragraphs of arguments against it to the "That the bombing was necessary or justified" (pro-bombing) section. This was in the mistaken belief that they were intended as good-faith argument for the bombing, since they were lengthy refutations of an "anti-bombing" position. A short revert war ensued in which PBS repeatedly reverted to this version, followed by extensive discussion on the Talk page. PBS advanced several lines of argument for why the paragraphs should be kept in the anti-bombing section, and each was refuted. Often, the material which refuted him could be found in his own links to WP policy that he claimed supported him.

In a later discussion, PBS held that "those arguments [against the neo-Nazis] were specifically introduced to refute the far right and not as part of the general debate." In my view, this means the section never belonged in the article to begin with.

• Example 2: "Recently I have not added anything that could be described as 'refutations to the anti-bombing side.' [I] added a couple of sentences to a new section which explained a point in the new paragraph the text was "Neither of which were something that the RAF, flying at night, could have precisely targeted with the available technology (hence their reliance on night time area bombing), and the USAAF did target the railway marshalling yards." Which is neither a statement for or against the bombings." (by PBS (talk))

This unproven WP:OR sentence was added right after (paraphrased) "Many critics of the bombing point to the fact that if they were aiming for strategic targets like the railway yards, they did almost no damage and missed by several miles," and was clearly meant as a refutation. "Recently" skirts the fact that he's made similar edits repeatedly over the last two years, but "only" a few times in October and November.

Finally, please note that other editors are discussing more nuanced changes already, such as contrasting the information and assumptions that decisionmakers had at the time of the bombing to what is known now. This process will only be impeded by taking time to repeatedly disprove PBS' continuing advancement of his particular take on the matter.

This section is meant to add context to an assertion that has been made repeatedly with no substantial change. It can be copy/pasted as needed when the assertion is made again with no substantial change. arimareiji (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that the comment "Neither of which were something that the RAF, flying at night, could have precisely targeted with the available technology (hence their reliance on night time area bombing),[Max Boot (2006), War Made New Gotham, ISBN 1592402224, 9781592402229 p. 278. Taylor pp. 294, (See creep-back). R.E. Hardy. Some Aspects of Night Bombing over Europe, Military History Journal - Vol 4 No 6, The South African Military History Society. (see LORAN)] and the USAAF did target the railway marshalling yards. [Taylor 365,(confused some documents "Marshalling Yards" some "Dresden center of built up area Deresden")"] is not original research, and as I asked before if I put in sources for it would you still delete it from the paragraph? --PBS (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Askari Mark I would be interested to hear your opinion on the problems (or not) of the current structure of the sections in this part of the article. --PBS (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to branch off the far-right from a discussion about the analysis according to the laws of war. Let's better make it part of the cultural impact. While many German cities were bombed the Dresden bombing is well remembered by the Germans. We should provide an analysis how and why this is the case and as part of this present positions like the German far-right. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• PBS: As before, you're pointing in the general direction of sources that 1) do not directly address the topic at hand, and/or 2) are massively long to read through. As I've asked in previous instances, perhaps you could share specific quotes from these sources that support your position? If you're asserting something, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it - not on other editors to figure out why a nonspecific source doesn't support you or even contradicts you.
• I have no objection to your adding sourced material to an appropriate section. "An appropriate section" doesn't mean "convert the side you disagree with to thread-mode." arimareiji (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just bought a book about 617 Squadron of the RAF, (by Paul Brickhill) which documents several instances of the RAF targeting and destroying bridges in occupied Europe from 1943 onwards. Therfore Philip's contention that it was impossible for the RAF to do this at Dresden is manifestly absurd. Precision bombing WAS possible: one of the illustrations shows "The remarkable bombing of the Michelin factory at Clermont Ferrand" in which 617 squadron were told to hit the two factory workshops and leave the canteen. The caption of the photo says: "Centre: the two factory buildings destroyed, and lower right, the large canteen, undamaged" Colin4C (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Except this was a) not a typical BC squadron, but an elite outfit (the Dambusters), b) late in the war, when BC's overall ability to hit point targets had enormously improved & (I think) c) relatively lightly defended. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On point b the bombing of Dresden was also (very) late in the war. I think the war in Europe only went on for about three months afterwards. Precision bombing was already having an effect by 1943. On point c, Dresden WAS very lightly defended. More generally even Frederick Taylor says that the bombing could have been done differently, i.e. that the allied forces could have hit the (untouched) main industrial plants in the suburbs if they had been so minded. What I am saying contra Philip is that is was not technologically impossible for the the Allied forces to have hit the bridge to the west of Dresden, which was a major communications artery. The more I think about the whole strategy at Dresden the more bizarre it seems. In the West the allied air forces helped out the allied armies in destroying strategic bridges etc. In the East they just seemed to have wiped out city centres to no strategic benefit for the Red Army. Why the Russian airforce didn't get involved on their sector, co-operating with their army, is also a mystery...Colin4C (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you overestimate the ease in hitting a bridge. Not for nothing were GB-4 & GB-8 developed. I also think you overestimate the strategic capabilities of the Red Air Force. They were fully occupied with tactical missions, which was at about the limit of their ability; anything approaching the Lanc was a dream. Hitting factories, even, wasn't routinely possible for the bulk of BC crews as late as 1945, tho it was coming into reach; IIRC, it wasn't a snap for AAF, either.

Which is not to defend the bombing. if we accept a certain amount of "collateral damage" (in trying factories & missing) as inevitable, against what was actually done, I'd say it was wrong. I'd go further, tho. I think it was unnecessary, because it was perfectly within BC's reach to shut down production & transport of weapons without bombing the factories at all. I call that immoral & stupid, in particular for the waste of Allied aircrews to carry out the mission. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

USAFHD report

While eyeballing the claims of this document, I noticed it relies a good bit on what to us are tertiary and arguably dubious sources. For example, almost the entire fourth paragraph naming items produced at Dresden, which is cited to the USAFHD report, is cited in the USAFHD report to the source "Interpretation Report No. K. 4171, Dresden, 22 March 1945, Supporting Document No. 3."

