As a three year old child in England in 1944 I stood in the garden with my grandmother and mother and aunt watching hundreds of American bombers get into formation and head off for Germany. My grandmother said. "Oh the poor Germans." One of the other women rebuked her. "How can you say that after what they did to us?" To which my grandmother replied "Those planes are not going to drop bombs on the men who dropped bombs on us. They are going to drop bombs on women and children just like us." The horrible truth of that made me cry then as it does now. I like DW but I am disappointed that they belittle the memory of the thousands of women and children who died in Dresden at the end of this piece by using it to attack the far right. Carpet bombing is not about right or left it is about the cruel indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. Please DW use some restraint and just mourn all those lives lost, not try and excuse it.
@@pissiole5654 "We started attacking targets in Germany before the Germans did. This is a historical fact." (J.M. Spaight, state secretary in the british Air Ministry in his book "Bombing vindicated")
@@TrotzdemDeutsch Your quote is incorrect and taken out of context, a tactic frequently used by those seeking to promote apologia for the actions of another.
@@pissiole5654 They were targeting civilian hospitals and residents. Churchill wanted to send a clear message to Germany - they weren't in any way limited by Conscience and they will win at all costs, by any means necessary. And that's just what they did. Never for a moment did they stop or slow their attack on the innocent. Then they're lorded as the greatest heroes of modern history.
I was stationed in Germany for five years the fact that they were able rebuild that city is amazing I visited Dresden while living there you cannot tell a bomb was ever dropped there. Germans are truly a amazing people.
I visited Dresden when stationed in Germany (mostly) between 2002 and 2005, and you could definitely still tell it had been bombed, by some current ruins and some almost "futuristic" refurbishing upon older ruins (seemingly "anachronistic").
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 These buildings, inappropriate for the city, were erected during the communist dictatorship. East Germany was poor and could not afford reconstruction. Reconstruction only came after reunification, when a lot of money from West Germany was invested in the East. At least the communists left the rubble pile of the Church of Our Lady as it was after the collapse of the church following the devastating bombing raids in 1945. The reconstruction of Dresden is far from complete and perhaps in the future Stalinist buildings will be demolished and replaced with reconstructed buildings.
@@ruhri0411 I thought the intention of keeping the ruins is to memorise the launch of WW2. To some extent, a relic recording what British did in Germany. Apparently, Britain was enemy of the soviet union. The reason was not East Germany was poor. Similarly in China, there were arguments whether the Summer Palace should be rebuilt. The consent was not to rebuild it, just use the ruins to memorise the consequence of being a sick man of Asia. China is rich now, but never forgets the history.
@@hegemonys there's always that UA-cam video about Syrian/Russian bomber bombing Syrian city, where civilian dies, and buildings got destroyed, soo many have been destroyed the whole city looks like was struck by some massive earthquake.
Yeah, but they're brown. Or so you deny the fact of their skin color? Fug you, we have a military industrial complex that has been starving, let them eat oil.
@@Teboski78 You do not need to be a saint to be the good guys. The difference between good people and bad people is that good people feel bad when they do bad things.
If targeting civilians in Dresden was a war crime, so was the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in London by German V1 and V2 rockets also a war crime.
Yes, it was. Therefore we haven't erected any monuments for our bomber crews. "The butcher" is celebrated for killing masses of people. For Indiscriminate bombing. That's quite strange and a big misunderstanding in english history.
@@michaelengel3407 "the butcher" was a nickname given to him by his own crews, based upon the severe losses they were incurring in raids over occupied territories. It was not given in reference to any moral judgements of the day.
The Germans should have surrendered after Operation Overlord was successful. There was absolutely no hope at that point for a German victory. Every death after that had no purpose whatsoever and could have been prevented. Most German military leaders knew this and still fought on.
The germans had no hope way before d-day. The Germans were in full retreat in the eastern front and there is not enough resources or manpower to have a successful counter offensive in the east. Germany was doomed since the end of 1943.
