Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 9

message: *Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 2
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 4
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 5
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 6
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7
*Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 8
See Archive 8 for text before this time stamp Philip Baird Shearer 02:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I refer to the debate mainly between Slim Virgin and Noel on February 27-28, last archive, on strafing of civilians. You were looking for a historian who might give credibility to memory reports of eye witnesses: such as the little 8-year-old girl in that late report whose link Get-back-world-respect posted.
Well, there is one: Götz Bergander himself ("Dresden im Luftkrieg" p. 192-209) has looked for and sorted out credible eye witnesses. He points out that no one of them saw or heard of a massive organized attack of many planes strafing civilians on purpose. He explicitly refutes the Nazi legends of such attacks: They were simply impossible in the night of February 13 and not reported for February 15. Those reported for the February 14 day raids took place 170 kilometers beyond Dresden on the way towards Prague; Bergander prooves that as fact in detail. 
But also he gives credit to eyewitnesses who saw, heard and experienced single planes shoot with machine guns near the ground only on February 14, 1945. He explains these experiences as probable facts which were misinterpreted as directly aimed shooting. Single Planes - one, two, three at the most - were flying low above fleeing survivors of the bombings, fighting with German planes and therefore shooting with their machine guns; people had the impression they were shooting at them. So not all of their memories must have been late "legends" or "myths", only false interpreted perceptions because of their traumatized situation at that time. - That´s the only reason we left the link of that woman´s report in the article, but cited Berganders explanation of her perceptions, which preceeds those of Helmut Schnatz and Frederick Taylor. 
Hope this makes this issue more clear. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.122.67 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once more: Strafing of civilians 

message: There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Where can one find them? No footnote or link seems to be given on that so far. --217.229.122.67 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied experiences of the attack

message: As far as I know, 
*the leader of the "Nationaldemocratic Party of Germany", Holger Apfel, in his speech in January 2005 did not use the term "Dresden holocaust", but "bombing holocaust". 
*This term is used not by single Neonazi leaders only but has evolved to be a widespread propaganda term in German right wing media and groups. 
*The three parties which are considered to be "right extremists" by German state officials were all supporting the recent Neonazi gathering which used the term as a motto. 
*Historians like Friedrich who use unreflected speech ("mass extermination", "crematoria", "murderous bombing plans", "annihilation" etc.) support their view, can be abused and are abused by them. --217.83.37.136 21:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bombing Holocaust"

message: I changed this sentence:
:Since 1945, the word "holocaust" has been taken over by another meaning but it is quite clear that within the meaning of the word as it was in 1945, the results of bombing in several German cities were holocausts; as had been those elsewhere, from Stalingrad to Coventry and Guernica.
I think an explanation of the word´s own meaning does not justify this statement. "Holocaust" by itself means something like "whole offering". It may have been used for carpet bombing somewhere, but "it is quite clear" is not true. The use of "Holocaust" is related to genocide (crime against humanity), and none of the given examples were genocides by definition. War crimes, yes, disputable as it is disputed in the article. The goal of that kind of warfare was surely to destroy infrastructure and a lot of lives, be it on purpose or not; so call it "mass killing" or "mass destruction". The use of the term "Holocaust" in connection to Dresden raids is related to Neonazi and right wing purposes only. Jesusfreund 12:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Words change their meaning over time. To use the word "holocaust" in this article does not bring clarity and it is likely to confuse many readers who do not have your classical education. If the original meaning of holocast was clear the word firestorm would not have been coined Philip Baird Shearer 11:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Holocaust"

message: I have removed this section and replaced it with a paragraph in the section "The case against the bombing being a war crime". The paragraph includes a link to Area bombardment#International law in 1945 which is a verbatum copy of the section removed here. Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International law in 1945

message: This is close to FA. It justs needs a proper Wikipedia:Lead and quotations should be moved to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't point to a specific rule, but it is a common FAC objection. I have yet to see a FA article heavy on quotes (and this one IS). The usual thing to do is to incorporate info in the article, and move all quotes and citiations off to Wikiquote. Now, as I wrote earlier, I like quotes - so I don't object to Tylor in lead. But if - when - this article goes to FAC, you will see this objection appear fast, and unless we adress it then, the article will fail likely on those grounds: Object. Move the quotes to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC potential 

