Dresden: barbarism and vengeance

Originally Posted by viper_1967

A good read is Apocalypse 1945 by David Irving.
I do not beleive that Dresden is an argument for A bombs in Japan. The A bombs finally convinced the the japs to give up the fight, preventing a landing and many casualties on both sides.
Dresden to me sums up the entire war, a total waste.

I didn't say Dresden was an argument for the A bombs. I said that the same argument of impressing the Soviets was used for dropping the A bombs according to some individals. I don't hold with that idea myself, but some do.
Now i am withdrawing from this thread as I have taken part in several others on the same topics. T34, they have been checked for you on page 1, so please check them out.
Kitty

[viper_1967]

Originally Posted by redcoat

No, it is biased work of fiction by a convicted neo-nazi.

So what. It's a viewpoint and should be considered. I do not agree with Irving on many points but he offers an opinion worthy of consideration. Why not consider the opinions of Nazis?
There are many historians that consider the firebombing of Dresden a war atrocity, not just Irving.

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by viper_1967

So what. It's a viewpoint and should be considered. I do not agree with Irving on many points but he offers an opinion worthy of consideration. Why not consider the opinions of Nazis?
There are many historians that consider the firebombing of Dresden a war atrocity, not just Irving.

Why should anyone bother with a dishonest viewpoint ? Irving has been caught lying and misquoting documents. Not to mention being a moronic denier.

[viper_1967]

I thought his description of the bombing to be acurate, his opinions are not my own but I will certainly consider them in the grand sheme of things.
"dishonest"?
If it's your viewpoint then it is indeed honest.

[spidge]

In the right context...yes, however Irving is/was attempting to alter history for his own neo nazi ends.

Most of his efforts were to dramatically decrease the atrocities of the Nazis (holocaust denier) and increase the allied misgivings.

I am under no illusions that winners write history and similarly that disgraced historians like Irving have failed to offset the Nazi guilt on those who were given the collective mandate to bring Germany and its war machine to its knee's by any and all means.

Attempts 60 years hence, (with the advantage of hindsight) to apportion blame to the allies for completing that task, is ridiculous in the extreme.

Those "many" historians that considered it an atrocity did not have access to much of the data that was brought forward by Frederick Taylor in his book in 2002. Many of the myths about Dresden are now proven incorrect.

[viper_1967]

Originally Posted by spidge

In the right context...yes, however Irving is/was attempting to alter history for his own neo nazi ends.

Most of his efforts were to dramatically decrease the atrocities of the Nazis (holocaust denier) and increase the allied misgivings.

I am under no illusions that winners write history and similarly that disgraced historians like Irving have failed to offset the Nazi guilt on those who were given the collective mandate to bring Germany and its war machine to its knee's by any and all means.

Attempts 60 years hence, (with the advantage of hindsight) to apportion blame to the allies for completing that task, is ridiculous in the extreme.

Those "many" historians that considered it an atrocity did not have access to much of the data that was brought forward by Frederick Taylor in his book in 2002. Many of the myths about Dresden are now proven incorrect.

Fair enough. I am not into the blame game here. I will read Taylor's book as well. I have read severall sources on P51 mustangs straffing civilians the day after the firebombing, does Taylor mention this?
Looking forward to a good read, thanks.

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by viper_1967

I thought his description of the bombing to be acurate, his opinions are not my own but I will certainly consider them in the grand sheme of things.
"dishonest"?
If it's your viewpoint then it is indeed honest.

And the way he misquoted the German documents is hardly what one can expect from a honest historian. This is the kind of thing he's been doing to enforce his opinions: lying again and again. Now, there are plenty of other studies of the Dresden bombing out there so Im still wondering why people keep singing the praise of that dishonest work.

[viper_1967]

Originally Posted by Exxley

And the way he misquoted the German documents is hardly what one can expect from a honest historian. This is the kind of thing he's been doing to enforce his opinions: lying again and again. Now, there are plenty of other studies of the Dresden bombing out there so Im still wondering why people keep singing the praise of that dishonest work.

Arg! I do not and have not ever praised David Irving. His views on the holocaust are ridiculous! In the book Apocalypse 1945 he gives a very detailed description of the raids. He offers an opinion on casualties and attrocities that should be considered in the grand scheme of things and why not? 25000 to 300000 casualties? I definately lean towards the lower end of the scale.
This was not my post but I guess it is now.
Two things that stood out for me in his book;
1-The bombing was intended to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies. Dresden was not a military target and did not help end the war quickly.
2-P51 mustangs straffing the river's edge and the rescue crews and civilians clogging the roads.
That what I got from the book, interesting views.
Can I counter an "honest historian" with "history is written by the victors"?

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by viper_1967

Arg! I do not and have not ever praised David Irving. His views on the holocaust are ridiculous! In the book Apocalypse 1945 he gives a very detailed description of the raids. He offers an opinion on casualties and attrocities that should be considered in the grand scheme of things and why not? 25000 to 300000 casualties? I definately lean towards the lower end of the scale.

he used a forged document to backup his casualties figure in his book. A fact that has been proven during the Lipstadt trial.

Originally Posted by viper_1967

This was not my post but I guess it is now.
Two things that stood out for me in his book;
1-The bombing was intended to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies. Dresden was not a military target and did not help end the war quickly.
2-P51 mustangs straffing the river's edge and the rescue crews and civilians clogging the roads.
That what I got from the book, interesting views.
Can I counter an "honest historian" with "history is written by the victors"?

Dresden was a military target. Obviously poor Irving has some problem with pre-WWII definitions. And Dresden was a legitimate target.

And shall I say that Irving sources for the so called P-51 straffing are shaky to say the least and that such a bollock has been debunked for ages now ?

About "history is written by the victors" : if that was true why is that we still hear more about the German points of view about the Eastern Front that the Soviet ones.

[viper_1967]

Originally Posted by Exxley

he used a forged document to backup his casualties figure in his book. A fact that has been proven during the Lipstadt trial.



Dresden was a military target. Obviously poor Irving has some problem with pre-WWII definitions. And Dresden was a legitimate target.

And shall I say that Irving sources for the so called P-51 straffing are shaky to say the least and that such a bollock has been debunked for ages now ?

About "history is written by the victors" : if that was true why is that we still hear more about the German points of view about the Eastern Front that the Soviet ones.

Sir, perhaps we can agree on having different views?
This is indeed what I like about forums, eh?
Is Frederick Taylor more to your fancy?

The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13 and February 15, 1945 remains one of the more controversial events of World War II. Historian Frederick Taylor says:
"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…"[1] As to the Russian/German question, Russia was and still is a very closed society, I offer that as to why we hear so much less about them. I would love to dig through their archives.
I will endeavor to search a different source regarding the mustangs and strafing.
Cheers,
Viper