Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 10

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 insurance companies, 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)
replies: text: *Dragging up an old thread of conversion here - the most recent edit to the page changed "19 churches" to "18 churches".  As there's no sources currently cited for either claim, I've not reverted, but I'm still curious Sam Vimes 14:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of the attack 

message: Although only eight years of age at the time, I remember seeing the firestorm and the convoys of trucks carrying charred bodies and parts after the bombing. I ws located on the outskirs of Dresden in Radebeul Zwei.
I have over time wondered how the distruction was as contained as it was given the stupendous size of the fire at its nucleus. I would have thought that the whole area surrounding would have been destroyed, including my family.  
I have been reading the many contributions on this subject in the 'Pedia' and cannot persuade myself that the 'argument' - because that's what it is - regarding blame, serves any purpose. I just hope that we can learn from the past and try to avoid annihilating each other in the future.
SASCHA
Unlikely, as we do not live long enough, and those who come after us have to learn such lessons anew. Yet we can try.
:I have family who perished in and survived Dresden. The Allies don't take responsibility for their war crimes, and over punish Germany and Japan for theirs (as well as grossly exaggerating some of them). While I am not necessarily against the war in Iraq, it's the same sort of situation today. They cry about "terrorism" like September 11, don't people think that the Iraqi civillians were terrorised when missiles were blowing up their houses and soldiers were sticking guns in their faces? The West, particularly America but also Britain, have always had this notion that they can do whatever sick atrocitiy they like in the name of war, but their enemies had damn well better not fight back in any way. And when the Germans complained about their brutality and inhumane, cowardly attacks, the British pass it off as "propaganda".
::Amen my brother.There were horrible Axis war crimes but also there were also horrible Allies war crimes.Atomic bombs,B52's bombing Japanese cities,internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden,assuring France that she can keep her colonies after the war,returning the 2 million people "victims of Yalya" to the mercy of Stalin who were later executed by the firing squads of NKVD.I am glad that Hitler and Nazis lost the war,I am sorry about the genocide but that doesn't mean we should not look at the war crimes of USA,UK and USSR.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.213.122.18 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 October 2005  (UTC)
::Although many of our actions in Iraq may constitute war crimes, I don't think they qualify as terrorism, since the intent is not to cause terror. Abu Ghraib could be the exception. thejabberwock 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think probably the most inexcusable Anglo-American crime outside of WWII - certainly one few people ever hear about - is the blockade of Europe that the British maintained for a full year after the armistice was signed in November 1918. If you look at some of the sacrifices the Germans and Austrians were making on an everyday basis, their meager rations and the desperate attempt to get Ukraine's grain industry up in fullswing, only then can one understand the how thoroughly they must have suffered. They thought the Brits were trying to destroy their healthy gene pool. Funny, I don't see anything about this in the World War I article.--68.81.242.37 14:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was there... 

message: It seems to me that Bombing of Dresden would make a more fitting title.  I looked quickly through the archives and didn't see anything on this subject, so just thought I'd field some opinions.  When discussing a battle or event (Rape of Nanking), we don't normally add "_in_such_and_such_war" to the end of the title.  I'm not aware of any other times Dresden has been bombed, so I'm strongly in favour of a rename. Sherurcij 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: :"As acts of retaliation, they were at best vicarious (even if entire nations are seen as morally competent agents)." Can someone explain this sentence? My understanding was that a vicarious act was one undertaken on behalf of another? I don't understand how this applies here? Cheers, User: Badgerpatrol 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "vicarious act of retaliation"

message: This article has greatly improved since the time of my last visit several months ago. There seems to be a more effective balance between the two sides and I'm especailly pleased with the plethora of footnotes. Kudos to all who participated in the effort.--68.81.242.37 09:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just Passing By

message: THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II INSTEAD.
:::the same one that helped them lose Vietnam. Carelessly plastering the countryside with a sh!tload of bombs.--68.81.242.37 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What military straregies helped the allies win WW2