Feldgrau.net

Rather funny that somebody would try to convince me of the incorrectness of an existing opinion about the illegality of areabombing. I think I mentioned the existence of the opinion without agreeing with it. I even explained why I disagree with it.
But the opinion exists and in the spirit of the conventions of The Hague areabombing would certainly have been illegal if they had been binding.
I am not going to into detail about the disaghreements on the allied side about how to use airpower. They are wellknown.
I maintain my opinion that the bombing of Dresden and other german cities towards the end of the war was completely useless.

Rather funny that somebody would try to convince me of the incorrectness of an existing opinion about the illegality of areabombing. I think I mentioned the existence of the opinion without agreeing with it. I even explained why I disagree with it.
But the opinion exists....

Exactly. And that's why you're providing a useful foil for what seems like the required annual restating of the legal issues on most WWII forums.

I am not going to into detail about the disaghreements on the allied side about how to use airpower. They are wellknown.

The attack against Dresden was therefore a p
ure terror attack and not really of much military use which explains the lack of enthusiasm for it.

A subtle change of emphasis there.

....maintain my opinion that the bombing of Dresden and other german cities towards the end of the war was completely useless

The Ardennes offensive changed a lot of minds in London and Washington about backpedalling in the last days of the war in Europe; it was to be fought to a finish...whenever that finish was to turn out to be. Right up to VE Day, for instance, everyone working on MANHATTAN still expected the Bomb to be used against Germany....

And with the American paranoia about an Alpine Redoubt right up until the end of the war...and after, it made perfect sense to continue attacking rail and transport nexii etc.

As for continuing to attack German industrial production - as late as the end of March Heinz Fey the LW defector was telling the Americans about a whole swathe of synth fuel factories they hadn't known about, new "forest factories" constructing Me262s, Galland was still getting spares for his aircraft from Messerschmitt factories over the border in Czechoslovakia, etc., etc...German industry was still producing a HUGE amount of materiel; a lot of it simply never went anywhere, or never arrived where it was supposed to go - but the Allies couldn't rely on that.

As no one was condemned for "areabombing",saying that it was illegal,is nonsens .
Btw,as "precisionbombing" in WWII was impossible,without civilian casualties,the distinction between "areabombing" and "precisionbombing" is a jesuistic one,used to conceal the fact that one has no argument .
The bombing of civilians was not considered as illegal in WWII,and,that's the only thing that's counting.That someone has,65 years later,when the dead of a civilian in wartime is causing a lot of crocodile tears,an other opinion,is totally irrelevant.

It made always sense to execute daylight precision attacks against industrial targets.
The area attacks to destroy the moral of german civilians never worked.
The pure terror attacks like that on Dresden were a waste of resources and overkill without much justification.
The allies had a tendency to overuse firepower with sometimes counterproductive effects.

That Dresden was a waste of resources,does not mean that it was a terror attack .
The discussion about day/night attacks is off topic .
Coventry was a night attack,Hamburg a day attack,Mortsel,a day attack :can one use the day/night attack to "prove" such an attack would be terror ? Of course not .
And,why would a "terror attack"(if this can be defined) be a war crime ?
Please,show me a source(préwar!) which is forbidding "terror attacks".

This is not about terror attacks being forbidden or not. It is about Dresden being a mistake or not . it was because it was a terror attack by the way it was executed and terror attacks did never work and at that time of the war were even more useless than ever.

It made always sense to execute daylight precision attacks against industrial targets.

It did NOT make sense to do so when bombers couldn't be defended by longrange fighters. Remember exactly why the British abandoned daylight precision bombing in late 1939...

The area attacks to destroy the moral of german civilians never worked.

and terror attacks did never work

Speer and Goebbels are both recorded as believing otherwise.

The pure terror attacks like that on Dresden were a waste of resources and overkill without much justification.

Really? How many aircraft were lost on the Dresden Raid? And we've already seen all the industrial and military targets detailed above; this was war - that's justification enough for carrying the war to the enemy if the means are at your disposal.

it was because it was a terror attack by the way it was executed

Actually, if you look at the exact briefing details for the attacks and how they subsequently were carried out, Bomber Command was specifically targeting industrial areas and infrastructure targets.

Firebombing a city has nothing to do with attacking military targets. It has everything to do with terror. Not surprising that there were protests after the raid. Even Churchill started to have second thoughts about this type of raid.
Only the US daylight attacks really hurt the german war effort.
The raid on Dresden was overkill.

A city was a military target,in fact,in a total war, everything is a military target .And,terror attacks were legal in WWII.
The meaning of terror attacks is to terrorize (=scare) the civilians,and,as the civilians were a legitimate target,.........
If,after the attack on DresdenGermany had capitulated,everyone would say (Germans including) that Dresden was,from a moral point of view,a very good thing,because it saved the lives of a lot of people.

Didn't do the dead much good. Anyway that's in the past and we havn't learnt a thing. Now we bomb the hell out of anything that annoys us especially if it has oil and no one blinks an eye.

- Hans

Not surprising that there were protests after the raid. Even Churchill started to have second thoughts about this type of raid.

Have you actually READ Churchill's letter? Both versions of it?

Hans wrote:Didn't do the dead much good. Anyway that's in the past and we havn't learnt a thing. Now we bomb the hell out of anything that annoys us especially if it has oil and no one blinks an eye.

- Hans

That is also a load of nonsense as WE(the west)practice real precisionbombing.

phylo_roadking wrote:

Not surprising that there were protests after the raid. Even Churchill started to have second thoughts about this type of raid.

Have you actually READ Churchill's letter? Both versions of it?

I have read a text by Churchill. Not that it matters much as the protests were there and had everything to do with the nature of the attack on Dresden with its massive loss of life.

ljadw wrote:A city was a military target,in fact,in a total war, everything is a military target .And,terror attacks were legal in WWII.
The meaning of terror attacks is to terrorize (=scare) the civilians,and,as the civilians were a legitimate target,.........
If,after the attack on DresdenGermany had capitulated,everyone would say (Germans including) that Dresden was,from a moral point of view,a very good thing,because it saved the lives of a lot of people.

A city as such is not a military target. Certain installations are. The raid on Dresden did not intend to have germany capitulate. The attack as it was, was massive overkill. It was also a PR victory for Germany.

phylo_roadking wrote:

Not surprising that there were protests after the raid. Even Churchill started to have second thoughts about this type of raid.

Have you actually READ Churchill's letter? Both versions of it?

I have seen both and particularly the first one is revealing.