israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians

[Bonam]

40,000 dead...that's why. That's a lot of family trees cut off and turned into stumps.

It sounds like about 25,000, not 40,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Casualties

The combined casualties of the Arab-Israeli wars are substantially higher. If casualties are your measure of historical significance, then Dresden is less significant than the Arab-Israeli wars. But I would argue that casualties are a poor measure of historical significance. How many casualties were there when Ampere, Faraday, Maxwell, etc, derived the equations of electromagnetism? And yet those were among the most historically significant events of the last few centuries, as they enabled the technological and scientific progress that has been a dominant driver in shaping our society ever since.

[DogOnPorch]

My bad...I was still in Hamburg mode. Casualties are still comparable: one raid (Hamburg) = about all the Arab-Israeli wars + or - this or that percent one way or the other.

The Arab-Israeli wars aren't all that significant in terms of military history. The only startegic prize in the area is the Suez and it has limited use with today's supertankers. Plus, it easily blocked in a crisis..,and has been in the past. If the Arabs won and Israel driven into the sea, life would go on. Where the Iron Curtain was drawn was far more significant and relates back to fighting in Europe during WW2....bombing as well as ground campaigns.

In terms of the great inventions of humankind, I wasn't really focusing on that area.

[DogOnPorch]

But good think some trees were cut. Right?

Righhhht....you best take a nap.

[Jack Weber]

Dresden was a high value target.

It was a commercial centre.

It was a transport hub.

It was an industrial centre containing poison gas, anti aircraft and munitions factories.

It was a communications centre.

....need more?

The attack prevented its use as a transport hub and hobbled Nazi efforts to reinforce against the Soviet red army.

and given that with the "dumb" munitions used at the time, the casualty rate of .025 means value for money.

The only fault with the attacks on Dresden is; it wasn't levelled earlier.

Erm...Debateable,to say the least...

[DogOnPorch]

Erm...Debateable,to say the least...

I always viewed Dresden as Bomber Harris's last chance to win WW2...fail.

[Bonam]

My bad...I was still in Hamburg mode. Casualties are still comparable: one raid (Hamburg) = about all the Arab-Israeli wars + or - this or that percent one way or the other.

The Arab-Israeli wars aren't all that significant in terms of military history. The only startegic prize in the area is the Suez and it has limited use with today's supertankers. Plus, it easily blocked in a crisis..,and has been in the past. If the Arabs won and Israel driven into the sea, life would go on. Where the Iron Curtain was drawn was far more significant and relates back to fighting in Europe during WW2....bombing as well as ground campaigns.

Strategic importance is not the only thing to be considered. Cultural importance is certainly another. For better or worse, the religious sites of the Abrahamic religions are of great historical significance. Additionally, events in the middle-east have the potential to spark much wider conflicts, and continue to fuel both tensions between and alliances between many other nations worldwide.

As for the precise delineation of the Iron Curtain, I don't know if that really turned out to be of such great historical importance. After all, it merely stood for a time and then weakened and fell. The Cold War would not have gone any differently if Germany was partitioned slightly otherwise. Despite being on the front line of the division between East and West in the Cold War, specific events in Germany played little role on its final outcome. That was brought about by the superiority of the free market economic model to that of the centrally planned communist model. American victory over the USSR was inevitable, the USSR simply could not compete in the long run, though it may not have always seemed so.

When it comes to WWII, after it was plain that allied victory was to be the eventual outcome, the various operations conducted to bring about that final victory were certainly necessary, but not in and of themselves turning points of history, save only for the atomic bombings, since they brought about a fundamentally different kind of balance of power and doctrine of deterrent. They (the battles) are remembered in Western history because of our self-centeredness, not because of their great noteworthiness. Few Westerners have any clue of the battles the Soviets fought after Kursk, the war's great turning point. Similarly, few non-Westerners know much about the various bombings or battles the allies carried out after the Normandy landings.

In terms of the great inventions of humankind, I wasn't really focusing on that area.

That was merely to point out that casualties are not a good measure of historical importance.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

control of border includes the sea borders. you forgot the control of air and the control of movement.

occupation, bobby.

stop fighting reality.

Uh...

Since Israel found a ship bound for Gaza filled with weapons recently,good thing they control the water surrounding Gaza...

But if that ship had landed...How long before the wonderful and stellar Hamas would have lobbed a few more rockets into Israel???

[Jack Weber]

I always viewed Dresden as Bomber Harris's last chance to win WW2...fail.

I always viewed it as the RAF trying to get revenge for the Battle of Britain...

And completely understandable!!!

The strategic site crapola,chronologically speaking,is a canard...

