So it goes . . .

[covenantuk]

Not that it was the first instance of it, but it was an example of a shift from military vs military to civilians being targeted (albeit usually actually infrastructure that was targeted).

Erm, the London blitz wasn't civilian targeting. Really?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Wasn't this a tit for tat response to the bombing of Coventry?

Not really. It was bombed primarily to assist the Soviet offensive. There is a lot of debate about the military value of the bombing Dresden but really, who cares? It was total war, morals and ethics hardly come into it.

Not that it was the first instance of it, but it was an example of a shift from military vs military to civilians being targeted (albeit usually actually infrastructure that was targeted).

The military of both allies and axis were already heavily integrated with civilians by this point. The distinction between civilian and military targets was almost impossible.

 

[Castiel]

Not that it was the first instance of it, but it was an example of a shift from military vs military to civilians being targeted (albeit usually actually infrastructure that was targeted).

That shift happened in the American Civil War and was hardly uncommon by WWII. Bombing of cities pretty much underpinned the war, particularly with regards the Blitz.

 

[Cosimo]

It is 70 years since the firebombing of Dresden, one of Britain's most infamous acts of terrorism and discriminate targeting of civilians and refugees in World War II. Perhaps a little humility would be in order?

Let's not forget all those nasty acts of terror, targeting civilians and refugees committed by the Germans before we start shedding a tear for Dresden. They started total war and just happened to get back a little of their own nasty medicine.
 

 

[JonnyT]

Sigh. This old chestnut.

Dresden, Leipzig and Chemnitz were all regarded as legitimate military targets by the political establishment (Churchill in particular). Dresden in particular was a transport hub for the region. The Western Allies wanted to hamper the German retreat from the Eastern front so as to prevent reinforcements reaching the Western front, but it was about more than that.

It was also stated at the time that the raids were intended to help the progress of the Red Army, but I think it was more about demonstrating the power and destructive force of the RAF and USAAF bombing forces to the advancing Russians, as relations between the US/UK and USSR were already going cold by this stage of the war, and there was a certain amount of sabre-rattling from each side to see who would dominate the post-war period.

Please also don't forget that the USAAF were full and willing participants of the Dresden raid; they bombed the city the morning after the RAF raid. Also, it is often forgotten that the USAAF conducted a prolonged conventional bombing campaign against Japanese cities using incendiaries to create large fires; Indeed, these conventional raids caused far more damage and loss of life than the two atomic bomb raids.

As TheMightyTen says, it was Total War. Yes, in hindsight it looks bad and it probably wasn't wholly necessary in the context of defeating Germany, but the target was recommended by Churchill himself as a legitimate target. I doubt that the Germans would have thought twice about such a raid had they had the means; London had been under sustained attack by both the V-1 and V2 'terror' weapons since D-Day.

The loss of life was terrible, no two ways about it. What is also bad is the way the brave men of Bomber Command were 'hung out to dry' by Churchill after the raid, when he realised that history would judge this raid very harshly and sought to distance himself from it. These brave men risked their lives every time they flew over Germany, flying at night with minimal navigation aids (often using star navigation) against sophisticated and well organised defenders, including lots of night-fighters and 88mm AAA. The loss rate was often over 15%.

Regardless of what some people (and historians) might say, the strategic bombing campaign was a second front against Germany for years before D-Day. It wasn't capable of winning the war on its' own as Harris claimed, but it had real effects on German production output, and also in terms of tying up German troops, planes and artillery defending the homeland rather than being used at the front-line. The German 88mm gun was a potent tank-killer on the Eastern front, but hundreds were tied up defending German cities and factories.

 

[MookJong]

Be honest with yourself OP what is the true motivation for this thread? Unless you were alive at the time or had family or friends directly affected I don't understand how anyone could be so passionate about this topic.

I do not agree it was Britain's finest hour, but then there are hundreds if not thousands of state sponsored acts in our past that I do not agree with. However they are gone, I cannot influence them and neither can anyone else alive today.

To me it looks like you want a bit of bother and I am worried for you. The thread neither informs or educates in any worthwhile way. So what do you actually want?

My suggestion is to channel your energy into making the current world a better place and in 70 years nobody will have to look back in the same way.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

That shift happened in the American Civil War and was hardly uncommon by WWII. Bombing of cities pretty much underpinned the war, particularly with regards the Blitz.

The targeting of civilians hardly began in the American civil war; unless we're talking exclusively of aerial bombing. In which case I am not aware of the Union army launching many bombing raids during their civil war.