1. This is wartime speculation (i.e. "it could be used for these"), not historical analysis.
2. It wasn't a speculation used in making the decision to bomb Dresden on 13-15 February, as is being discussed in this article - it's dated a month after that.
3. It's unverifiable unless someone is sufficiently familiar with the jargon to know how to find it based on its nomenclature. arimareiji (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of creating even more trouble, let me say I don't see your problem with the USAHD report. Wartime planning docs were full of "coulds" & "mights", since the enemy didn't routinely reveal what was actually being done where. It's a measure of how good a side's intel is when they know anyway, & how bad when they should; Luftwaffe intel, for instance, hadn't twigged to Rolls-Royce making Merlins at Crewe (which every British schoolboy knew). Moreover, Report K woudn't have been the only doc used; I'll wager its "supporting document 3" is a copy of a pre-attack assessment or target list or something. It looks to me like IRK4171 is something like a BDA report for HQ, for planning future missions. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Contrasting opinions are never trouble, if there's a legitimate point backing them. My point wasn't that it's worthless as a cite, it was that it's low-quality when applied to historical analysis for the big picture. I.e, was it REALLY necessary or was it a collective failure to question bad assumptions?

It's obviously worthwhile to show what intent was at the time, especially if it can be verified rather than possibly being selectively quoted for retroactive justification. For example: I'm sure that if they could, the authors of the infamous "to show the Russians what Bomber command can do" line would wish to erase it from any succeeding documents, but it provides valuable insight. arimareiji (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the full bomber briefing from which that comment is taken? Why do you think the comment infamous? Only months after this bombing the British people would elect a Labour government that would introduce a working social welfare system, and nationalise the basic means of industrial production in Britain. It is likely that the majority of the target readership would not have read this with the cold war interpretation that some authors put on it. --PBS (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My grasp of it is, the USAFHD report reflects the "state of the art" (if I can put it that way) of what was known about what German industry was doing, & (absent seeing a copy) I'd guess doc3 is in the same vein: informed speculation & calculated guesses. Given this is what planning the bombing had to be based on, IMO, it's a valuable look at just how thin on the ground actual facts were. That may be a defense for the bombing, BTW (tho I didn't start from that :( ).

As for "selective quoting", I'm not sure we can avoid that. Unless you mean the USAFHD report itself is, which may be. My sense of docs like it is, tho, they present a pretty fair picture, 'cause they're written as "historical" more than intended to persuade. (I stand to be corrected, tho.)

As a (roughly) contemporaneous doc, I think the USAFHD report is strong on its own merit, 'cause it shows what the thinking was of the deciders, at the time, with the facts they had, on the basis of the extant situation, minus all the 20/20 hindsight & 2d-guessing & facts not known (or knowable!) at the time, nor the different moral outlook (how much has the Bomb & MAD colored our POV on bombing?), nor the changed circumstances (60yr of peace makes wartime exigencies look a lot less attractive; would people have supported nuking Riyadh on 11/9/01 or 12/9/01, had there been anything like proof the Saudi gov't was involved?). Note, however, I think the bombing was out of bounds for how it was done, not that it was done, & this page isn't (really) the place to debate bombing policy more broadly. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you hit the nail on the head - the contemporaneous assumptions made are perfect for defense of the bombing, if they're presented as such - rather than not addressing the question of whether they've withstood historical scrutiny. In instances where they have, that should be presented as an even more powerful defense - "They made an admirably accurate guess under the worst kind of pressure." But in instances where they haven't, presenting that provides a much more balanced view. Not "Look at what these monsters did because they didn't have the benefit of hindsight," but "This was a tragic mistake, because the decisionmakers didn't know what we know now and/or made worst-case assumptions that didn't bear out."

I tend to agree with you about the accuracy of Army documents. They seldom leave out relevant material, though their conclusions are sometimes more optimistic than the material used to draw the conclusions. But I would love to (and may try to) get hold of copies of as many of these documents as possible and look through them, to see what may have been overlooked as a defense - or what may have been overlooked as a mistake.

Interesting parallel wrt nuking Riyadh. It could be argued that the increasing disdain on both sides for avoiding civilian casualties was a result of politicians needing to "Do something!" - just as ours might have in that example. Hitler bombs Coventry. Churchill wants to be seen as doing something, and bombs German cities. Hitler is personally enraged and "punishes" Churchill by bombing London. Churchill reciprocates in greater measure. Hitler reciprocates in greater measure. Ad maiores caedes, ad infinitum. (My own neologism - the first part means "To greater slaughter.") But as you said, that's much too a big can of worms to open. arimareiji (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can get the original docs, it'd be a great opportunity to see what they actually knew & what they just suspected. I completely agree, there should be a contrast with belief then & what can be confirmed since as right/wrong. I think you're absolutely right about arguing "mistake" v "crime" using the contemporaneous evidence; it's more than a bit unfair to criticize the decisions based on knowledge not in hand at the time. I'd also like to see some comment on what was expected to be achieved (on the period docs) against what actually was, with a contrast between the assessment immediately after against a historical look. To be clear, did they expect to achieve, say, a 50% reduction in production of aircraft parts? Did they? Did they think they'd destroyed 50% of factory capacity, & were they right? (I can say, but can't recall the source {...}, the Germans were very good at misleading Allied BDA by leaving factories unrepaired to hide the fact the damage was more cosmetic than substantive.)

