Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 15

message: :Keep the lead with the quote as here:
* Oppose --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep as it is 

message: :Remove the quote.
* Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the quote 

message: Germany was fighting, prisoners were transported between concentration camps (Death marches (Holocaust)), death sentences were executed, last Jews were to be killed. Thousands were working for SS and Gestapo in Dresden. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context 

message: The only argument I see here is we like the quote. You try to impose your values, your POV, even using censorship and threats. A specific editorship.Xx236 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attack instead of arguments 

message: As some editors noted the article presents mostly the debate in English-speaking world. Perhaps to counterbalance and enrich the article views from the  victims of Nazi Germany that were classified as subhumans regarding this supposed "tragedy" should be presented as well ? A section on historic assesment can be made where the quote can be moved and other views presented--Molobo (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterbalancing view 

message: Quoting from the lead:  "Later reassessments"
Would "Later assessments" suffice?  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either would be fine. "Reassessments" is more accurate though. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later reassessments ? 

message: QUOTING the opening:  "The consensus among historians who have published estimates in the 21st century is that the number killed during the raids was in the range from slightly under 25,000 to possibly a few thousand over 35,000 with more recent research indicating that the number was probably towards the bottom of the range.[3]"
The impression I get from looking at the references included in "3" is that most of them represent 20th century work, not 21st century.  Is the wording  "published estimates in the 21st century accurate?  Wanderer57 (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The publications rely on 20th century research, but the 3 books cited were all first published after 2000. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That kind of detail doesn't belong in the lead, especially not the first para, which should be strong and clear -- 35,000 seems to be the mainstream consensus figure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But 35,000 is not the current mainstream number, there is a range. I have cited three sources for this and included the sources that contain the primary analysis. As I said before that is why expanding the lead is  complicated. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the current mainstream consensus. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Prove it. Three sources given says a range and unlike the one you have given are recently published books by historians and not newspaper articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That level of detail is not appropriate for the lead, except in a footnote. Philip, please let others work on the lead. The writing is deteriorating again. It really was a good lead as it was. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not stopping you working on the lead, but putting in 35,000 when it is clearly not the consensus among respectable historians who are working in this area is misleading. Also what specifics clauses do you think indicates that "writing is deteriorating again"  --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion, the lack of flow, the punctuation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Specific clauses please and you have not addressed the issue of a range. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st century? 

message: There used to be a section in this article about Winston Churchill's famous memo talking about "acts of terror," the one that was withdrawn and softened. Has that been removed, or am I just missing it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing it see Bombing of Dresden in World War II#British --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Acts of terror

message: Philip, please write citations the standard academic and WP way -- with a book, it is name of author; name of book; publisher; year of publication. Or else write a short Harvard ref, with details in the Refs section. But you seem to be doing a bit of one, a bit of the other. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People have to be allowed to write citations up if they want to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? I am not objecting to citation, but with edits like this, you are changing citations from a format that others have placed in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: What I'm doing here, in case anyone wonders, is adding fuller citations in preparation for a copy edit. So instead of writing , I'm writing out each time Longmate, Norman. The Bombers. Hutchins & Co, 1983, p. 344. This is because once the copy edit starts, some refs might disappear completely if the first reference is removed along with some text. Writing them out makes no difference to the footnotes, and it's just as easy to copy and paste them in each time. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already very large why add kilobytes of redundant information when the format  Longmate p. 344</ref> can be used as the books full reference is given in the reference section? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The size of the area of destruction is not a "factoid." The cites are all in one footnote, are therefore not unsightly, and are in fact quite interesting, including one from Bomber Harris himself. The whole point of footnotes is to document things like this. There is no reason at all for you to remove them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Some of the text in the attacks section is identical to this. Question is: have they copied from us, or have we from them? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably us from them, given that it seems to be a British govt site. That section should probably be written from scratch. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This certainly needs to be addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  08:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: Over 400 died. This context is important for the February bombing - the government knew about the danger, but removed the Flak.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 7, 1944 bombing 

message: The German article informs about concentration subcamps in Dresden, this article doesn't. Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where those camps affected by the bombings? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  08:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi camps in Dresden 