 

[Hades]

It is 70 years since the firebombing of Dresden, one of Britain's most infamous acts of terrorism and discriminate targeting of civilians and refugees in World War II. Perhaps a little humility would be in order?

While I am respectful to the German people for the massive loss of life I do take exception to the use of the word terrorism here. It was no such thing. We were in a war with Germany; and one which we did not start. Their military had tried to obliterate London and Coventry and we very nearly lost that war. I suggest that humilty should is shown for everyone who died or suffered during the war, not just one city and one event.

 

[Abraham]

Erm, the London blitz wasn't civilian targeting. Really?

I really meant WWII as a whole having been the shift, from both sides.

That shift happened in the American Civil War and was hardly uncommon by WWII. Bombing of cities pretty much underpinned the war, particularly with regards the Blitz.

I didn't think it was anything like common place until WWII, although obviously it was within WWII.
At a glance I can't see anything significant about the civil war, aside from confederate guerilla attacks, although I would say that was different and significantly closer to terrorism than an act of war.

 

[russell664]

While I am respectful to the German people for the massive loss of life I do take exception to the use of the word terrorism here. It was no such thing. We were in a war with Germany; and one which we did not start. Their military had tried to obliterate London and Coventry and we very nearly lost that war. I suggest that humilty should is shown for everyone who died or suffered during the war, not just one city and one event.

^ Exactly. Well said.

 

[Castiel]

The targeting of civilians hardly began in the American civil war; unless we're talking exclusively of aerial bombing. In which case I am not aware of the Union army launching many bombing raids during their civil war.

The idea of total war and deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as equal to military targets within cities in modern warfare essentially began in the American Civil War with Sherman's 'Hard War'...while other examples such as The Mongol Campaigns can be illustrated, these were not the norm in warfare at the time and seen as barbaric by most combatants. With the advent of Sherman's decision to advocate treating civilians as legitimate military targets he essentially legitimised 'Total War'

 

[FTM]

Erm, the London blitz wasn't civilian targeting. Really?

and after the blitz came the v1's and v2's..killed or wounded around 115,000 people...used against a civilian population as they could only hit a general area

 

[TheMightyTen]

The targeting of civilians hardly began in the American civil war..........

Indeed, the ravaging of the south following his landing at Pevensey by William the ******* (the name given to someone born out of wedlock, I can't say it on here because of swear filter but that was his name) in 1066 springs to mind. Civilians have always been fair game in war, whether it was sanctioned by those in control or not.

 

[FTM]

and of course in ww1 the germans shelled civilian areas up and down the east coast of england, as well as sinking passenger liners.... so it was hardly new by the time ww2 came along

 

[arknor]

I guess some people would rather we let the Germans win than hit their industry and supply

lets face it ww2 was different whole nations were militarised civilians were mostly doing something to help the army it's not like wars of today where civilians just get on with their normal lives

 

[Castiel]

I really meant WWII as a whole having been the shift, from both sides.

I didn't think it was anything like common place until WWII, although obviously it was within WWII.
At a glance I can't see anything significant about the civil war, aside from confederate guerilla attacks, although I would say that was different and significantly closer to terrorism than an act of war.

You are confusing the more effective aerial bombardment in WWII as being unique in targeting civilians and treating civilian infrastructure as a legitimate military target, whereas if you look at wars conducted by major industrialised nations, from the American Civil War onward we see the shift toward legitimising the destruction of civilian infrastructure as an acceptable, if not necessary product of warfare. WWII this kind of warfare reached its pinnacle, Dresden was hardly the only or even worst example either, Hamburg and Tokyo were arguably worse than Dresden in terms of civilian casualties for example.

Historians point to Sherman's Savannah Campaign or March to the Sea as being the first such example of this.

 

[Housey]

They bombed my chip shop

 

[Kelt]

They bombed my chip shop

Bet you wish it was your opticians...

 

[Freefaller]

I don't think it was terrorism, I think it was a decision made on information they had, and may not have been the best decision. Barbaric? Probably, and I think they knew they were going to obliterate a lot of innocent people. Does the end justify the means? I don't think it did, but now we have something to learn from and hope we don't ever have to make this sort of decision again.

We can't take back what happened in the past, and at the time where people, the world is in a bleak place such decisions seem logical and just. I just hope in our lifetime and all future generations that such instances never happen. We don't learn however...

 

[FTM]

Sherman didnt target civilians specifically though did he?..but he did operate a essentially a scorched earth policy. leaving nothing behind for people to use..so he destroyed buildings, agriculture, railways...basically anything anybody could use

so the knock on effect deprived the civilian population