I think you can leave out personal feeling as a factor. There was an overriding political need, a need to shore up civilian morale (as well as the government...) by the "Give it 'em back". (The demand got stronger the further from the results of enemy bombing the person was...) The recognition of that need went back to the 2d Sino-Japanese War; so long as the Chinese were able to "give back", to be appearing to do something, morale held. (This does call in question the whole Lindeman/Churchill/Portal thesis of breaking morale, doesn't it? As Galbraith said once {to Bill Buckley, IIRC}, even a bad government is preferable to a bomber overhead.) I don't know for a fact if this was a factor, & I'm even less sure it's appropriate, but I have a suspicion Winston's need to reply to V2s played a part in deciding to attack Dresden (& continuing to bomb civilian housing), for the same reasons. The bigger reasons were technical. The pols had to send bombers, & bombing civilian targets in 1940 was a percieved "no option" (& politically, it may've been true), but it was also true Bomber Command was incompetent to hit anything but cities (& that only on a good day) until (offhand) mid-'43, & USAAF precision bombing doctrine & training were, frankly, a product of a fantasy.

Starting a debate on bombing policy here isn't what I intended (despite how it may seem ;D), but I do think it should be raised somewhere. The present page doesn't address the moral/ethical issues at all, but maybe a merge/add from here can start that debate. Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aiyaa. Didn't remember until seeing it again just now, but here's an interesting point: The source used in USAFHD for "There were tons of military factories in Dresden" was a report posted a month after the bombing.

Wrt leaving out personal feelings as a factor: I didn't mean to imply Churchill's personal feelings were in play, so much as simple expediency. But I did mean to imply Hitler's personal feelings were in play, because I've seen it cited somewhere that it was at least partly motivated by petty rage.

Wrt the rest of the impetus behind it, I think we agree but with different wording. (And yours is better-phrased.)

Sorry, but I spent too much time earlier pulling together a section to counter an argument that keeps getting repeated with little variation. Hopefully, this will save time in the long run... but in the short run it means I didn't have time to look at Strategic bombing yet. I was a little confused - what specifically do you want to do with the merge/add? It'll help to know that when I do have the time later. arimareiji (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah... wrt accuracy, it's off-topic but you might be interested in Battle of the beams. Bloody brilliant for its day, pre-GPS. arimareiji (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<--Raised the ish of discussing legal/moral ishs here, which might be the better place, with a back link here. I'm not suggesting you (or we) merge/add yet, but I'm thinking any discussion of the moral/legal ishs raised here be included there, as the appropriate place, rather than here, where it's a bit OT.

As a beginning for retaliation bombing, I won't disagree Hitler's rage played a part (& his angry response is oft-cited); it continued as much for political survival (& never think Hitler wasn't a brilliant politician) as simple revenge. I saw somewhere Hitler quoted as expressing a view in this vein, but don't ask where... I think Winston relied on it solely for that, in case I wasn't clear.

I'm not sure I phrased it better as much as stole a good phrase... ;D What's the line: if you steal from one person, it's plagiarism, if you steal from 10, it's research? ;D

Thanks for the beams link, even a bit OT. More OT, have you read Jones? (I'm drawing a blank on the title... Wizard War? Most Secret War {check the link first... ;) } He covers it pretty nicely, too. Robin in the Hood ^♠♠♠♠ 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including the debate here is because one of the issues that has to be addressed are the specific moral and legal issues about this specific raid. It can be (and is) argued that justifications for hammering Essen earlier in the war (it was bombed so often and so completely that by March 1945 the RAF did use incendiaries because there was nothing left to burn), are not applicable to Dresden that was destroyed only a couple of months before the end of the war. If you wish to argue that Dresden was nothing out of the ordinary and so does not need a piece on the post war debate I think you will find you are in a minority, although Grayling would agree and bases the arguments in his book around Hamburg. --PBS (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"does not need a piece on the post war debate...you will find you are in a minority" I don't see where you get that. I'm saying the broad debate over strategic bombing's legal/moral issues don't belong in the article here, or on this page. The specific issues re Dresden are separate & not (IMO) directly related to the broader question, because they're in a framework of what was, at the time, acceptable; debate over Dresden arose even within that context, & so should be addressed with that in mind, not as a criticism of strategic bombing per se. That is, was Dresden, as you say, "nothing out of the ordinary"? If that were true, there would be no debate. What isn't in Q re Dresden, if I understand the framing of the Q, is, "should any city have been bombed?", which is a broader, OT Q better, & more aptly, addressed elsewhere. Neither, IMO, does Essen bear on it, except in a broader context better, & more aptly, addressed elsewhere, also. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it bears mention that Dresden was far from the only city where civilians were at LEAST a secondary target in WWII, though it is the most notable example culturally. The wider debate over whether a continuing strategy of doing so was moral or amoral belongs elsewhere. But the fact that civilians were targeted in Dresden means that one of the pertinent issues for Dresden is the legality/morality of targeting civilians. arimareiji (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Many civilians were killed because of the choice of target, but what is your source that civilians were directly targeted? -- PBS (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to take your request seriously (to source my sentences in Talk), since I'm not arguing for its inclusion in Mainspace. By the way, how is your search for relevant quotes instead of "somewhere in a 58k Web essay" going? arimareiji (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"what is your source that civilians were directly targeted?" Take a look at Terraine, for a start, or at Garrett's Ethics and Airpower in WW2. Or you could read this... (Scroll down to the 2d blockquote. It's quoted in Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Origins and Practice, p.36.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:55, 22 November & 14:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links?

Where have they disapeared to? I've added an external link[7] with a long text extract to Armageddon in Retrospect, but when I came here to add another link to a movie of the Bombing I was a bit perplexed. There must be a reason the External links section is missing? Anyway, the film is a UK newsreel entitled "Dresden bombed to atoms", and includes film-footage of the bombings taken from the bombers. A low resolution preview is available for free download, although the procedure is somewhat complicated.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Strafing of civilians?

The article currently contains a paragraph discussing whether or not U.S. fighter aircraft were sent on strafing missions against the suvivors, but it seems to me as if it is being discussed completely without context? Shouldnt we at least mention that the U.S. were known to have engaged in such missions before Dresden at least once? Decorated US fighter ace and later test pilot Chuck Yeager has for example revealed details of one such mission from the fall of 1944. The objective of the mission was according to him to demoralise the German population by strafing everything that moved. (all refs relate to the same passage, but diffrent pieces) ref, ref, ref ref, ref. I think we somehow should mention the fact that the alleged US airforce Dresden strafings, if they indeed hapened, would not have been a novelty.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a report about strafing of escaping civilians by the Norwegian Sverre Bergh that studied in Dresden, he was also a spy for XU and thus Secret Intelligence Service, his main task was to forward information from Paul Rosbaud about the German nuclear program. Bergh was in a large crowd that was strafed by a fighter, probably american and he witnessed several hundred casualties.