There were not "2 sides" but rather several conflicting agendas. Even in war, as well as during peace, "a side" doesn't exist, irrelevant of what the "history books" tell us. *Reality? There were "3 sides" on the "side" of the so-called "Allies" alone.* That makes a large part of your comment re. "sides" a "false premise" (please google false premise" in case you're not familiar with the concept). Sad reality? There were three "sides" on the "side" of the "winners" alone, and who would *really win* would be decided after the war, by boring men in boring back rooms making "deals". No leverage = your "side" would lose. "Dresden" and all other cities "area bombed" out of existence would have *2 "winners"* only. The American Century. Communism. The British Empire in the form of "London", which advocated it, would not be one of the "winners" of it's own strategy of "flattening entire cities" (of which Dresden was only one), when the war was over, despite what all the emotional argumentation wishes to claim.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Most of the strategic targets were outside the city,it seems unnecessarily bombing on the civilian. German soldiers were already retreating and bombing of Dresden at the later stage of war is something unnecessary.
@@Sk_max-k3m To add to the above: The decision to "area bomb" entire cities was not only immoral, but also counterproductive. The "price tag" for London came after the war... Logically, also fatally flawed: Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944? Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe? Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns? *If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?* Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k? At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional. It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k. Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works. At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so. At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack. Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
@@Sk_max-k3m No. Fighting a war on civilians was policy for London (the Area Bombing Directives). Harris fought tooth and nail to prioritize city centers (civilians), even if the weather permitted precision attacks on specific targets, which Harris had given the derogatory term "panacea". Harris didn't want to attack factories. He loved the idea of attacking civilians.
You say Dresden, I say Warsaw. You say Hamburg, I say the Blitz. You say Budapest, I say Leningrad. You say Tokyo, I say Nanking. Don't dish out what you can't take.
*What about Warsaw, Budapest and Leningrad?* Guess what? Not even two years after WW2 and you would have gladly nuked them... Nanjing? I guess all you'll need today to nuke them to be able to thump your chest and chant "got what you deserved" is someone whispering "Chy-naaah" in your ear...
@@ralphbernhard1757 "The only criminal thing about Coventry and the bankrupcy [sic] of London was that it didn't happen soon enough." - Ralph Bernhard, May 2021
What most seem to forget to mention is, that the bombs were designed to kill (not destroy or injure). There was an initial wave if carpet bombing that cleared the housing roofs and another wave of fire bombs to set everything on fire. They were well aware of what they were doing and the war was pretty much over by that point. It was a last chance for British revenge....
Chuck : the attack was carried out at the request of Stalin. Dresden was a hub in the transport of troops and weapons etc to the eastern front. Was there any element of revenge? Maybe, and so what? After everything the Germans had done is it any surprise? As Bomber Harris said "As you have sown the wind, so shall you reap the whirlwind."
@@seamusoflatcap That's some great logics there. Bombing of Dresden took place two months before the Germans lost. There were so many bombers involved that Dresden was flattened just after three days (about ~2500 heavy bombers). Destroying the housing of half a million people and a culture rich city sure was only a strategic (military) decision. Or it might have been an act to inflict so many public casulties to break the moral of the people. But at that time nobody cared about the Geneva convention anyways, why shoul've Britain?
@@ChuckN0rr1st Thanks. Plus there were factories in Dresden engaged in war work. At the time, the Allies weren't to know exactly when the end of the war in Europe would end. Obviously they knew it would be soon but meanwhile the Germans kept fighting not only on the ground but also launching V1 and V2 rockets. Dresden was a legitimate target. What happened was tragic but then so was the whole war. People criticising the bombing do so from the comfort of an armchair in peace time and with the benefit of hindsight.
@@seamusoflatcap Correct, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a slogan that cost the Brits their Empire. Did you know the slogan is false dichotomy? Even without hindsight, it was a mistake to isolate France and completely destroy Germany. Two key elements in the balance of power.
civilian bombing in ww2 was so terrible. Imagine thinking oh its just another bomb raid, little did they know that they were coming to turn the entire city to dust.
wow, you are very smart! you must have a very high iq to talk about something that other people aren't. (it's definately not because nanking is completely irrelevant to this discussion and talking about it is quite thoughtless)
Cause they are trying to remove the right wing as a whole, I never understand why, but its like they just want to make everyone conform to their political stance instead of the 'political liberties' that everyone talks about.
