Now the American fire raids on Japan made Dresden look like a boy scouts bonfire. On a raid on Tokyo more than 100.000 Japanese were killed in one night, yet is this raid ever discussed and if not why not. Why is it that the finger is always pointed at the RAF for this sort of thing even by the Americans.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Now the American fire raids on Japan made Dresden look like a boy scouts bonfire. On a raid on Tokyo more than 100.000 Japanese were killed in one night, yet is this raid ever discussed and if not why not. Why is it that the finger is always pointed at the RAF for this sort of thing even by the Americans.

Oddly enough they do not talk about the raids on Japanese cities for the same reason they do not talk about the raids on most German cities because even after the atomic bombs Japan was still a "creditable" enemy, another words it still had the capability to defend itself and affect huge losses on an invading force as did Germany until probably late 1944.

I would also argue that there was always an opposition to area bombing in the UK lead by the likes of Bishop Bell of Chichester and James Edward Hubert Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury who wrote to Sinclair expressing fears that, by area bombing the Allies were "losing moral superiority to the Germans" However the moral issue did not cause Sinclair any difficulty, for he believed that the German people must suffer for a war which was their own responsibility, a harsh view which most people accepted in the heat of the conflict. Fulfilling his role as the R.A.F.'s political representative,

Sinclair thought it wise not to explain the nature of the bombing offensive too frankly in public, in case [it] was stirred up on grounds of moral conscience and the morale of the bomber crews affected. An illustration of this is a Commons reply by Sinclair to an opponent of area bombing: "The targets of Bomber Command are always military, but night bombing of military objectives necessarily involves bombing the area in which they are situated". An earlier speech by Sinclair produced reaction from Dr. Geobbels, who wrote in his diary on 3rd March 1943: "The English Minister for Air delivered a speech that puts into the shade anything ever said. He proclaimed the British intention of causing a German migration.... from the big cities. The cynicism underlying such a statement simply cannot be beaten". Sir Archibald stated "I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian - I believe in 'slaying in the name of the Lord!" .

Most of the opposition to area bombing was kept muted until Dresden because until then it was seen as a necessity in the winning the war however by the time of Dresden the war was won and that is why Dresden is continually raised as an allied crime of war.

With WW2 it was a case of winning the war, as defeat would have have brought about untold misery and death. The German forces would have done credit to Genghis Khan the way the dealt with the civilian populations. Taking the morale high ground is all well and good when it is not you that is dieing for that privilege. Now did any any one hear the German people complain about the way the German Airforce bombed other cities and killed people by the thousands, no they just stood and cheered Hitler and Gobbles when he told them what they were doing.
Also I grew up in Britain at this time and I never met any one who thought it was wrong to knock seven bells out of the Germans in this manner as nearly every one knew some one who had been killed in the blitz or on the Battlefield.
One of the other big concerns was that the Allied Governments did not know what was going to arrive in the next V2 and they had to try and end the war as soon as possible. It is all well and good saying to wrongs don't make a right, but even at this late stage no one was sure what would be the next German Terror weapon. After the war the Allies found some thing that they sealed in lead put it in a hold of ship then filled the ship with concrete and took the ship out to deepest part of the Atlantic and sunk it. One can only guess just what this was.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

After the war the Allies found some thing that they sealed in lead put it in a hold of ship then filled the ship with concrete and took the ship out to deepest part of the Atlantic and sunk it. One can only guess just what this was.

My guess is that it was the truth as it seems they rounded up a healthy dose of myth to substitute it with.

Fortunately I missed WW2 by a lot of years but I was also fortunate enough to have a large family who did fight WW2 from start to finish (From Greece to Trieste) and when I look at their views and compare them to your's, Del Boys and Der Altes I find it interesting that it is Der Altes that come the closest to matching and I have to be honest I find that rather ironic and I am somewhat at a loss to explain it.

Earlier today as I made my last post I realised that this was a futile argument because neither of us are looking mediate or moderate our views it is just a battle of "they started it" vs "two wrongs do not make a right" and in those two stances there is no attainable middle ground.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 (Book Review)

Interestingly enough in an interview Taylor said with regard to whether the bombing of Dresden was justifiable:

Personally, though I can trace the logic of it, I have serious doubts. It is a ghastly example of how war depletes the moral reserves even of democratic nations. Goetz Bergander, who survived the bombing of his native city as an 18-year-old and has written widely about its destruction, has described the bombing in his characteristically forgiving way as "outsize." It was certainly all of that.

Seems to me that in almost every case those who have studied the bombing find it of questionable justification.

Hi Monty you said
Earlier today as I made my last post I realised that this was a futile argument because neither of us are looking mediate or moderate our views it is just a battle of "they started it" vs "two wrongs do not make a right" and in those two stances there is no attainable middle ground.



Well as long as we can talk with out getting down to insulting each other, we can argue away the pros and cons for ever.

I agree but I am opposed to continually repeating the same posts, it serves little purpose and generally kills threads by dragging them off topic over a period of time.

Basically I think we are divided into two camps here, those who went through the war and went through the bombing and those that were born afterwards. I have seen German people that went through this bombing saying how they hated and they thought it was wrong , yet turn around and say it was understandable as the Germans had done it to every one else

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Basically I think we are divided into two camps here, those who went through the war and went through the bombing and those that were born afterwards. I have seen German people that went through this bombing saying how they hated and they thought it was wrong , yet turn around and say it was understandable as the Germans had done it to every one else

I disagree, I doubt there are many people that did not see the bombing of German cities as a logical "front" in the war especially since the Luftwaffe had done the same throughout Europe and I don't think that view would change by birth date.

However Dresden was something different it was a massive over kill for the sake of killing civilians and it is extremely difficult these days to believe that the assault on Dresden was for any military gain given that none of military infrastructure in the city was targeted in the biggest raids they were assigned secondary.

Where I think the variation in opinion lies is that those who grew up through the war and its immediate aftermath were raised on the allied version of the war which was about as accurate as a Japanese WW2 text book and because of the holocaust it was impossible to put a more balanced view into press without being labelled a Nazi sympathiser, fortunately the cold war killed that view in the 1960s and now we can look at both sides of the story and see that the allies were just as ruthless and underhanded as the Germans.

So while I believe Bomber Command deserves its memorial and that the Allied cause was justified I do not believe the Allies were all that different to the Axis in their prosecution of the war and were in fact just as guilty of some heinous acts.

As far as the Japanese Cities, I've read that in many cities the manufacturing was very dissipated. The employees had production machinery in thier homes making parts that would be collectedfor assymbly @ the factory. Reportedly after the War ended you could see that most houses in many areas had drill presses, lathes or other machinery in them. If true that would make the residences ligit targets.

George just look at the area devastated by American Fire bombing it was many square miles. Also just how many Americans have these sort of tools in their garage and would that make them targets for bombing. Also most of the Japanese house where of a light wood constructions in case of earthquakes and would not have been able to hold any heavy equipment.