As for the debate about if strafings actually took place he wrote: "It has been claimed that the strafing of refugees in Dresden did not take place, it has even been written books about i. About this I have only one thing to say: Forget the theoretical studies about what orders that were given the pilots. Talk with people who were down there on the roads. I was there and I was not in German service. I have no interest in smearing the allied's actions." page 127, Spion i Hitlers rike (Spy in Hitler's Reich), by Sverre Bergh with Svein Sæter, Damm (2006), Oslo. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Far right in Germany" section - Community input to establish consensus

This section of the talk page is not intended as a formal Request for Comment process, but may benefit from using a similar format to achieve the following:

1. Allow everyone equal opportunity to voice their opinion.
2. Avoid the massive tl;dr discussions which have in the past made constructive debate extremely difficult.
3. Establish a nonbinding consensus on this disputed section for future reference.

If you feel this format unfairly restricts your ability to make a point, please feel free to voice this in a different section of the talk page. Likewise, please feel free to create a section with a similar format but worded to your liking. But please respect the format of this section:

1. Add your opinion to one of the three subsections (Support, Oppose, Other) under each proposal.
2. Limit your contribution to each proposal to a single bullet point, following sequential order.
3. If you later want to edit your contribution to a proposal, make the edits within your own bullet point - do not reply directly to other editors' bullet points.
4. Limit your total contribution to this section of the talkpage to 1000 bytes (characters). Not 1000 at a time, or 1000 per proposal.

---

• Proposal 1: The 4 Dec 2008 version of the "Far-right section" should be expanded significantly to remove strong POV bias. The 20 Oct 2008 version is an example of the type of expansion needed. Once this is done, the POV template can be removed.

Support

Oppose

• I believe the 20 Oct version suffers from extreme WP:UNDUE - it makes it appear as if the "far right" (called "neo-Nazis" by neutral sources) are the best example of people who think the bombing was unjustified. arimareiji (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Other

---

• Proposal 2: The 4 Dec 2008 version of the "Far-right section" needs to be substantially reworked to remove strong POV bias, but should not be expanded. Adding material will require deleting an equal or greater amount of existing material. Once this is done, the POV template can be removed. (Please specify the change(s) it needs, linking to your sandbox if necessary.)

Support

• It's not just the far right in Germany, so some rework to demonstrate this is appropriate, given mention of German politics is justified at all (which I'm not convinced of) & the whole section isn't simply merged to "opposition". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• As per my response to proposal 3. arimareiji (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Other

---

• Proposal 3: The 4 Dec 2008 version of the "Far-right section" has minimal POV bias. The POV template should be removed.

Support

• There's plenty of room for improvement, but I think the current version is well within the boundaries of not pushing a POV wrt the subject of the article (the bombing of Dresden, not the "far right"). arimareiji (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

---

Please do not edit the above section after January 1st, 2009.

Wikipedia out of balance ?/Observation and question

Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000. That's a body count of about one or two massacre operations by Germans in Poland or in Soviet Union-dozens could be named. And yet several of those massacres have a two or three sentences at best if at all. I think this article points out how special interest groups and western bias makes Wikipedia unbalanced. Why this particular bombing is being made into such spotlight event while atrocities made by Germany have sparse coverage is a point very interesting to me. Is there any study why such little event in the war came to such spotlight while others were ignored ? It seems that this not only Wikipedia's problem but this is also a problem of western histography.--Molobo (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

These are interesting points, but please remember that:

1. "This is not a forum for general discussion of Bombing of Dresden in World War II," per the top of the page.
2. Editing Wikipedia is not a zero-sum endeavour. We don't delete from one topic to make another topic more important.
3. If you believe another topic deserves greater discussion by contrast with this one, the correct way to handle it is to add to the other topic. You're not only welcome, but invited, to do so. Wikipedia grows in proportion to the number of people willing to add material they're interested in.
4. Incidentally, I can certainly empathize with your perturbation at selective historical emphasis. I have a hard time understanding why war crimes against China during WWII are hardly mentioned in Western histories, when civilian Chinese deaths (and rape, torture, biological experimentation, etc) well outnumber the victims of the Holocaust. arimareiji (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The article starts without context

It reads as on some day, bombers came and bombed the German city. A bit of context should be in the beginning. For example a line how bombing of civilian targets spreaded during the conflict. I am not for a whole history of WW2 lesson, but without any context at the article is not good.--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Post-war reconstruction and reconciliation/Balanced cultural view improvement-Bohumil Hrabal

We have a wide range of opinions and post war debate, including information about Jewish people. But it seems a view from those who worked often as slaves in Dresden classified as untermenschen is not to be seen in the article. Perhaps for balanced view we should add what Czech(Czechs were considered racially inferior by Germany and although not as harshly treated as most other Slavic people, they were victims of some massacres and discrimination) writer of world fame Bohumil Hrabal wrote about the Dresden bombing in his book Closely Watched Trains ? When those people from Dresden came, I could no longer have mercy on them, only they could have mercy on themselfs. And those Germans knew this. The chief of the train rose up and said to the Germans Sollten sie am Arsch zu Hause sitzen! --Molobo (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have good sources of material directly related to the topic, i.e. the stories of Czech laborers who were in Dresden at the time of the bombing, please feel free to add them if they're not disproportionately large. But discrimination/massacres against Czechs in Germany, the general use of forced labor, German racial attitudes, lack of sympathy for Dresdeners by Czechs, etc would not belong in this article. They would belong in their own separate articles on those topics. arimareiji (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"lack of sympathy for Dresdeners by Czechs, etc would not belong in this article" Quotes of symphathy for Germans are already included in the article(Frederick Taylor)-without any particular reason. They need to be balanced.Frankly the quote by Anglo-Saxon historian is somewhat less interesting then the quote of what Germany classifed "racially inferior" Czech in my view. Also frankly the whole article takes western-based view, with English funds and opinions, an opinion of different area is badly needed, and Hrabal provides an excellent and quite elegant opportunity.--Molobo (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the pertinent sections you're talking about that need to be balanced. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just not sure what you're referring to. arimareiji (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th century warfare and a symbol of destruction."