@@theurbanexperience6787 You are watching a documentary about WW2 and you "don't understand why" the right wing is a bad thing. Do you not see the irony in that?
And look what the empire gained ? That bum Churchill sold out the empire for Eastern Europe to be communist ; enabling the Cold War and thus giving way to red China. The empire is no more and Brits will be a minority in their own country in a free decades. Karma.
@لبنان العظيم 🇱🇧 The Great Lebanon im english and i agree england didnt get so much from being kind. Churchill was a war mongering alcoholic mudering fanatic.. ww2 was orchestrated by the ysnks and many other countries. The joooos was murdered by the yanks
I mean if an army was firebombing your capital city and taking over Europe, how would you react? Completely impossible to compare your life to what people were experiencing then.
Targeting civilians with mass bombing was, of course, a war crime, but in war the victors are never 'guilty'. Guilt depends on whether you lose or win - the losers are always guilty.
@@kakadukif1676 Birmingham, Coventry and also a city in Spain... or> make wind and you get storm. Churchill said> we gave them an extra dosis for what they did to us, That s war!
Warsaw met a similar fate, as did many European cities. Much of Europe was rebuilt from pictures & film footage. The German word for this type of war was Vernichtungskrieg - war of annihilation.
The idea was to turn the east into farmland. A policy idea later copied by the west as Morgenthau plan. The main reason it wasn't implemented, is because the beginning Cold War meant that Germany had to be rebuilt as an ally.
@@ralphbernhard1757 The idea (Generalplan Ost) was the extermination of the existing population down to levels that would enable those lands to feed the Reich. These lands would be settled by German's, using any remaining population, deemed sufficiently "acceptable" on their sliding scale of racial "purity", as slave labour. It was indeed Vernichtungskrieg, in every sense of the word.
@@ralphbernhard1757 the Morgenthau plan was dropped before the cold war. Hard economic facts came into play. If Germany had been deindustrialized the Western allies would have been forced to provide economic and or food assistance for the indefinite future as Germany could not produce enough food to feed its population without its industrial base would be unable to produce the wealth needed to purchase food for import.
Its crazy to me how many people don't know that Germany had sent multiple peace offers to Britain which were all ignored by Churchill. In fact many peace activists were arguably illegally arrested in Britain.
But who were you to deliver that "total war" to them? If you think you had moral rights to incinerate their cities because of a couple of bombs, how far should've USSR went?
Well, south america is on its way there; but France was still charging Haiti for its independence until recently, and in the case of Africa, an african ruler that puts its people before the country's mafias is a dead ruler.
Anytime civilians are targeted during war, it raises certain ethical questions. With that being said, you reap what you sew. Germany during WW2 Gaines a reputation for targeting Allied civilians, starting the Holocaust and mistreating POWs. They broke the rules and they paid the price with interest.
You are right. Germany committed war crime and got war crime back. Logic of war. Unfortunately most people reaped that what they never sowed . Never broke the rules but were paid the prize anyway. No matter if in cellars of Coventry or bunkers of Dresden. Mostly the unguilty, that were the people you called "they".
@@michaelengel3407 More than half of German's were voting to dismantle democracy. They were voting for authoritarianism. They got it. Where was the massed voice of opposition when the rights and civil liberties of the citizenry were slowly nibbled away piece by piece? Their freedom wasn't stolen, it was given away. Their silence cost the lives of 60,000,000.
What about the London blitz? Coventry? The German war machine felt no pity for the many England cities they bombed. It ony hurt when someone did it to them.
Dresden was bombed because of Coventry. Five years later ? Ok. Well, Dresden was bombed to ashes to fullfill the strategy of RAF "area bombing directive" which had been managed since early 1942. Therefore Dresden was not the first city attacked like that and even not the last. No reason to be proud of "the butcher". Ah, you raised a honourful monument for him in London? Well, that might be the famous british humor.
