In war, their are a lot of things that can effect the outcome. One of the bigger ones is moral. If one person destroys the moral of their enemy then they have already won. This was major in WWII. Without some of these attacks on cities then the war would have lasted longer. And with these attacks, the people did not support the war. Which weakened their will to fight and made the people turn against the Nazis. This is why we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without those bombings, the war in the Pacific would have continued and more deaths would have happen. I believe that these bombings are justified because they save American lives.
We look upon the Second World War from the protection of modern life, away from Nazism and its evils, away from such worldwide war. The bombing of Dresden was, within the best judgement of those in charge, the best option for proceeding with the war towards victory and therefore the deposition of the Nazi party and the prevention of further crimes against Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. - the Allied forces did not bomb Dresden for fun, nor for evil purposes, but to the end of winning one of the VERY few wars in history that can be said to have had a "good" and "bad" side.
There is much controversy over if the bombings were purposefully solely designed to target civilians. This however is a fallacy. Dresden was a key military target, And while it may not have been as important as other bombing sites, It was still a viable target. Even today there are many people who only say that Dresden was a civilian target, Leading to further confusion in the debate.
Dresden was home to over 100 factories producing war supplies. It was also a major transportation hub which was transferring more supplies to the Eastern Front to fight the soviets. Also Nazi propaganda lied about the figures to make out the allies killed over double what they actually killed and they made out it was an idyllic city detached from the war which it wasn’t.
Besides the whole logistical and military importance, You can't claim it wasnt ok when the germans first act of war was to bomb a civilian town in Poland that had no military significance. Germany loved to bomb inoccents even if he claimed not to, So i couldnt care if they threw a fit when they got what they deserved.
Wewe we we w ew e w ew ew e w ew ew e w ew ew e wew ew ew e we w ew e we w ew ew e we we w ew e we we w ew e we we we ew ra ra rasputin aa a
Seeing that if we did not bomb them god knows what would be around today they could have won the war if we did not do anything and it could have turned out bad. Also they were a strong army on land. I am not saying that it would have been impossible to beat them on land but this also made it easier to bomb them. I do feel bad for the innocent people, but dont people want their children and there children and their grandchildren to be happy with their lives and not have to worry about war that could still be going on today but it is because we did something about it to stop this, and people might think it is cruel but we have stopped centuries of fighting.
In times of war, the aim is to completely and utterly decimate the enemy - to do whatever it takes to win. For this reason I find it totally incomprehensible for people to even argue that the firebombing of Dresden was not justified. People need to remind themselves that the Second World War was no place for humanitarianism, but a place for war and decimation in order to service human kind for the future - in order to prevent such killings happening again. This site seems to be full of lefty liberal queers who have no idea what it means to be in a war - they need to pull their finger out and realise that sometimes however inhumane, atrocities are required.
Bfdkf fdsb g g g gg g g h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h j j j j j j j j j u j j u uy y y y t t t f f f bb b b b
If you stop to actually watch unmolested speeches made by Hitler, he clearly states that he refused to attack civilians until his enemies gave him no other choice. Hitler had always admired the British. He even let 400,000 British troops leave Dunkirk when his advisors said not to. Subsequently, Churchill himself is responsible for Hitler's attacks on Great Britain. So when Churchill hit Dresden, he did it purely out of spite. He wanted blood and bodies and that's it.
The RAF and US air force didn't need to bomb a non strategic value city to merely prove a point. The city at the time was full of innocent refugees who were ignored by the heads of the allied forces, seeing them not as people, but numbers on some paper, a simple trade off for so called peace.
As the bombing were completely uncalled for as Dresden did not pose a threat to Britain. 50,000 innocent civilians died in the hands of the British and Americans, this was not an act of war but instead an act of genocide and mass murder. I hope many of you believe that this was a uncalled for atrocity
War is never a black and white issue, and whilst we fundamentally fought for good, the bombing of Dresden shows us that we were not completely free from wrongs and innocent blood stain.
We killed many innocent people through retaliation and vengeance and it was an evil act of it's own and largely ineffective too at that. We must not cover this up, or mask it over. Learning history is about not repeating the same mistakes again, and we had our own lessons to learn in how to conduct humane and fair war protocols without resorting to 'dirty' tactics.
For me all the things England (and Denmark) did to German civilians were uncalled for. England authorized the mass bombing of Dresden (apparently because those "savage Krauts" were a threat to the English). A thing Denmark (which was also an enemy of Germany) did was that they forced German civilians to work on labor mines. Not only that, but a Danish hospital gave them the Klan treatment. When many Germans came to Danish hospitals looking for treatment, a Danish hospital turned them down and let them rot and die.
Throughout World War Two "carpet-bombing" was widely used as a means of "denying the enemy." Yet the facts show that it wasn't that effective at retarding construction. Millions died for no other reason than where they were born. Most were likely just trying to survive until the war was over. The bombing of Dresden, resulting in a fire-storm as it did, was as destructive as if the city had been hit with a nuke of the time. All it did was make the people there see the Allied powers as cruel and uncaring.
The firebombing of Dresden- which by the way killed more people than the atomic bomb in Hiroshima- was absolutely unnecessary. Dresden posed no threat to the Allies; Germany was about to surrender anyway. We only bombed Dresden along with the English out of vengeance over what happened in London and the like. Yes, I know, it's war and bad things happen, but can't we try and limit how many bad things happen? Dresden was a beautiful city full of innocent, unsuspecting people who just happened to be in the path of American fury. Completely unjustifiable atrocity, and yet you hardly ever hear about it.
Putting the strong ethical arguments against the attack aside, Bombing of civilians is an ineffective strategy to harm morale. Consider how it went for the Germans -- they dropped bombs on the British, Which caused them to rally around their leader and strengthened their resolve to fight. This makes sense -- bombing produces anger, And anger produces loyalty. The propaganda of the Nazi regime was based on the idea of the existential threat to Germany; the Allied bombing campaign gave a touch of reality to this threat, And was as such a valuable asset to the Nazis.
Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, Especially against civilians, In the pursuit of political aims. " I doubt the people who are saying 'yes; to this question would argue that terrorism is appropriate. For those who argue force in war is not illegal, Take note that people who have ordered or participated the mass killing of civilians during war have been successfully prosecuted as war criminals. Churchill is fortunate the Allies won the war, For he and others responsible for this shameful act would have been tried and found guilty, As would Truman for the atomic bomb attacks on Japan. The killing of innocents is never justifiable underhand circumstances.
I understand that we were at war but purposely targeting civilians is pure evil and can not be justified in any way. During the blitz only parts of Britain that held supplies to aid us in the war were bombed. Dresden had little aid in the war and had little defence as it was no use to aid in the war therefore has no justification of being the correct thing to do