message: Gerhart Hauptmann survived the bombing and returned to his home, where he died in 1946.Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gerhart Hauptmann]] 

message: :Any additional comments:
There are many articles with names Bombing of X in World War II, so I assume that you want to move all of them?Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal is about this page title only. There may be other lesser known city bombings where the qualifier would be useful. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Qualifiers like "in World War II" should only be used if they serve to differentiate the rest of the title from another period.  Thus, "Invasion of France" or "Invasion of Belgium" need qualifiers.  How many bombings of European cities require a qualifier under this principle?  I would suggest very few if any.  Thus, I support the proposed move. --Richard (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Philip, this reversion mode is very disruptive. I don't really think we have major differences on any issue, yet the wholesale reversion is counter-productive, and makes it more difficult to find common ground. Please address each item specifically on talk, and we can discuss. Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions 

message: One more POV statement. Get some reading about the horrors of WWII. The war in Western Europe was a partition.Xx236 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand, your complaint is that this wasn't important because it was in western europe? It may have been a part, but it was an important part none the less. It was also touted by both sides as a famous example. The Germans of the allied brutality, the British of what they would give to the Germans (I believe they even intimated the Germans deserved it). Narson (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: WW2 involved alot of cruelty. That other cruelty exists does not negate the fact that millions of people, including a hefty number of civilians or prisoners of war, died in the conflict. I mean, you have the holocaust, the slaughter of various nationalities of POW (most notably the Russians in the european theatre), forced sterilisation of disabled persons within Germany, stalinist purges in the lead up to the war, death marches through jungles....Dresden was a pretty famous event (personally one that I think was not some great cruelty etc) that was and still is used as a cause celebre about morality in WW2. No, it isn't fair that things such as this get so much attention in things while other similar or worse events get little coverage or plain ignored, but thats life for you. Heck, September 11 certainly gets more coverage than, for example the 1990s Rwandan Genocide (3000 odd dead vs...1 million+?). Or if you prefer a 20th century reference, compare the attention paid to the Amritsar Massacre, which seems to get more 'rawr this is bad' attention than the 1971 supression of the Bangladeshi successionists by Pakistan (100 odd vs 100,000 dead). I really cannot understand what it is you want here? Narson (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wasn't talking about wikipedia with my examples, I was talking about the western world in general there. The distortion is inherent within the main English language community (Being the UK and US) and so it is likely that such a distortion will carry on into projects, like this, that rely wholly on external sources. Now, as for the mention of non german victims and KZ infrastructure, find the sources, put it in. Thats the joy of wikipedia. moral cause celebre, I would say, is a description rather than a POV. I do think we should avoid the term 'tragic' or 'tragedy', I agree. Narson (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a moral cause célèbre of the Second World War 

message: I'd like to remove all or most of the cultural references section, as much of it is "X wrote a song called "Fire" inspired by the bombing," which doesn't really tell us anything, yet it's taking up a lot of space.
I'm also not keen on the post-war debate section as currently written. We give too much space to the report from the U.S. Air Force Historical Division report, and I don't think we even need to mention that the editor of the Times once called it  a war crime (unless it was the editor of the Times at the time, but it wasn't), or that Christopher Hitchens says the Allies did it because they could, and similar.
Any thoughts about either of these? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the USAFHD report has the most thorough and and detailed fact-based analysis of the historical and military circumstances. The other groups seem to do a lot more hand waving and are much less fact based. I support removing anything from the cultural section that does not give the reader a better or clearer understanding of the bombing and its effects. Crum375 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've restored yet another talking head. :-)  Really, does it add anything to the article to have non-specialists giving their opinion? It's one thing to cite Frederick Taylor and similar specialist views, or important political figures, but to quote anyone else seems pointless. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Roberts's view, writing from the perspective of the "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900" is no less important than Taylor's. It is the broad historical view that is needed in such controversial cases. Also, at the moment we have lots of anti-raid material and minimal pro-raid, which needs correction for a proper NPOV balance. Crum375 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're arguing elsewhere that we should use specialist scholars for the Holocaust, but not here? Roberts only has an undergrad degree in history; he is not an academic; he has never specialized in Dresden. Why should a view from him be included at all, but especially why should it head that section? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you say, about all non-specialist sources. I would like to see, ideally, only reputable scholarly historians who specialize in Dresden and similar events as our sources. I think people like Hitchens, Grass, and anyone else who is not a recognized specialist historian should not be there, since controversial issues require the best possible sources for all sides. So I would rather take out anything that doesn't meet these stringent qualifications. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining problems