@@michaelengel3407 "the butcher" was a nickname given to him by his own crews, based upon the severe losses they were incurring in raids over occupied territories. It was not given in reference to any moral judgements of the day.
Rules maybe, but not logic... British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all... The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... [Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power] Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. And down went the British Empire too... Sad. "Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war. What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
@@chippewaguy4193 Not even the "hindsight" excuse is valid. In reality it was a lack of foresight, and sheer stupidity. Because interestingly at the same time as German industrialisation after their 1871 unification, there was another "power" concurrently rising on the other side of the Atlantic. Concerning "the biggest picture of all", aka "geopolitics", they too, were in the advantageous position of a having geographical advantage. Only this time, the rise of technology (steam trains, railways, steam ships, turbines, etc.) at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century, meant that the geographical advantages the *American Century* enjoyed, would eventually surpass the geographical advantage of the rather narrow English Channel. Similarly to London concerning the continent... [Search for: Splendid_isolation] ...Washington DC could similarly innocently claim to be "just isolating" themselves, while at the same time gaining from the mistakes of other less "isolatable" European powers... The world was M-A-I-N after all, so why not? :-) After WW1 and especially WW2, Washington DC was now in the same situation as GB was pre-WW1. The Atlantic as a "barrier" between the *Americas and Europe,* had supplanted (in importance) the English Channel as the barrier between *GB and the continent.* They had the political "leverage" to impose a favorable geopolitical situation for themselves. After 100 years of playing "balancing games" with the continent, the British Empire became a victim of their own *"game".* That isn't "hindsight". More like sheer ignorance, stupidity, arrogance of power, misuse of a geographical advantage, short-sightedness... And if you give me a few more minutes, I can come up with a few more terms...
@@ralphbernhard1757 The writing was already on the wall. It had been for Empire since the end of WWI. I don't understand how you can ignore the independence movements in India, and later in Africa and the far East. Playing at power balencing in Europe wasn't ever going to prevent the inevitable.
Dresden bombed by the Allies - 3 nights - Bombs and Incendiaries dropped - 4,000T London bombed by Germany - 71 nights - Bombs and Incendiaries dropped - 18,200T (+ anti-personnel parachute bombs with delayed fuses) Where was the war crime exactly ???
You seem to not understand that there can be more than one war crime in a war. Or is it only the worst one that is a war crime and the rest are forgiven?
@@NissEhkiin No such thing as a war 'crime' when fighting for your life. It is not a court. It is survival. Looking retrospectively from snivelling millennial armchair critics gets tiresome.
Germany started bombing british cities in WW1 and started doing the same thing in WW2 with no reguard to who were killed,we gave them some of there own medicine in WW2 hence a 1000 bomber raids that flatened their cities as for innocent people there has never been a war that did not involve innocent people the ones who start it are to blame.
Moral of the story: when you throw the rules of war out of the window don't expect others to follow them either. I think Germany was let off relatively easy considering the harm done.
To be fair it was not Germans who intentionally targeted British population centers first, it was the British who targeted German ones. Perhaps not in WW2, but throughout history Britain has been the clear winner in terms of sheer number of war crimes committed.
Not only Churchill, but an entire network of "old boys" stiff-upper-lipped Empire into ruin... Because there's always a big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all... The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. *The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.* [britannica & balance-of-power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world. *Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "honor".* It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"... London made Germany, the strongest continental power, "the enemy", as a default setting. According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... *Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.* Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. *Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...* Sorreee. That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town... From the unmistakable *"Nr.1"* in 1900, down to *"merely on par"* with Washington DC after WW1, down to *"third fiddle"* during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West". And down went the British Empire too... Sorry 'bout that. Causality is a b*tch...
Keep in mind, we only know what those in power want us to know. Also, who knows...had England and France honored their commitments to Poland and actually helped them in 1939, it's possible no other allied cities would have been bombed.
This I actually agree on because usually if you are the victor then you can get away with near genociding a free people. 1.3 million Germans post war estimate deaths.