The quote is quite POV and out of balance. And quite Germancentric. The Dresden children were not murdeded alive by phenol injections in the chest after being kidnapped from their parents[8]. The Dresden citizens weren't classified as creatures of less rights then dogs to be hunted for extinction. Frankly saying the Dresden bombing was piece of cake compared to horrors Germany unleashed in Soviet Union or Poland(not to mention that Germans leveled their first city already in 1939 by Bombing of Frampol just as target exercise). The quote by Hrabal is quite good obseveration of different view from a one of the sides of the war. Right now we have only Taylor's quite biased outlook.--Molobo (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, that quote already encompasses both sides of the story. As you quote, Taylor says "It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period." Dresden was not particularly notable as a center of Nazi thinking or support, so I would personally disagree with his wording. But I don't disagree with the gist of what he's saying, that killing noncombatants of any stripe is morally abhorrent and that Dresden was a horror inflicted on both perpetrators and victims.

If your goal is to make sure that the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany don't go untold, I'm behind you 100%. But the appropriate expression of that is to add detail to the existing pages on those atrocities or write new ones, not to denigrate the arguable atrocity of Dresden. That sort of thinking, i.e. "They deserved what they got," is exactly what leads to such horrors in the first place.

Yes, make sure that the stories of what happened to the Czech people and other victims of World War II are not forgotten. Back it up with NPOV citations, try to avoid moralizing, write a good article that can be remembered by history. But don't try to hijack this article, overlap the tragedies of Dresden and the Czech people, or try to make people see that Dresden is unimportant by comparison. You'll only alienate readers (and editors) that way. arimareiji (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What is important that we have notable cultural work regarding Dresden, right now all cultural works are from the western world. Hrabal is a good writer to include in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#In_popular_culture for now it is dominated by western literature and culture. That's what I am proposing. --Molobo (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked into Closely Watched Trains, which appears to be an interesting film as well as novel. But it's only tangentially related to Dresden, if you consider it to be related at all. It doesn't even compare to the existing references. arimareiji (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The film was brilliant. But as I recall, the Czech station-master, who was one of the main characters, was a deluded sympathiser with the Germans who thought (in 1945...) that the Nazis were just about to stage an amazing come-back against the allied forces and restore the military glory of the Third Reich. I.e. not your average resistance film...but sort of ironic...I'd like to read the book and see what it says about Dresden etc. Colin4C (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir?

Hitler, Stalin, Castro, And of course mr. Chill What do they have in common? Ignoring the CIVIL casualties of war. dot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.201.131 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They all have O, I, or L in their names? You got me. But who was Mr. Chill, a Batman villain? arimareiji (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Taylor ref

PBS - thank you for your recent addition of a Taylor reference for that sentence to eliminate the hanging fact tag. However, I can't find a full reference anywhere for which edition, year, ISBN, book, etc of Taylor is being referred to - either above your reference, or in old versions of the page. Since you have the information on hand, could you please add it in? arimareiji (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#Shortened footnotes. The book is in the references section. --PBS (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. arimareiji (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost uniformly great work just now in shortening references. But I do take exception to your using the occasion to trim AC Grayling's relationship to the subject again, though not notaries such as Taylor. arimareiji (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet - I appreciate you coming all the way over to this page just to make that change on PBS' behalf, but this is an old argument that he was trying to sidestep by including it in a list of useful changes. If pro-bombing advocates get honorifics that demonstrate their relationship to the subject, it hardly seems logical to assert that those against the bombing should not have the same. Looking at it, I do note that it's duplicated below - and I will take that out on your behalf, though by contrast Taylor is referred to many times by honorifics. arimareiji (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the version I edited, I left his description in the text as "British philosopher", which is exactly the same as that of all the other people who are mentioned as experts. Taylor is described as "British historian" as is Beevor and Alexander McKee is described as "historian". Grayling may well be a "human rights advocate" and many other things as well, but it is his expertise as as a published philosopher that makes him a reliable source on morality. --PBS (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Taylor: Appendix A

In "Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945" Taylor looks at the strafing in Appendix A called "The 'Massacre on the Elbe Meadows'". Taylor does not hide the fact, (he does the opposite he emphasise it) that he relied on expert German historians for this analysis. He cites predominantly German historians for what happened on the ground and concludes "There is not a single expert German historian will pronounce the [strafing] incident as fact in any written work now".

Which witnesses does Taylor quote or reference which were interviewed by McKee?

AFAICT there is no mention of McKey or of his book "Dresden 1945". So as far as I can tell the edit

"In the acknowledgements, reference and body of his book, Taylor makes no reference to any putative personal first hand interviews he has conducted to witnesses of the bombing. In the body of the text, he selects most of his eye-witness material from McKee's book, selectively omitting the extensive accounts (by Kuhnemund, Waehmann etc) which testify to Mustang attacks on civilians."

is an editorial synthesis as there is no proof that "In the body of the text, [Taylor] selects most of his eye-witness material from McKee's book" (See the McKee as a source for a comment on McKee's book). --PBS (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, Philip, from your reading of the book, for this Talk page, how many eyewitnesses of the bombing does Taylor acknowledge as interviewing? I had to return my copy to the library, and now owe them huge fines, and am relying on memory. I will buy a copy of Taylor on Thursday when I get paid and confirm with you how many witnesses Taylor interviewed. As I recall it was zero, but I may be wrong...(The supposed "popular historian" McKee personally interviewed 49 witnesses of the bombing, by the way...amazingly slapdash way to conduct historical research I know, but there you have it...) Colin4C (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