[DogOnPorch]

Cultural importance doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot in war. If it did, Germany's cities would have been spared as Medieval treasures. Plus, I have to say that the Cold War might have indeed gone differently had the lines been drawn elsewhere...and it wasn't a sure thing that the Soviet Union would fall. But, we're both entitled to our opinions on this being they are 20/20 in hindsight with no option of running seperate scenarios to prove otherwise.

Edited April 7, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

I always viewed it as the RAF trying to get revenge for the Battle of Britain...

And completely understandable!!!

The strategic site crapola,chronologically speaking,is a canard...

They had been getting revenge since 1940. But like all the big-wigs, Harris wanted to go down in history as the fellow that brought the war to an end...in his case via airpower alone.

[Jack Weber]

Cultural importance doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot in war. If it did, Germany's cities would have been spared as Medieval treasures. Plus, I have to say that the Cold War might have indeed gone differently had the lines been drawn elsewhere...and it wasn't a sure thing that the Soviet Union would fall. But, we're both entitled to our opinions on this being they 20/20 in hindsight with no option of running seperate scenarios to prove otherwise.

I would'nt be so sure of that...The cultural importance stuff,I mean...

It could easily argued that WW2 was the culmination of at least 500 years of tribal conflict in Europe...

If it's looked at that way,it's not surprising that very little was spared,culturally speaking,of the defeated.

[DogOnPorch]

I would'nt be so sure of that...The cultural importance stuff,I mean...

It could easily argued that WW2 was the culmination of at least 500 years of tribal conflict in Europe...

If it's looked at that way,it's not surprising that very little was spared,culturally speaking,of the defeated.

There were pragmatists on the Allied side that disagreed with Harris's area bombing...Americans especially. Once gone, those treasures were gone forever. I agree, though, that WW2 was the culmination of many centuries of warfare.

[Bonam]

Cultural importance doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot in war.

War isn't the only thing that is of historical significance.

If it did, Germany's cities would have been spared as Medieval treasures. Plus, I have to say that the Cold War might have indeed gone differently had the lines been drawn elsewhere...and it wasn't a sure thing that the Soviet Union would fall. But, we're both entitled to our opinions on this being they 20/20 in hindsight with no option of running seperate scenarios to prove otherwise.

The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, or else its eventual transition to capitalism (the way China is going). A state whose very foundation stands in direct contradiction to the nature of humankind cannot long persevere. The USSR sucked the blood and the life out of its people, creating only a state of living death on Earth. Compared to the dynamic progress and vibrance of the West in that same time period, the USSR's inferiority was palpable.

That the Cold War might have gone differently if the lines had been drawn elsewhere is true. But they would have had to be very very different indeed. If all of Europe, from Spain to Italy to England to Scandinavia, had ended up Soviet, that could have changed things perhaps. Perhaps then the USSR could have achieved a quick military victory over the US before the weakness of its perverted imitation of an economy would cause it to fall hopelessly behind. But by 1945 (when Dresden was bombed), such a drastic change in outcome was not in the cards.

[DogOnPorch]

War isn't the only thing that is of historical significance.

But that's what on the table.

The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, or else its eventual transition to capitalism (the way China is going). A state whose very foundation stands in direct contradiction to the nature of humankind cannot long persevere. The USSR sucked the blood and the life out of its people, creating only a state of living death on Earth. Compared to the dynamic progress and vibrance of the West in that same time period, the USSR's inferiority was palpable.

That the Cold War might have gone differently if the lines had been drawn elsewhere is true. But they would have had to be very very different indeed. If all of Europe, from Spain to Italy to England to Scandinavia, had ended up Soviet, that could have changed things perhaps. Perhaps then the USSR could have achieved a quick military victory over the US before the weakness of its perverted imitation of an economy would cause it to fall hopelessly behind. But by 1945 (when Dresden was bombed), such a drastic change in outcome was not in the cards.

I'll agree re: transition to something else...but we would have still been at loggerheads.

By the time D-Day came around, the Soviets were already in Poland. Had the invasion not occured, Stalin might have indeed made France et al part of the Communist world.

Edited April 7, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

But that's what on the table.

I'll agree re: transition to something else...but we would have still been at loggerheads.

By the time D-Day came around, the Soviets were already in Poland. Had the invasion not occured, Stalin might have indeed made France et al part of the Communist world.

Which is why the D-Day and the totality of the invasion were of great historical significance. But the individual battles after the invasion began and the individual cities that were bombed or otherwise destroyed, or the individual towns that were liberated, were not individually of great historical significance. Dresden is but one name on a list of probably thousands of individual operations that comprised the "cleanup phase" of the Western front of WWII.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

Which is why the D-Day and the totality of the invasion were of great historical significance. But the individual battles after the invasion began and the individual cities that were bombed or otherwise destroyed, or the individual towns that were liberated, were not individually of great historical significance. Dresden is but one name on a list of probably thousands of individual operations that comprised the "cleanup phase" of the Western front of WWII.