message: http://jetzt.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/277641
"Schlußmeldung des Höheren SS- und Polizeiführers Elbe" is the single document of that time
*Dresden 25,000
*Leningrad 700,000
Xx236 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: "German Deaths by aerial bombardment. It is not clear if these totals includes Austrians, of whom about 24,000 were killed (Austrian Press & Information Service, Washington, DC) and people other territories in the Third Reich but not in modern Germany"
The numbers include probably  non-German forced workers from territories occupied by Germany but not in the Third Reich. Xx236 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed between 305,000 and 600,000 civilian lives 

message: There are no Google hits for this. The USAFHD source says it was just a review conducted by this one person, who wrote a memo to the Secretary of State about it. Do we have a source that says it was a real inquiry? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshall inquiry

message: Taylor considers the use of the term Thunderclap misleading/wrong. I'll look up the exact wording he uses when I have a moment to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Davis source explains that although the original Thunderclap plan called for massive continuous night-day bombing effort, the actual result was a restricted version. So the term Thunderclap is used informally to refer to the more limited actions against the eastern cities in February. I am not sure we need to get into deep detail, as long as we have references using the term. Crum375 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is was it a formal operation like Operation Hurricane (1944) or just a series of raids. If the latter then there really is no need to mention the bombing of Berlin on February 3. It may be that it was a code name given for the Western Allies attacks on the German railway network to aid the Soviets, but if it was then that should be made clear because otherwise it gets mixed up with the August plan called Thunderclap that suggested droping 25,000 tons of bombs in three or consecutive days and inflicting 220,000 casualties 50% of those deaths. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it Page 214 Taylor writes noting the words of Sir Douglas Evill (vice chief of the Air Staff) minutes of a January 30 meeting in Whitehall of the Chief of Staff Committee, decision of the Air Staff that a "..'Thunderclap' attack would not be feasible ..." and Taylor goes on to say "In other words, Thunderclap was to be replaced by a number of very powerful - but not in the numbers of aircraft dispatched, freakishly large - air raids on eastern German cities, including Dresden." BTW in case you are wondering I am using a London paperback edition, (type set in Scotland and printed in GB) of Taylor's book, but for some reason it uses US spelling (program center etc) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an issue of terminology. If you read the Davis reference, pp. 490 - 498, and search for "Thunderclap", you'll see how Davis refers to the modified and restricted version as Thunderclap in many places. Yet he himself in a footnote 7, p. 513, says: "Thunderclap itself referred to only the one raid on Berlin. The linking by Harris of other cities in eastern Germany to the operation has led to some misunderstanding by later historians, such as David Irving, who incorrectly apply the operation’s designation to the entire bombing campaign in eastern Germany." It seems that they (at least Harris) saw the eastern city bombing campaign in February as a related effort, which was a restricted and modified version of the original Thunderclap plan from the previous July. Crum375 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is a reference to Thunderclap from the RAF side (see: "13/14 February 1945"). Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thunderclap

message: I think we need to say something about the lack of German air defences. If Dresden had been an important military and industrial target, they would have defended it, which raises the question as to why they didn't. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the USAHD report, they did defend it, lightly. The rationale I have seen (I believe in Davis) for the light defense is that because of its relative distance from the British airfields, Dresden was harder to reach, and therefore hadn't been attacked much previously, which led to complacency on the Germans' part. Apparently some of the anti-aircraft guns were sent to other cities that were attacked more often, and to the front for shooting at tanks. Crum375 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant we need something in the article about it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that was what I have seen the sources say about it, and it is relevant. Crum375 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German air defences

message: The German article says:
24. August 1944 Dresden-Gittersee, Freital-Birkigt, 241 died according to a German newspaper.
7. Oktober 1944 - 312
16. Januar 1945 - 334 
Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the Oct '44 and Jan '45 attacks in the USAFHD bombing table, plus other attacks, in Mar '45 and Apr '45, but not the August '44. That needs to be researched because USAFHD claims its list shows all the Allied bombings. Crum375 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  24. August 1944 bombing not mentioned 

message: I am resuming discussion about this issue here, as I think it's a key point that needs good sourcing and phrasing. According to the USAFHD, Antonov told the Western Allies at Yalta:
 