McKee as a source

In the text it currently says "However, historian Alexander McKee interviewed some eyewitnesses (Gerhard Kuhnemund, Annemarie Waehmann etc.) in Dresden in the winter 1980-81 who told him strafing did occur. (cites pages 244-50)

The pages 244-250 are in a chapter called "Mummy where are you". I can find no mention in the chapter that any of these eye-witness accounts were given to McKee or his researchers in person. Some or all of them could be quotes taken from other sources because unfortunatly the source for individual eye-witness accounts are not cited. Instead at the end of the book the only clue given is in "Sources and Acknowledgements" which says "My thanks must go first to the eye-witnesses who offered their testimony especially for this book". So we know that some eye-witnesses accounts were offered to the Author for use in this book, but we do not know which ones or if the eye-witnesses had given similar accounts to other authors.

It would be better if the sentence said: "However, historian Alexander McKee quotes some eyewitnesses (Gerhard Kuhnemund, Annemarie Waehmann etc.) who state that strafing did occur". --PBS (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed McKee mention of Kurt Vonnegut because he does not say that Vonnegut made this accusation outside his novel. If Vonnegut did, then a citation for that should be given, but we can not use the content of a novel as a reliable source even if McKee does. --PBS (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

McKee seems to have been fooled by David Irving "Then in 1963, five years later, David Irving produced his book, The Destruction of Dresden. This created a tremendous furore. Undoubtedly there were some sensitive nerves about. However, Mr Irving's approach was so historically balanced and that I felt he had failed to bring out the full and terrible truths as I understood it. ..." (xxix).

It is difficult to verify what McKee has written because he does not cite his sources. There are no footnotes in his book, and the written sources at the back do not include page numbers. Also as I mentioned higher up there is no source for his eyewitness accounts, so one can not tell if he interviewed them or obtained the accounts from other sources. As he does not mention Götz Bergander book which was published five years earlier, it is impossible to tell if he was aware of Bergander's critical analysis Irving's assertions about strafing, which is a pity as his conclusions clearly refute what Bergander wrote and it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on that given his favourable mention of Irving in the forward. --PBS (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd technically differ on your description, and say source can't be asserted for specific eyewitness accounts. Just curious, have you ever come across an assertion of any given eyewitnesses' testimonies being borrowed? I'm not arguing your earlier point; I think that your wording of "However, historian Alexander McKee quotes some eyewitnesses (Gerhard Kuhnemund, Annemarie Waehmann etc.) who state that strafing did occur" is a perfectly-acceptable phrasing if the diminutive "some" is removed. I'm only curious about the reasoning; I don't question your conclusion.

Yes it happens all the time, but here is a specific example that I have just come across. Archibald Alison History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, Edition: 10, W. Blackwood, 1860 p. 200 The statements by Emperor Alexander and Marshal Ney are quoted, but they originate with other sources which are noted. The thing is that good histories even those 200 years old cite their sources, Taylor for example also footnotes his source and when the eyewitnesses spoke to him personally he notes that. That is not to say that McKee is not a good historian just that his method of citing his sources is not a good as one would expect in a history written for other historians and not the general public. --PBS (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'd amplify your statement to say I think it would be interesting to hear his thoughts all the way around, not just re: Bergander - he seems to be one of those rare birds who critically assesses what he's told, without regard to how authoritative the source is or whether it's in his ego's best interest to believe it. Not to say that his reasoning is impeccable by any means, just that I think he's one of those who tries to see with compound eyes rather than through binoculars. I suspect he would have some interesting things to say about Irving with the benefit of hindsight. arimareiji (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

McKee's "Sources and Acknowledgments" says;

"My thanks must go first of all to the eyewitnesses who offered their testimony especially for this book".

This is followed by a list of 49 named individuals, with, in the case of some of the women, updated mentions of their current married names. Included in the list are Gerhard Kuhnemund and Annemarie Waehmann who witnessed the strafing. On the third page McKee introduces another list and acknowledges gratitude to:

"the following authors, publishers and agents for permission to quote from works written in many cases by eyewitnesses to the events described".

These second-hand eye-witnesses are thus distinguished from the those in the first list. The eyewitnesses mentioned in the first list offered their testimony especially for this book. Those in the second list didn't. The first list includes Gerhard Kuhnemund and Annemarie Waehmann, therefore, logically, they too must have offered their testimony especially for this book. Which testimony included eyewitness accounts of the strafing of the civilians by the Mustangs. By the way, Irving is not mentioned in this second list, so it seems that McKee got no eyewitness data from him. McKee's Bibliography is another seperate list distinct from the two above in which he includes some 57 items, including, (boo, hiss) the dreaded Irving. Taylor also includes Irving in his bibliography. If referring in a bibiliography to Irving makes one a Nazi fellow-passenger then Taylor must be one also. Taylor, also, says some complimentary things about Irving in his book.... McKee was famous for using eye-witness accounts which he had personally gathered in most of his acclaimed books on World War Two. His books are better researched than most stuff by puffed up academics on the subject. Colin4C (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Götz Bergander, Dresden im Luftkrieg. Vorgeschichte - Zerstörung - Folgen

In "The Bombing of Dresden in 1945: Misstatement of circumstances: low-level strafing in Dresden", Richard J. Evans, makes the point that Götz Bergander in "Dresden im Luftkrieg. Vorgeschichte - Zerstörung - Folgen. (Cologne/Vienna, 1977), 2nd. ed. 1985. (Bergander was a Hitler Youth flak gunner at the time of the attack and Irving interviewed him for his book.)" ... "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. ... "Bergander's criticism of this account was devastating in its detail. Irving dates the strafing to the day of the 14th and attributes them to the Americans, but many witnesses likewise claimed to have been seen strafing during the British attack the night before. Bergander first explained how it was impossible that the British could have undertaken such attacks on the night of the 13th and exactly why many people may have believed that dive-strafing was taking place. He pointed out that there never would have been enough surplus fuel on such an extended flight over Germany to descend slowly, circle and then regain height. He noted that it would have been unthinkable to risk such valuable machines in low level-flying, at night, over unknown territory. Lancasters were long range-range bombers and unsuitable for such attacks; the smaller mosquitoes were used to drop the initial markers, and were likewise unsuitable for such attacks."

