Where explanation daddy?
Dresden was a German city that was a target of concentrated firebombing by American and British Bomber Command during WW2. American and British Bomber Command often disagreed on targets, both in purpose and in choice - American Bomber Command in Europe prioritized industrial targets; British Bomber Command preferred ‘terror bombing’ in retaliation for Nazi bombers over British cities (American Bomber Command over Japan embraced terror bombing). Dresden, however, was both a large industrial and logistics hub and a prominent German city; furthermore, the Soviets requested that Dresden be targeted to relieve pressure on the Eastern Front, as many Nazi troops and equipment passed through Dresden on their way to the Eastern Front.
Dresden was… obliterated. The full force of both the British and American air forces in Europe were concentrated on the city, and the firebombing was so intense that it created self-sustaining wind systems during the burning - a phenomenon known as a ‘firestorm’. Naturally, this is a very distressing event, and many of the civilians in Dresden remembered the situation with horror.
Nazi propaganda played up the bombing, however, increasing the claimed civilian deaths by an order of magnitude (~25,000 dead in reality - 200,000 claimed by the Nazis), and the revulsion towards firebombing and attacks on cities in the postwar period has led many to embrace such revisionism to claim that not only was Dresden unnecessary (debatable, but a legitimate objection) but a defenseless and militarily irrelevant target (both demonstrably untrue).
Holy shit, the number in Slaughterhouse 5 is from Nazi propaganda and I believed it for like 20 years. Thanks for the correction!
It was pushed quite hard by a postwar historian by the name of David Irving, who was later discredited for being… well, a pro-Nazi piece of shit. But at the time Slaughterhouse 5 came out, it could still pass amongst the public as cutting-edge popular history, so Vonnegut being taken in by it is more a reflection of the time.
Kurt Vonnegut did actually go through Dresden during the war though. Some aspects of the story in Slaughterhouse 5 were his own observations.
The number of deaths cited are what’s in question.
Also just read the Wikipedia and the strength of each side in the conflict:
Nazi Germany:
- 28 Messerschmitt Bf110s
- Anti-aircraft guns
UK&US:
- 769 Lancaster Bombers
- 527 B-17s
- 794 P-51 Mustangs
- 9 De Havilland Mosquitos
Bomber Harris was not fucking around.
well… so it goes
Same, and I just finished the book for the 5th time last week!
What I do believe is that firebombing a city or dropping nukes on one is only a war crime if you lose the war.
War is such a bummer. Human beings created the airplane, and it only took them ~37 years to create firestorms with them.
Haha, that was fast.
I’m wondering what is OP’s exact opinion. The meme paints a simple picture, while one of their comments above is more nuanced, agreeing with the legitimacy of debates around the bombing.
I think this is a hard topic due to the post-war propaganda numbers, even the wikipedia page is full of arguments and issues. Still, 25k civilians dead in just a few days of bombing, still horrible. I am not a historian, so I’m not going to cross-reference bombing locations with a 1945 map of the city, to argue wether or not the attack was sufficiently focused on industrial/military targeted, or was it just a pure terrorbombing of civilians.
We also have to of course consider the accuracy of the available weaponry, availability of intel, expectations on the Eastern front, etc. It’s easy to be smart in hindsight. I would say debatable, but also acceptable looking back, similar to the nuclear bombs against Japan, though I think those had a bigger effect on the war, and the World Order after.
And one thing that would open an even more divisive discussion: I wonder how many of those who agree with these attacks, are now critique Israel for the large civilian death toll of Palestenians.
I was there a couple of months ago. Very nice city. Some buildings are still black. Also, this:
Ah no. The black stone was 99 % the local sandstone. It is yellow-brown in the beginning, but over the years it gets black.
The reconstructed Frauenkirche is a mixture of black and yellow, because the yellow stones are new ones and the black ones are re-used from the old destroyed church. In stone decades, it will completely black again. Edit: some of course, but the autocorrect error is too fitting to correct.
I would be interested to know who exactly OP thinks would find these pills hard to swallow.
There are, unfortunately, a great many people who like to take any opportunity to shill “Both Sides Bad!”, even if it means using literal Nazi propaganda as their basis. Some are ideologically motivated; many are simply contrarians who feel smug about going against “the consensus”.
Propaganda, unfortunately, works, even long after its creators are dead.
Yes, but who are these people?
I’m German and except the small minority of backwards thinking neo nazi pricks I don’t see and hear much of these “great many people” you speak of. Granted, I live in liberal minded Berlin so my perception of this may be a little less objective. I’m not trying to contradict you, I’m genuinely interested who you refer to exactly.
In the US, it’s common for both Wehraboos (folks who are not Nazis per se, but with an unhealthy interest in Nazi militaria and susceptible to some of the more ‘palatable’ Nazi propaganda) and campists (folks who think that everything the West has ever done is Bad) to take up such contrarian views.
I really didn’t know there were this many people in America holding that belief. Despite Trump and MAGA I still kinda hoped that this would be a fringe view held by only the most delusional people over there.
It’s really disconcerting to find myself to be more accepting of reality than the people whose ancestors freed us from tyranny.
I think they mean “on the internet.” I dunno, maybe I’m fortunate to live in a progressive state, but the way I read about it on Reddit and Lemmy, I should be running into Nazis left and right.
I watched a documentary about a guy that went undercover with a lot of alt-right crazies. Proper straight up 1488 neo-nazi types. The guy offhandedly mentioned that they did initiations and filmed recruitment videos… in the town next to mine.
It’s generally extremely Republican-leaning here, full on MAGA signs in lawns type shit. I still did not expect that. I’ve never actually run into someone that was a blatant Nazi. I think they just keep a lid on this shit in public.
I have met a few ‘just asking questions’ types, though.
We elected and reelected a party that is establishing a facist theocracy and destroying established science in favor of fringe craziness. The Charlottesville march, the AMC church shooting, ICE, and just all the actions of this current US administration have the support of at least 30% of the country.
I dont run into these people because I don’t approach people with that vibe and I don’t work with people likely to espouse those views. But they do exist and aren’t quiet about it if they think they can get away with it.
Oh yeah, mostly online. Though, having lived in a conservative area for much of my younger life, I can assure you that a very nonzero amount of otherwise nice folk in America hold some really bizarre views on… various historical events, WW2 included.
It’s a minority, but a loud minority.
A fifth of your country vote for nazis, and another third don’t mind them. Time to get out of Berlin a bit. AfD voters don’t really hide anymore
The fifth of my country who vote for the AfD are historically illiterate and uneducated people by and large. I reckon most of them couldn’t even tell you the year the Dresden bombing happened. Many of them would find OP’s pills hard to swallow only because they’re too dumb to find their own mouth.
Also, Berlin is a progressive island surrounded by a sea of assholes, that’s why I prefer staying here.
Oh yes, Kurt Vonnegut is famous for writing nazi propaganda…
The true answer: Bombing people is bad, of course, but there’s so many factors at play from the technology and accuracy of the weapons used, to the logistics and presence of military targets that would relieve Soviet troops, and the tactics of the bombing alongside the propaganda after the fact.
The funny/Nazi-upsetting answer:
Meanwhile, Based Harry Dresden:
Not mine.
Why choose firebombs over conventional bombs then?
Firebombing is generally more effective in built-up areas, especially considering WW2 bomber accuracy.
deleted by creator
