Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 12

message: See previous discussion under Archive 11: Lack of focus
* Last entry 155.247.166.28 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of focus

message: The article currently contains the following unsourced assertion:
:On February 3 1945, the Allies bombed Berlin and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities
Yet Antony Bevoor states in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, , Page 74 that about 1000, died in a USAAF raid that day and the Bomber Command war diary for Febuary 1945 does not list a raid on Berlin either the night of the 2/3 or the night of the 3/4.
So I think a this example should go unless a source can be provided. A better comparison might be to mention Pforzheim where there was a documented 17,600 to 20,277 people killed. Or to mention the rescue of 23,000 trapped people after the Bombing of Braunschweig in World War II  highlights the lack of Dresdens civil defences. --Philip Baird Shearer
Ah! further on this. In "Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945" on page 216, Taylor notes that initial American estimates on the USAAF raid on Berlin on the 3rd  was 25,000 killed but German estimates were fewer and more accurate at less than 3,000 dead with 2,000 injured. Taylor says that it was the largest total killed in one raid, out of 363 such raids with a total of 50,000 Berliners killed in all the raids. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities 

message: This is just an opinion.  It is a mistake to remove these links on Arthur Harris.  I tell you that as a reader using this page.  I should not have to scan back more than a screen to see the links on Arthur Harris.  I won't put the links back in.  I will just tell you that you are wrong to remove them.  Otherwise, this is an excellent page, and you have my congratulations.  --Rednblu 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong to remove necessary links 

message: The article currently says
:Additionally, Germany had committed all of its fighters originally dedicated to air defense at the Battle of the Bulge
Is this correct? Were night fighters tasked with any roles in the Battle of the Buldge? What about the fighters over Dresden on the day of the 15th?--Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced and yes, it is correct. I'm not so sure why you take this so literally, as if it were a point that really showed Dresden to be "defended" - or more appropriately, able to be defended. I have to laugh because this is typical...not of yourself but certainly of the Allied tribunal, with a penchant for arguing in terms of technicalities rather than realities.--155.247.166.29 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Night fighters

message: ::As for your other alterations, they are not adequately explained. I have presented Gomez in a NPOV whereas you have not. I did mention that it was not clear whether the Greco-German ruling applied, but your version goes overboard with negation. Some debate whether the tribunal had actually set into stone changes in international law. <-- here is one example of NPOV, allowing your perspective to be addressed. All it needs is your *source* to be attached. Two sentences earlier it is stated that the belligerents had violated the terms of Greco-German tribunals regardless as to whether they applied or not - hence your point in Air Force Review about mutually broken agreements of the sort. Aside from being a poor example of sentence construction, the example you keep reverting to accomplishes the same function but does this is a much less NPOV fashion.--155.247.166.29 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 155.247.166.29 In your opinion not mine. BTW why not create an account, as you are using more than one IP address and you are doing far more than minor editing? I have not read the Greco-German ruling in detail, so I do no know, other than the secondary sources, if the "belligerents had violated the terms of Greco-German tribunals" as the rulings were about specific instances which led to those rulings. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gomez, Greco-German Tribunal, Hague

message: ::As for the comparison between early German raids in England I don't think you were very specific what your point was. Addressing what I believe to be your main points:
::* at the time of the bombing in Feb. 1945, Dresden was not functioning as the buildup for German forces, that is clear. No hundreds of columns of panzers lay in Dresden waiting, no intelligence showed this, and to say the Allies had the Battle of the Bulge on their minds is speculative and apologetic.
::::Allied intelligence based on Enigma intercepts knew that many divisions were passing through Dresden. I do not have Taylors book with me today so I can not quote the page but he mentions that 10s of thousands of soldiers were passing through Dresden in October 1944 and there was no reason to think it was different in February. Further as the article says "Soviet military intelligence asserted that trains stuck in the main station were troop trains passing through Dresden to the front."  So Dresden was functioning as a major rail hub and coupled to this was the materiel manufacturing base (The two major reasons its priority as a target went up) --Philip Baird Shearer
:::::From Taylor Dresden Tuesday 13th February 1945 page 186,187: ";..figures for October 1944 ... A total of 28 military trains, altogether carrying almost twenty thousand officers and men, were in transit through Dresden-Neustadt each day. There is no reason to believe that three months later ... movements from eastern and western fronts would have decreased substantially" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Germany's policy towards Britain in 1940 was a different situation and does not draw parallels with Dresden - it accomplishes the opposite. Try as you like, this cannot be used for any sort of Allied pardoning. Again, I return to the policy of unconditional surrender, which was the policy of the Allies towards Germany, not the other way around. When Britain was bombed in 1940, Germany was not at war with Britain but Britain was at war with Germany. Historeography for general public consumption rarely acknowledges this in the West. Why is this technicality AND reality never addressed? But I digress. "Dissuasion" - and I'm sure the Allies would have made use of the term in regards to Dresden if they could - explains the bombing of civilian targets in 1940 Britain. This is not the case in 1945 Dresden. Instead, Dresden fits nicely into the scheme of what was a war not just on Germany, but on the German people and essentially, their culture as well. Dresden was a symbol. Even after its destruction, Harris propoposed to continue the raids in much the same manor simply because the Germans could not defend themselves and they were at war. Quite frankly, I find your apologism stomach-churning.--155.247.166.29 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what the above paragraph has to do with this article and war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dresden/Battle of Britain

message: ::As for Friedrich being "controversial", saying the other wiki article did it and a newspaper said it (the Manchester Guardian, no less) are the poorest of explanations. Ask yourself what is the purpose being served by calling him "controversial"......exactly. It has no purpose other than to weaken his argument. Anything that does not hold up to the status quo is "controversial", but there is another kind of "controversial", and that is sketchy scholarship. In this case, if there are grumblings over his research methods (David Irving-esque), then your point is 100% valid.--155.247.166.29 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any views, that are from someone who acknowledges that they are a revisionist, (in either sence of the word (see Historical revisionism and historical revisionism (negationism))), should be qualified that they come from a revisionsit. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedrich controversial?

message: ::Also, please stop deleting the part that the Hague points out cultural significance; It clearly does, and I addressed this point in the most NPOV manner possible. There is no speculation in bringing this point up--155.247.166.29 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put in a source which claims that the Dresden bombing (or all area bombing) was in breach of this clause in Hague. As I said before that is the reason I included the Greco-German ruling so that Hague was included with a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural significance of Dresden

message: ::As for the edits in the Case Against seciton, what you had previously was repetitive (Hague) or unnecessary (V1 rockets? British air defense?). Please don't tell me your objection is that the Case for and Case Against are - after a number of visitors have commented on this - finally somewhat balanced and of even length. 
--155.247.166.29 22:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep the split between Case for and case Agaist. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case Against Dresden as a War Crime

message: This britsh area bombing directive nr. 42 lead to a systimatical attacking of the geman civil populatiuon. the british attacks were concentrated on workingclass quarters and midivael citycenters. The goal was pure terror against civilians. The amount of civilian loses were enormous. In Hamburg (55.000 dead, in Dresden betwenn 25.000 and 35.000 dead, in Pforzheim 20.277 dead ,31,4 % of all inhabitants, in Darmstadt 12.500 dead, 66.000 homeless out of former 110.000 inhabitants, Kassel 10.000 dead, Heilbronn 6500 dead, Würzburg 8500 dead etc. Churcill, Harris, Lindmann and many other bristish politicians and military personell was not sentenced for his warcrimes after the war.--Kastorius 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the sources to defend your claims, why not try to contribute to the article then?--72.94.89.101 18:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SYSTEMATICAL ATTACK ON CIVILIANS