Should we mention that Bergander's book was a critique of Irving's book , or leave it out? --PBS (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm perturbed by what I see as inappropriate conflation by Evans. It seems to me that his argument, with Bergander as a cite, is: "Irving (and later Vonnegut, for that matter) asserts the Americans strafed on the 14th. He cites witnesses for it. But witnesses also said they saw the Brits strafe on the 13th. The Brits could not and would not have strafed on the 13th. Therefore no strafing occurred at all." I don't understand how this contradicts Irving's "Americans on the 14th" claim. If the perceived contradiction rests in guilt-by-association (i.e. since some witnesses were wrong, all of them must be), I don't buy it. If I missed a nuance (entirely possible), please point it out to me? arimareiji (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I was asking was if we should mention that Bergander's book was a critique of Irving's book or leave that detail out.

BTW Taylor fills in more details. For example Irving claimed that 37 American P-51 Mustangs in at the end of the raid at 12:23 and strafed the meadows were from 20th Fighter Group's A Group, but Bergander proved that that particular group were over Prague at that time where the raid did indeed end at 12:23 while the Dresden raid did not finish until 12:31. Another example that Irving uses is a fighter from 55th Fighter Squadron which was strafing so low that it crashed into railway wagons, and while it is true that on such fighter was lost from that squadron it was lost 210 miles from Dresden on its way back from Prague. --PBS (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Such would certainly be a pertinent source; it sounds as though Evans is (unintentionally, I'm sure) weakening Bergander's actual arguments. Sorry it took me so long to reply. arimareiji (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Gerhard Kuhnemund and Annemarie Waehmann who McKee got personal eyewitness reports of the the strafing of the civilians, after Bergander published his book, proved in advance by Bergander to be liars? Can historians authoritively pronounce on the truth of what eyewitnesses will say several years after their books are published? Are they infallible futurists? Evans' assertion that "Irving's is the last account in which any credence is given to the story." is untrue because McKee, not relying on Irving but on personally gathered eye-witness accounts and whose book was published in 1982, also gives credence to the story. Maybe Evans is not infallible but - like a human being - sometimes makes mistakes. The idea that because Evans was attacking the Nazi sympathiser Irving that he is therefore infallible is not logical. IMHO it is right and good to attack Nazi sympathisers, but it does not make one infallible. Colin4C (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what Gerhard Kuhnemund said to Alexander McKee in 1980 (quoted in McKee 1982: 246-247):

"Shortly after midday, we were suddenly and unexpectedly attacked by American planes. No sirens had been sounded. Amongst these people who had lost everything in a single night, panic broke out. Women and children were massacred with cannon and bombs. It was mass murder. Even today, after thirty-five years, there still exist historians who claim that during this daylight raid no low-flying aircraft were used. This claim is totally false. While we literally clawed ourselves into the grass, I personaly saw at least five American fighter-bombers, which from an altitude of approximately 120 - 150 metres opened fire with their cannon on the masses of civilians"

Note the absolute presumption of this eyewitness in dismissing the sacred testimony of an historian and instead believing his own eyes! Just to add that I added Kuhnemund's "thirty-five years" to the date of the massacre (1945) and came out with the result 1980. If this is original research then strike all this from your memory and believe the war-crimes apologist Taylor instead. Annemarie Waehmann (page 245) and Otto Sailer-Jackson (page 247) also give long circumstantial accounts of Mustangs strafing civilians and inter-alia strafing some of the animals at Dresden Zoo: "Then he flew low over the Zoo and made several firing runs at anything he could see that was still alive. In this way our last giraffe met her death". Vonnegut, of course, also mentions the strafing of civilians, in Slaughterhouse Five, but this, of course, must be completely fictional and totally unrelated to the experience of Kuhnemund, Waehmann and Sailer-Jackson who totally co-incidentally mentioned the same thing. That Vonnegut was there at the time of the bombing is also a completely immaterial. No doubt the sinister figure of Irving, using his mind-control and time-travelling techniques is behind all these eye-witness reports. Or maybe they saw some low flying storks dropping crap and confused them with aircraft...and the giraffe died of a heart attack as the crap struck him...So it goes...Colin4C (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Total War

Hard to see why the Bombing of Dresden is so controversial. It's an excellent example of total war. Case closed. On that note, this article could be cleaned up for sure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ DUB (talk • contribs) 18:34, 31 January 2009

That's why it is so controversial. Some us are for total war, and some of us against it. From your comments, I would say you are for it. Wallie (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But if total war is the reason why Dresden is so controversial why isn’t the bombing of Hamburg, Berlin or Tokyo more controversial considering the destruction and death toll inflicted. The premise would then be its not. I agree with CJ - i cannot understand why the bombing of the city is so controversial in light of other Allied and Axis actions.