message: ====Piotrus version====
The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945 remains one of the most controversial events of World War II. The idea that the bombing of Dresden represented a regrettable or excessive attack is widely held, especially in Germany, however the case that it rises to the level of a war crime is much less accepted.
The bombing of Dresden was a consequence of escalating use of aerial bombing of cities by both sides of the World War II. What was primarily the German tactic in the first years (The Blitz), have became increasingly adapted and used by the Allies in the latter years. Early in the year 1945, the higher Allied Western political-military leadership started to consider how they might aid the advancing Soviet Union with the use of the strategic bomber force. The plan was to bomb Berlin and several other eastern cities in conjunction with the Soviet advance. Eventually, the bombing of Dresno, codenamed by the Allies as Operation Thunderclap, destroyed over 95% of the city's infrastructure and buildings and caused the deaths of up to 35,000 people (approximately 6% of the total city population), and has suceeded in crippling all of the city's industry and communication.
The bombing is perhaps best illustrated by this quote from the British historian Frederick Taylor:
:"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 . ."
=====Comments=====
====Other version====
The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945 remains one of the most controversial events of World War II, even after 60 years.
According to British historian Frederick Taylor:
:"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 . ."
=====Comments=====
First, this old lead is too short (see Wikipedia:Lead for official policy on how a lead should look like. Second, even after 60 years. is a rather useless phrase - will we change it by year as the time passes? Anybody can count, and the present tense (remains one of...) is, well, present. Third, while I like quotes (and thus I left that one), 9 times out of then Peer Review and FAC requires quotes to be moved to Wikiquote (thus, in fact, this lead has only one-sentence para. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk histories you will see that there was a vote on this. I agree it should be changed next year to "even after more than 60 years" Which is what it said in so many words last year (after more than 50 years) Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of the nature of this article and to stop lots of POV in the very first paragraph it has been agreed by other contributers to keep it brief so that it is not loaded with lots of POV which has sections of the stuff lower down. Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sandbox 

message: The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945 remains one of the most controversial events of World War II, even after 60 years.
According to British historian Frederick Taylor:
:"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 . ."
=====Comments=====
First, this old lead is too short (see Wikipedia:Lead for official policy on how a lead should look like. Second, even after 60 years. is a rather useless phrase - will we change it by year as the time passes? Anybody can count, and the present tense (remains one of...) is, well, present. Third, while I like quotes (and thus I left that one), 9 times out of then Peer Review and FAC requires quotes to be moved to Wikiquote (thus, in fact, this lead has only one-sentence para. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk histories you will see that there was a vote on this. I agree it should be changed next year to "even after more than 60 years" Which is what it said in so many words last year (after more than 50 years) Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of the nature of this article and to stop lots of POV in the very first paragraph it has been agreed by other contributers to keep it brief so that it is not loaded with lots of POV which has sections of the stuff lower down. Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other version

message: First, this old lead is too short (see Wikipedia:Lead for official policy on how a lead should look like. Second, even after 60 years. is a rather useless phrase - will we change it by year as the time passes? Anybody can count, and the present tense (remains one of...) is, well, present. Third, while I like quotes (and thus I left that one), 9 times out of then Peer Review and FAC requires quotes to be moved to Wikiquote (thus, in fact, this lead has only one-sentence para. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk histories you will see that there was a vote on this. I agree it should be changed next year to "even after more than 60 years" Which is what it said in so many words last year (after more than 50 years) Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of the nature of this article and to stop lots of POV in the very first paragraph it has been agreed by other contributers to keep it brief so that it is not loaded with lots of POV which has sections of the stuff lower down. Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The following information needs sources before it can be included in the article; with the exception of the first para removed by me, the rest is translated from Polish popular magazine (above), was added by me and removed by Philip: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needing sources

message: A number of anonymous editors (or at least 3 different IP addresses) have been inserting estimates of the death toll of the bombing in excess of 100,00.  I've been reverting the edits (three times over the last three days), and saying that the right place to discuss claims of higher death tolls is here.  It is maybe worth a few editors here keeping an eye on eits there. --- Charles Stewart 14:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of estimates at [[National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)]]

message: Refering to this above:
"The bombing of Dresden has saved many German Jews, who were saved from the Holocaust and Auschwitz gas chambers, as they were put to work in rebuilding the city."
I have never heard or read that Jews from any of the extermination camps or those who hadn´t been transported to the camps yet were put to work in Dresden. What can be said, though, is, that the night attacks of February 13
*killed an unknown number of Jews among Dresden citizens; they were not allowed to use cellars for shelter during the bombings 
*saved some of their lives, because they were supposed to gather for deportation on February 14; the date had to be cancelled, because the Gestapo building burned out and all their documents on Jews were lost. 
How many survived no one knows. The Jewish synagogue of Dresden estimates a few dozens. Famous is Victor Klemperer who wrote a diary on his experiences in the Reich, including the bombings. Jesusfreund 07:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saved Jews

message: Currently the article reads:
:Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.
Can anyone provide a source for these statistics because they vary from the ones I have?
Taylor Page 408 quotes a German police report which gives figures which include:
:39 schools, 19 hospitals, 11, churches, 6 chapels,  3 theatres, 50 banks and ins, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 63 administration buildings, + 647 shops, 64 warehouses, 18 cinimas, 5 cultural buildings, 5 consulates, 1 zoo, 1 water works, 1 railway, 19 postal facilities, 4 tram facilities, 19 ships and barges. Military targets were main cammand post, Wehrmacht library, vet testing centre, and many military hospitals. The main military barracks around the old arsenal was missed.
Taylor Page 409: 200 factories damages, 136 seriously 28 medium and 35 light.
Also:
:Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,70 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.
Which gives a total of (78+27.7+64.5)/.8 = 212,750  not 222,000
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of the attack