The Bombing of Dresden.

[Mycroft]

Yesterday we heard and (if it was on he box) saw coverage of the 70th years since the Dresden Bombing.

But it was not one raid it was a series... and it is on this night 70 years ago that another >30,000 lives were taken, to add to the >20,000 last night and to which another 20,000 would be taken tomorrow night.

You may have been 'informed' that there were 'only' 25,000 deaths in Dresden, that is a lie, it is a figure that has been cobbled together with no regard to reality.

Even my figures of 65 to 70,000 are conservative, if like all other fire storm casualty figures then it would be more likely to be >100,000.

But it is on this night as the survivors of that horrifying first raid found what shelter they could outside on this freezing night that the cruelest blow was dealt them.

Knowing that there was no place for the people of the city to go we bombed them whilst in the open.

To the Archbishop of Canterbury's credit he decided to avoid being written into history as a liar and his address skated around the truth, a truth that any person who has studied History knows, the '25,000' figure is an outright lie.

Bishops always have an eye on History, their words resound through time and we judge them more harshly than Politicians who lie for a living, so he stayed away from the lie, he placed himself at arms length to it.

As you eat your supper this evening with the one you love, take just a few seconds to consider a Valentines evening in 1945 when the vast majority of the lives taken were women and children.

On a side note.

Many people nowadays find it hard to believe that Bomber Harris and the Aircrews of WW2 were so snubbed after the War, it was not for any reason other than the Bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, many people had been through the hell of city wide bombing and they all were horrified by what we did and the sentiment was that we had done a great wrong.

This feeling, this strong and deep rooted feeling, resounded for decades, but now as those that had gone through that sort of attack have dwindled to a handful we are being taught to forget the truth, accept the lie and go with the (wrongful) version of History that the BBC foisted onto the airwaves yesterday.

Please spend that few seconds thinking of that night 70 years ago this night.

 

[WTDoom]

An utter atrocity . So much of what is taught regarding ww2 is not exactly what happened ...

 

[qureshia]

Listened to an interview on radio 5 of one the last british survivors (soldiers)

He talked about opening up the shelters, during the following days and seeing hundreds of bodies that had either suffocated or melted into huge puddles of gluey fat...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jxnld

British Dresden survivor: All was alight in 'evil' attack
Seventy years after the Allied bombing raids of Dresden in 1945, a British man who witnessed the attack from the ground has described it as "evil."

An estimated 25,000 people were killed in the resulting firestorm, which destroyed 13 square miles of the city and created hurricane force winds.

Victor Gregg was being held by Germans as a prisoner of war when the attack started. He described how old people, women and children were "swept up into the central bonfire" because of the "tornado winds".

"The normal brain would never take it in," he said. "It was terrible, demonic, evil."

 

[Mycroft]

An utter atrocity . So much of what is taught regarding ww2 is not exactly what happened ...

Indeed, it is even 'illegal' to question the lies in some Countries and even here it is considered 'hate speech'... but that will change over time, the archive is still there, the truth will be told.

The BBC and others have lied to 3 generations since WW2 but in the end, the lies will collapse.

The victorious always lie about the details of their victory and there are lots of toadying Historians who will gleefully write it up.

 

[redfive]

And the alternative (to the defeat of the Nazi's) was what exactly?....I'm not trying to defend what was done, just asking the question

 

[ted191]

And the alternative (to the defeat of the Nazi's) was what exactly?....I'm not trying to defend what was done, just asking the question

Roll over and let lots of little mycroft nazi's run the world.

 

[Mycroft]

It was not a strategic target.

There was no Military significance to the City.

It was full of Refugees from the War.

We simply don't know how many refugees were killed, there was about 1 million in and around the City.

Churchill was told by a close friend that the 'real loss of life was somewhere closer to 200,000 souls' Churchill even accepted this figure to the day he died.

These are civilians, they are not combatants.

The Third Reich was already in ruins by February 1945, in less than 4 months Hitler was dead, Berlin had fallen.

Nearby (40 miles) Chemnitz was a viable target and it had shelters as a result, Dresden had only one air-raid shelter worthy of the name, it was not even protected by a Flak garrison.