I wouldn’t suggest that one can be a "supporter of total war" its more of an actuality than a point of view; a necessary evil, which both sides employed in pursuit of victory.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The road leads to Dresdon is paved by rubbles from ruins of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry --Kallgan (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Dresden is the 'Line in the Sand' expression. When Hamburg was so horrible bombed, however sickening, the point could be made that Docks and Infra-structure were being taken out of the hands of a Government of Mass Murderers. You could argue the same for Berlin. There is a major problem with Dresden. What was the Nazi War machine deprived of at the cost of unimaginable suffering by the people of Dresden?. 'There is a line in the sand, and we crossed that line at Dresden'Johnwrd (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks about whether Dresden was right or wrong. That is TOTAL war. PERIOD. Classic example. Why the excuses? That's how you win: destroy opponent's ability to make war and above all THE WILL TO MAKE WAR. If you think that somehow excuses killing women and children, then you need to pick up a history book. CJ DUB (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Death toll

I changed the death toll accordung to the committee of historians commissioned by the city of Dresden. Their report can be found here (in German). Anyone capable of the German language will notice that the current version of the article doesn't tell the right numbers. --85.179.85.211 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The attached article seems to quote a number of possibilites. There is a conservative estimate of 18000-25000, another of 35000 and yet another of 40000. Wallie (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

path finders (raf)

Regarding the indiscriminat bombing of dresden and the arguement that by flying at night there was less chance of hitting the industrial targets i would like to draw you attention to the work of the raf pathfinders who marked targets for following bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.123.7 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

new article in the Spiegel

Here is a new interview in English with a historian in the Spiegel that confirms the presentation in this article. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is plain rubbish of the first order! Portal was a Marshal of the RAF and Air Chief Marshal Harris's boss. He could have ordered Harris to stop. The reality was that Portal and Churchill were the true criminals. Harris was motivated by winning the war, and genuinely believed this was the way to do it. Portal was the one who bombed Berlin at the start of the war, the first to deliberately target civilians in Germany or the UK. Churchill thought he did a great job, and put him in charge. When public opinion turned against what Churchill described as "terror bombings" (after Dresden), Portal and Churchill tried to blame Harris. It worked then. Now the facts are out there, people now know who the real criminals are: Portal and Churchill. Wallie (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Harris was right, buddy. CJ DUB (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

The use of the term "consensus" in the end note for the estimated number of people killed is somewhat curious. Citing a few sources doesn't necessarily prove that there is a consensus or that the "fact" that is being presented is accurate. No doubt the figure of 250,000 is much too high, but it would seem to me that the attempts to place it at a much lower number is politically and ideologically motivated. But of course to even question the accuracy of the lower figures automatically puts one in the "holocaust denial" catagory. How very convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.7 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

At the very lowest estimate of 18,000 people, this is still a very large number. Even in today's brutal climate, such a large number of innocent civilians killed by the British might raise some queries in polite conversation. Wallie (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets try and be neutral here, it was a combined RAF-USAAF raid i.e. the people killed were killed by bombs dropped by Anglo-American personnel (possibly others too) not just British flyboys. To a lesser effect there is also the German armed forces and civilian infrastructures own reasonability too.

However to the original poster, perhaps the ideological and political bias you have labelled over the “low figure” might be also applied to your own point of view considering your little quip; do you have modern sources that put a lower figure in doubt? I think the article at the moment does a very good job at showing the varying casualty figures and doesn’t give to much weight to the figure you disagree with.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the bit about RAF-USAAF. Both air forces were involved. I am not so sure about German "responsibility". All aspects should be covered. Wallie (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The city was defended, it was not an open city. And if one recalls correctly the civillian/military government did not do enough to provide adqueate protection/shelters for the civie population.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Ah just noticed PBS beat me to the punch about shelter.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Another contributing factor to the large loss of life in Dresden was the lack of preparation for the effects of air-raids by Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann. For example there were "breakthroughs" linking the cellars of contiguous buildings but with no escape tunnels at the end of the linked cellars, so people tried to escape the flames only to be trapped in the last cellar with no possibility of escape as all above them was burning." Also no hochbunkers which were built in many other German towns of comparable size. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Grass = "Former Waffen SS member" not "Author and Nobel prize recipient"?

I find it slightly not neutral to in this way underlining his short and rather coincidental membership of the SS and the same time not mentioning what i see as his primary merits. This could discredit his view in this context more than what is fair, for readers not knowing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NEKEV (talk • contribs) 07:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, therefore have changed the description of him to "German author". This is along the same line as descriptions of other people in the article, eg. British historan. Logicman1966 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Understanding a Tragedy

With the utmost of respect for the suffering of the people of Dresden, we must see the wider picture. The arguments put forward for the justification of the Raid have been convincingly disputed here and elsewhere. But what of the Air Raid preparedness in Dresden?. Was the Air Raid Siren working that tragic night? (some say 'yes' other witnesses say car horns were used to warn people). The elderly people who tragically burned to death because they could not get out of burning homes, were not moved before to safer locations. Just what kind of Air Raid shelters suffocate the occupants? (well documented). We must try to understand why so many people died in Dresden that night. However much we empathise with victims of the Raid, we are still left wondering why so many civilians died. Can any Wikipedea Contributor enlighten us?.Johnwrd (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious - you say you have 'the utmost of respect for the suffering of the people of Dresden', yet the thrust of your argument appears to be based on victim blaming.... Logicman1966 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Another contributing factor to the large loss of life in Dresden was the lack of preparation for the effects of air-raids by Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann." --PBS (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3 primary reasons for the large loss of life are - (1) there were hundreds of thousands of refugees in Dresden at the time, with little or no shelter. (2) the bombing targeted the densely populated city centre. (3) the bombing was intense enough to create a firestorm. There are of course other reasons, but to blame the victim is disgraceful. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Many German cites centres were densely populated and targeted by the Allies. There were two other factors present the weather and Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann's maladministration ("little or no shelter" -- shelters were built in many other German cities, why not in Dresden?). As Mutschmann was not a victim of the bombing, I don't see how you can say laying some of the blame him is "to blame the victim". --PBS (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol victim blaming. The residents of Dresden earned the right to be anihilated by supporting the German war effort. Wake up and read a history book. CJ DUB (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thousand-Bomber Raid Redirects Here

The Wikipedia entry for thousand-bomber raid redirects to this page. Why? The thousand-bomber raids as I understand it were in 1942. More info here: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/thousands.html Nigenet (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That should probably be modified. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have removed that redirect now. That leaves an empty page though. I'm sure some experts will be along shortly to repopulate it with tasty information :-) Nigenet (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)