The Western Allies then decided that Antonov's desire "by air action ... to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig," meant that, because of the rail lines layout, Dresden had to be added to Berlin and Leipzig. (See para 18 in USAFHD.)
This was later transmitted to the Soviets. If anyone has a source to the contrary, that the Dresden raid was requested by the Soviets as opposed to being proposed by the Western Allies and accepted by the Soviets, please provide the source. Crum375 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor page 218-219 says that there as no record in the minutes that the Soviets  asked for Dresden, but the translator Hugh Lunghi (who translated for the PM and the chiefs of staff) "firmly maintained" that the Soviets twice requested Dresden because it was an important rail junction. Even if they had not, as the Soviets had included Berlin and Dresden in the their Bomb Line request, the cities had to be discussed because if the Bomb Line ran through Dresden and Berlin then the Allies could not bomb either without the Soviets agreeing. The Western Allies thought the Bomb Line was too far west so Portal (at Yalta) asked Bottomley (in London) for a list of targets east of the Bomb Line. The list he got back included tank and aircraft factories, oil installations and the cities of Berlin and Dresden. Taylor then goes on to say that Yalta was important because "Portal replied on February 6, agreeing that a  new directive should be issued to enshrine the new priorities. So why issue a new directive, when Harris already had his orders to attack Dresden when the conditions were right? First, because (if Major Lunghi's memory serves him well) the bombing of Dresden, as a specific target, was now a direct matter of high policy, decided among all three great power representatives, political and military. The idea of bombing eastern Germany to help the Russians had originally come from London. A new, joint Allied directive would broaden responsibility and give the planned attacks on Dresden an other cities behind the Russian from a coalition, rather than a predominantly British, stamp". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is simple: did the Western Allies propose Dresden first, based on their perception of what was good for the Soviets, or did the Soviets specifically ask for it first? As it stands, it seems the former was the case, unless we have a source to the contrary. Crum375 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Taylor says that Lughi said that the request was made by the Soviets first then the Portal asked for  the RAF list before the second chiefs of staff meeting where Dresden was mentioned again (page 219 first paragraph). I suppose  it depends on whether one accepts Lunghi statment. Cox writing in Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden (ed Addison) agrees with Taylor that the Soviets asked twice, mentioning that Lunghi said that both Antonov and Stalin made the request, but makes the point the he thinks that as the Brits had already decided to bomb the city "The question of whether the Soviets themselves specifically requested that Dresden be bombed is in any case irrelevant and largely tied up with Cold War politics."(page 29) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose initiative 

message: Is it really necessary to repeat "by a factor of 10 or more" in the lead? We already give the up-to-date figures. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many sources I have seen make the point about the "extra zero" that Goebbels put in, and some say that that initial propaganda actually created much of the public firestorm in later years, despite the corrected numbers. So I think emphasizing the factor of 10 is important, and adds perspective for the reader. Many readers gloss over raw figures. Crum375 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor of 10