 

[WTDoom]

It was not a strategic target.

There was no Military significance to the City.

It was full of Refugees from the War.

We simply don't know how many refugees were killed, there was about 1 million in and around the City.

Churchill was told by a close friend that the 'real loss of life was somewhere closer to 200,000 souls' Churchill even accepted this figure to the day he died.

These are civilians, they are not combatants.

The Third Reich was already in ruins by February 1945, in less than 4 months Hitler was dead, Berlin had fallen.

Nearby (40 miles) Chemnitz was a viable target and it had shelters as a result, Dresden had only one air-raid shelter worthy of the name, it was not even protected by a Flak garrison.

If I may add the majority of buildings were made of wood , they knew what they had done and went back and did the same again and again . Not the allies finest hour

 

[Nords]

Indeed, it is even 'illegal' to question the lies in some Countries and even here it is considered 'hate speech'... but that will change over time, the archive is still there, the truth will be told.

The BBC and others have lied to 3 generations since WW2 but in the end, the lies will collapse.

The victorious always lie about the details of their victory and there are lots of toadying Historians who will gleefully write it up.

History is always written by the victors. Whilst Dresden has always been a stain on the Allies' history, it was 'total war', we had been close to complete defeat and large numbers of mil or civ casualties were acceptable to the leaders. The Damsbuster Raids also killed thousands of civilians, it is judged that the military significance of those raids was marginal.

Whilst a terrible thing, it has to be judged in the context of the time...

 

[trax]

Nearby (40 miles) Chemnitz was a viable target and it had shelters as a result, Dresden had only one air-raid shelter worthy of the name, it was not even protected by a Flak garrison.

Was there ever any truth to the story the Britain had agreed not to bomb Dresden in return for the Germans not bombing Oxford?

 

[Mycroft]

Was there ever any truth to the story the Britain had agreed not to bomb Dresden in return for the Germans not bombing Oxford?

Like all such stories they have a basis in 'a' truth.

The truth is shrouded in mist and fog, but we can piece it together with a little bit of thought.

It starts with the fact that Churchill was a coward, I know that is a stark thing to say, but it is the truth, he would get the intel on that evenings raid and he would leave London in a Humber Super Snipe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Super_Snipe and would be in Oxfordshire before a single bomb had fallen on London, he also had various retreats in other directions from London and based on intel would be as far away as possible from the bombing.

I know that to many readers this is a revelation and hardly believable, but it is not just my words, it is what his Chauffeur wrote in his original memoire, later the memoire was edited to remove the passages, but if you look hard you can find an original, there is one in the Bodleian in Oxford, I've read it... Churchill was a coward.

It was after the bombing of Coventry that an ad hoc arrangement was made between Diplomats from Germany and the UK, these meetings took place at both Consulate buildings in Buenos Aires. The agrrement was that certain 'heritage' towns would be left largely untouched, this was brought about in the first instance because Churchill was informed that the 'secondary' Luftwaffe target was very close to his 'bolt-hole'...

So you see History is not a clear story, it has to be pieced together, great men have researched these facts, aligned dates of bombings and meeting in the records and the messages between Germany and Buenos Aires... lots of work to cut through the fog.

I did none of it, I simply check and re-tell the parts I find to hold a finer grained truth.

 

[Philip]

lots of work to cut through the fog

You appear to have a not-very-effective fog machine, possibly David Irving-branded.

 

[Mycroft]

David Irving is a fine Historian and thankfully not the only one that knows many truths about WW2.

I know he occasionally comes here and reads the Public Chat section, he is a good man cast as a villain because he tells an uncomfortable set of truths.

Thank the lord for people like him, otherwise the average bloke like me would remain as ignorant as the Oxen in the fields.

 

[Mycroft]

Roll over and let lots of little mycroft nazi's run the world.

Just read this... made me laugh out loud.

I think you'll find, if you look carefully, it already is!

Be thankful that occasionally a Poacher does become a Game Keeper.