Oh, we're on the same side, ultimately with but a few minor points of difference.

How's this?

--Bombing Dresden was pointless. Bomber Harris's ego...more revenge as Jack stated.

--Time was a problem for the Western Allies re: the Soviets & victory...so Dresden-like things were occuring. Stupid things...regretable things.

--The Cold War resulted from mistrust as to intentions between the two sides dating back to the Russian Civil War.

[Jack Weber]

Which is why the D-Day and the totality of the invasion were of great historical significance. But the individual battles after the invasion began and the individual cities that were bombed or otherwise destroyed, or the individual towns that were liberated, were not individually of great historical significance. Dresden is but one name on a list of probably thousands of individual operations that comprised the "cleanup phase" of the Western front of WWII.

Dresden sticks out because of the timing and the type of attack...

It's the closest thing to a Hiroshima incident without using an atom bomb in Europe.

Nevermind the fact that Churchill had misgivings about the necessity of firebombing of Dresden...

[Bonam]

Dresden sticks out because of the timing and the type of attack...

It's the closest thing to a Hiroshima incident without using an atom bomb in Europe.

Nevermind the fact that Churchill had misgivings about the necessity of firebombing of Dresden...

Right. It is notable only in that some people like to point to it as an example of when they believe the allies killed more civilians than was justified.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

Right. It is notable only in that people like to point to it as an example of when they believe the allies killed more civilians than was justified.

Even if Hamburg and Berlin were far worse...agreed.

[Bonam]

Oh, we're on the same side, ultimately with but a few minor points of difference.

How's this?

--Bombing Dresden was pointless. Bomber Harris's ego...more revenge as Jack stated.

--Time was a problem for the Western Allies re: the Soviets & victory...so Dresden-like things were occuring. Stupid things...regretable things.

I don't know how regrettable they were. Considering the nature of WWII, I think anything the allies did to speed the utter and complete defeat of Germany was justified. I would go so far as to say that if the US had completed a nuclear weapon several months earlier than it did, atomic annihilation of Berlin would have been justified.

--The Cold War resulted from mistrust as to intentions between the two sides dating back to the Russian Civil War.

The mistrust was certainly a factor. But I believe that fundamentally, the diametric opposition of the two ideologies would have led to some form of clash along the lines of the Cold War.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

Right. It is notable only in that people like to point to it as an example of when they believe the allies killed more civilians than was justified.

I could understand the bombing of Dresden IF the bombing was limited to the strategic areas some point out...

The fact is,that's not the only thing that happened,because almost the enitre city had incendiary bombs rained down on it.That blows apart the canard that it was all for strategic purposes.

To me,it's fairly obvious that it was about revenge with a heavy dose of expediency thrown in...

People point to the Battle of Britain and talk about London being bombed...It was'nt just London..It was Birmingham,Leeds,Bristol,Manchester,Liverpool,Newcastle,Cardiff,Swansea,Edinborough,Glasgow,Belfast,Dublin,and,probably a few others.And the people of the British Isles lived in terror for close to 4 years.My Mom was born in London during The Blitz in '44..

It's completely understandable how the English,in particular,wanted a little payback...

Edited April 7, 2011 by Jack Weber

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know how regrettable they were. Considering the nature of WWII, I think anything the allies did to speed the utter and complete defeat of Germany was justified. I would go so far as to say that if the US had completed a nuclear weapon several months earlier than it did, atomic annihilation of Berlin would have been justified.

We're all regreting Dresden and Area Bombing in general, now. Regret generally comes later. Have you ever seen photos etc of German cities pre WW2? Amazing. Like Grimm's Fairy Tales.

The mistrust was certainly a factor. But I believe that fundamentally, the diametric opposition of the two ideologies would have led to some form of clash along the lines of the Cold War.

Which is why the Western Allies of WW2 all participated in trying to snuff-out the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.

[DogOnPorch]

It should be noted that the Brits and Canadians bombed by night generally following radio grids while the Americans always went by day with their Norden bombsight to avoid civilian casualties.

[Bonam]

We're all regreting Dresden and Area Bombing in general, now. Regret generally comes later. Have you ever seen photos etc of German cities pre WW2? Amazing. Like Grimm's Fairy Tales.

All of WWII was very regrettable, no doubt. Death and destruction is always regrettable. But destroying Germany as expediently as possible was justified.

[Jack Weber]

It should be noted that the Brits and Canadians bombed by night generally following radio grids while the Americans always went by day with their Norden bombsight to avoid civilian casualties.

I don't know about American accuracy...

My Grandfather always said there was a saying when he got to Europe...

To quote Gramps...

"When the British bomb,the Germans duck...

When the Germans bomb,the British duck...

When the Americans bomb,EVERYBODY ducks!!!"