The Dresden Firebombings were justified

I would now like to point the numerous flaws in my opponents case. “The contribution [by Dresden] to the Nazi war effort may not have been as significant as the planners thought. ” This may be true, yet it is undeniable that Dresden was manufacturing weapons for the Nazi’s. The RAF has confirmed that in February of 1945, 110 factories were known to have been producing weapons for the Nazi’s. As I stated in R2, the German’s confirmed that the number was higher. My opponent has provided no citation for the fact that what I am “quoting is mere speculation taken from reports that the United States wrote to justify the attacks. ” Clearly, there WERE factories, thus making it a viable target. The source I have provided [1] shows a map of the railway systems in Germany. Dresden is circled in red. Dresden clearly was the crossroads for the railway system, with railway lines reaching all the way to the Eastern front. This addresses another of my opponent’s other arguments. By the end of the war, a total of 28 million military trains transporting supplies or men went through A SINGLE Dresden train station each day! [2] The crime was later recognized to be so cruel, that “indiscriminate bombing on civilians” or fire bombings were banned during the Geneva Convention. First of all, the citation my opponent provided had absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Secondly, my opponent fails to realize that this was not the only firebombing in the war. Germany also used firebombs, launched years of firebombing on London during the Blitz, furthermore, Hitler had declared “Total War” [2], and essentially meaning anything goes. Allied firebombing was completely justified as a retaliatory strike AND because of Dresden’s military significance, which absolutely cannot be denied. When the US bombed Dresden, they had no idea that they were about to annihilate a beautiful city with 135, 000 people. According to my opponent’s logic, therefore the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also should be considered war crimes because they annihilated a beautiful city. This is completely incorrect! ! According to my opponent’s own second source, the bombing of Dresden was “the beginning of the end for the Third Reich. ” The bombing of Dresden was as effective in ending the war as the bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings of Dresden didn’t just destroy a city, but a large piece of German history and culture. It is true that Dresden was a cultured city. My opponent’s argument boils down to this: because of Dresden’s cultural significance to Germany, (even though it was producing weapons and therefore a viable target) it shouldn’t have been bombed because of its cultural and historical significance. This is a clear logical fallacy; does this mean that the bombing of Paris was a war crime? It is undeniable that Paris is one of the world centres of culture, and large parts of the city were destroyed by bombing. Does this mean the bombing of Wieluń was a war crime? The Germans destroyed 75% of the city. Wieluń was a cultural centre for Poland, was this a war crime? “Germany was already going to surrender World War II” This is also speculation. If Hitler could defeat the Russians on the Eastern front, there was a chance that he could have defeated the Allies on the Western front and secured a fair armistice. Had Dresden not be bombed, the railway lines through Dresden would have remained intact. Dresden’s railway lines would have allowed troops to be transported to the Eastern Front. As I have shown with regards to the railways, it is not that farfetched to assume that reinforcements would have arrived to the German’s on the Eastern front through Dresden. There was no reason to attack Dresden. My opponent admitted before “Even though Dresden may have contained weapons” and has made no refutation to the numerous sources that confirm 100+ weapons manufacturing factories, he still claims that there was no reason to attack Dresden. This is clearly a massive logical fallacy. As I have stated numerous times, if it is helping the war effort, it is a target. Dresden was not confirmed to be a war city. It was confirmed numerous times, even by the Germans themselves! Dresden was not only strategically pointless False. But rather completely unjustified. False. As I have shown above, Dresden contained 100+ factories producing war weapons. Thus, it is a viable target. Dresden was at the centre of a massive intact railway system, this system allowing thousands upon thousands of German troops to maneuver across Europe. It was a communications centre, with telephone lines stretching across Germany. All of these added to the military significance of Dresden, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. Though Dresden may have been a city of culture, that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be bombed. Additionally, it is complete speculation that the German’s would have surrendered. Reinforcements could have easily been transported through Dresden’s railway lines to the Eastern Front, as I have shown above. For the reasons above, I urge voters to VOTE PRO. Before I hand it off to my opponent, I would remind him NOT TO POST NEW ARGUMENTS in the final round. He may post rebuttals, but no new arguments as I wouldn’t be able to refute them. If new arguments are posted, it would count as forfeiture for my opponent, so please don’t post new arguments! I thank my opponent for a thought stimulating and exciting debate! SOURCES . http://thecontroversialbombingofdresden.weebly.com... . http://www.hdot.org...