 

[Nords]

...It starts with the fact that Churchill was a coward, I know that is a stark thing to say, but it is the truth, he would get the intel on that evenings raid and he would leave London in a Humber Super Snipe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Super_Snipe and would be in Oxfordshire before a single bomb had fallen on London, he also had various retreats in other directions from London and based on intel would be as far away as possible from the bombing.

I know that to many readers this is a revelation and hardly believable, but it is not just my words, it is what his Chauffeur wrote in his original memoire, later the memoire was edited to remove the passages, but if you look hard you can find an original, there is one in the Bodleian in Oxford, I've read it... Churchill was a coward.

It was after the bombing of Coventry that an ad hoc arrangement was made between Diplomats from Germany and the UK, these meetings took place at both Consulate buildings in Buenos Aires. The agrrement was that certain 'heritage' towns would be left largely untouched, this was brought about in the first instance because Churchill was informed that the 'secondary' Luftwaffe target was very close to his 'bolt-hole'...

The two things (boltholes and being a coward) don't equate. On that linkage, every recent UK Prime Minister has been a coward for having nuclear bunkered operations rooms and every President of the US is one too, for having Air Force 1 et al!

Churchill served as a soldier in several wars from the Boer War onwards and saw action, so you're talking bollox about him being a coward.

PS You'll be telling me that he knew 'An Eagle has Landed' was coming and made sure he was out of the Country when Micheal Caine was spotted in the Fens next!

 

[Mycroft]

Of course they equate!

Cowards seek out bolt-holes.

Didn't George W 'go to ground' immediately after 9/11?

But in Churchill's case it was far more snide than just running in fear, it was the deception too.

Claiming to be 'with Londoners' was a cynical lie he was never in London for a single night of the Blitz, whereas the vile Bowes-Lyon woman (Queen Mother) did at least stay for quite a few raids, the stark contrast was of course the reason the two hated each other so much. But in return she got immunity from being taxed so all was well in the vile House of Windsor.

Serving as an Officer in the Boer war means nothing when young, we all do crazy shit when we are young and dumb, as you age you get more cautious and you think harder, so becoming a coward is very common place indeed.

So your assertion that I am talking 'bollox' is on shaky ground just on the very nature of humanity... then we have the evidence of he Chauffeur.

Your weak attempt at dismissal of the debate by ridicule (argumentum ad absurdum) does not help you at all as in this matter.

We and most of the World has been fed a diet of Winnie, heroism and bulldog spirit... well there has been a lot of 'bull' promoted by the mainstream Historians, but a lot of it is of the 'shit' kind.

 

[Nords]

Okay, i was trying to keep it lighthearted above, but you are talking bollox. People don't become cowards as they get older, I have never heard that ever said before.

Just how many bullets have you had coming in your direction, in your life? How many times have you seen heroes being faced with an imminent threat to their lives and then known them returning to a civilian life? People have a character which after the age of 24-25 is just about fixed for life.

Protecting an inspirational leader from any threat in times of Total War is just good tactics and not to do it, would be negligence in the extreme. The man had many faults, but being a coward wasn't one of them...

 

[Mycroft]

As one ages one becomes more aware of how precious life is, to the overt and outrageous bravery of youth is quelled.

It is why old men send young men into battle and have done since time immemorial.

You have heard what I have said many times before, you just haven't until now realised the deeper meaning of it.

Bravery is a quotient thing, it is akin to sitting at a roulette table where 36 slots are black and only one that is red and thereby certain death, so you play the game, you spin the wheel a few times... but as we do we know that the odds of that one red slot start to pile up... that is bravery, it's how long you stay at the table chancing your luck.

Sometimes bravery is not rationally removed from a soul though, it can be catapulted from it, people simply run out of it, the 'deaf' shell-shacked man that hid under a table when he 'heard' the word "bomb"... the minds runs a book, like a race-course bookie.

 

[trax]

Didn't George W 'go to ground' immediately after 9/11?

Don't think that is really fair.
He did what the Secret Service advised, in fact didn't they want him to fly direct to Central Command in Nebraska, but instead Bush insisted on landing in Alabama to make a statement
Anyway iirc the whole thing on Air Force one was a bit of a disaster - for a start it took off so quickly that they didn't even have fighter cover, then the plane went up so fast they ran low on fuel