message: Can we have a source for Tokyo being the most destructive fireboming of the war? The source provided seems not to say that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the source provided, and it says: "No other single air raid in history had killed so many people." Crum375 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then we should say that. It doesn't say it's the most destructive. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, that's ridiculous. What about Hiroshima? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot less died in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The nuclear bombs had more of a psychological effect. Crum375 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a note to my own message, the A-bombs were of course awful, caused massive devastation and loss of life, as well as horrific short and long term injuries, spreading genetically into future generations. And today's H-bombs are potentially far worse. So I am not in any way diminishing from their horror, and hope they are never used again. But of course conventional bombs are not much nicer if they get close. Crum375 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting your figures from, and what does any of this have to do with the bombing of Dresden? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to discuss the nukes, we can do that, though I think it's drifting off course. As far the connection to Dresden, it was in the category of firebombing, or firestorm bombing, and when describing its magnitude in numbers, it makes sense to compare it to some yardstick. The biggest one was Tokyo, so that gives us a feel for Dresden's relative size. As far as the terminology, Tokyo was largest in devastated area (16 square miles), and in fatalities (over 83,000). I am not sure we need to dig much deeper into this at this point, as it is in a footnote. If we promote the issue into the main text, we can expand. Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't produced a source saying Tokyo was the largest in area or the most "damaging," and the nuclear attacks are certainly no more off course than Tokyo and the Holocaust. Your source said: "No other single air raid in history had killed so many people," and that's clearly false because more died at Hiroshima, which was also an air raid. So could you find a source, please, saying it was the most damaging? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically used the term "firebombing", to stay in category. The nuke situation was more complicated because of radiation effects, that can last generations and are hard to quantify, so I would stay away from it. I have seen a source for the 16 square miles in the Tokyo bombing, and we can emphasize the term "conventional warfare" (or bombing) to skirt the nuke issue, though I believe that firebombing also avoids it. Also, we can say Tokyo was the "deadliest" instead of the most destructive, to avoid needing to define "destruction". Crum375 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing WP:SYN. Your source says "air raid," not firebombing, and talks about deaths, not area destroyed. All I'm asking for is a source that says precisely what you said. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not doing a SYN. The source says air raid, which includes a firestorm. We also have lots of sources that establish the Tokyo raid set off a firestorm. The former source is only used to show it was the biggest one. This is not A+B=C, it's source A says X about subject S, and source B says Y about it, and we say both X and Y about S. Also, there are lots of sources, they are just hard to access online. Crum375 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And re-reading this source it specifically says that that Tokyo raid set off a firestorm and that it was the most devastating air raid. I am not sure if they mean "conventional" or not, but we ourselves are limiting the comparison to firebombing only. Crum375 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source request

message: GDR propaganda was using Dresden, because Dresden was in GDR, Hamburg wasn't. The only one beautiful city in pre-war Germany was allegedly Dresden. Any other aspect of German history was described as an element of Class struggle. There were books, slides presenting old Dresden.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDR propaganda 

message: *Ravensbrück
**Dresden Universelle
*Flossenbürg
**Ilke Werke
**Behelfsheim 
**Bernsdorf 
**Goehle-Werk 
**Reichsbahnausbesserungswerk 
**Reichsbahn
**SS-Pionier-Kaserne 
**Universelle 
**Reick 
*Sachsenhausen
**BASF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi camps 

message: I reverted IP edits that were strongly against any justification of the bombing, but were written from an advocacy point of view, and that claimed that the Holocaust was used to justify Dresden. All bunk.
However, the IP called Taylor a revisionist historian. It was done nasty, but I do wonder, is there any truth to it? Any debate over Taylor's credentials? Or is he generally highly regarded? Controversial? It's an unpleasant question to ask, but as he is one of the major sources for this article, it has to be answered. Jd2718 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Taylor's interviews with Spiegel "Dresden Bombing Is To Be Regretted Enormously" will set your mind to rest.  He certainly doesn't seem to be a revisionist.  --Joel Mc (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That interview left me feeling a personal dislike for much of what Taylor says and how he says it, but, no, it is clear he is not a revisionist historian. Thank you for providing the link. Jd2718 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits / Taylor's reputation 

message: This page needs some archiving. Anyway, is there anything in the article about U.S. and UK losses duing the raids? I didn't see anything on a quick skim. Rmhermen (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British/American losses

message: Victor Klemperer was to be transported to a KZ, together with 170 other Jews. He wasn't just living in Dresden. Henny Brenner was in the same group and also wrote a book. Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Klemperer 

message: The Grayling interview is cited in support of this sentence: Against this, several researchers have argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and that the attacks were intended simply to terrorize the German people. - however Grayling makes no such argument in the interview. Don't get me wrong - it was an interesting interview, and I'm glad I read it, but it doesn't belong.  It doesn't even really talk about the Dresden bombing except in passing. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grayling interview