That's exactly the point, my friend: in 1945 there was no Treaty, Convention or any other legal instrument that stipulated what was and what was not acceptable in air warfare. The laws of war on land and sea were well established, but large-scale aerial assault was a relatively new phenomenon. Attempts were made to reach international agreements during the interwar years, but by the time the second world war started, nothing was ratified. This meant that the entire subject was only covered by a few paragraphs of vague and ambiguous language, most of it from the Geneva Convention of 1907, and which pre-dated air warfare by almost a decade. So what little law did exist was wide open to interpretation, and both sides exploited this to the full. You are making the classic mistake of judging historical events by modern standards. Area bombing was not outlawed until 1977, by Protocol One of the Special Ammendment to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Of course it was a war crime in today's legal framework, but that framework simply did not exist in 1945. The shocking fact is that German and Japanese cities - and the people who lived in them - were perfectly legal and legitimate targets under existing international law, because these locations contained production facilities of use to the enemy war effort, and also because the bombers had to fly through defended enemy airspace in order to reach them. The legal situation really was as simple and as straightforward as that, and the contention that Dresden was a war crime only holds water from a moral standpoint, because in law it most definitely was not.
Yes, you are right. But war was not finished at the skies over Dresden. War crime does not finish any war. However allied fairy tale of humanity was finished finally.
It doesn't take long to find out that the German 'strategic' bombing started from the outset in Polish cities and British civilian areas (The Blitz). After such aggression yes the Allied forces did strike back in Dresden which was a garrison city. In this era it is unacceptable and rightly so, and it is horrible now thinking of the German civilians who suffered in this way.
The "garisons" were not stationed in the sport stadium in the city centre, which was the *target point.*. According to released material, the direction the bomber stream was taking had the *intention* of creating a fire storm in the city centre...again. No soldiers were stationed here. Furthermore, today one doesn't find apologetic Germans, raving about Warsaw and Coventry, as one does of other nationalities in the forums of the internet, 75 years after these events.
The Frauenkirche and homes of civilians, burnt to ashes, were garrison buildings ? Dresden as a "garrison city" wasn't in focus of bomber command that terrible night. Attacked were the entire city with all people within. That had been real purpose of "area bombing directive" since early 1942. Dresden wasn't the first victim of that directive and even not the last.
@@ralphbernhard1757 WTF?? But Germany were the aggressors to begin with. Its entire gangster Government, if I remember well, were executed for Initiating and waging wars of aggression. It's just normal that a sane individual will prefer not to defend his country plundering another country for no reason.
@@michaelengel3407 the city employed 50000 munitions workers. Also, it is common to use a large, visible structure as a point of reference for bombing because, you know, bombers had a spread of several miles in ww2....
Legitimate target...over 400 small factories in Dresden making optics, gun sights, periscopes, wireless radio communication equipment, radar, binoculars, cameras , electrial components, instruments for aircraft and vehicles, all for military use. All housed within the city itself. It was also a main rail hub for troops headiing East, and later retreating west to defend Berlin..so indeed, a legitimate target.. There are many good books written on Dresdens period during the war years, many noting the destruction of Coventry, and targets like York and Bath.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Germany doesn't have to; that's the point. Which is the only reason they have yet to kick the US out of their territory. Personal unwillingness to militarize.
So Winston *"expire the Empire"* Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with *"more than the measure",* and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... *Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...* Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] *Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]* Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany. *Lose your Empire, and then some...* Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... *"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".* It doesn't say "more than the measure".
@@kekistanimememan170 Sorry Mr Mememan, but after WW2 the British Empire imploded rather rapidly, with *"a little help from a friend".* Because during WW2, British leaders had bombed the British Empire into ruin. Apparently "flattening Germany" was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under..."third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Such a "special relationship" :-) US historians are far more candid about how "Empire" got screwed over.
@@gary8306 Losing your Empire a little bit, then totally after WW2, then flat broke, and then getting screwed over by "best fwiends" was very entertaining. I'm still ROTFLMFAO...
@@FreeIsraelll "Who starts" isn't the point. The point is that attacking Dresden and many other cities was the same war crime as Coventry was. No moral difference. No "Eye for an eye" but hate and destructivness.
@@FreeIsraelll Concentration camps were first used by the British during the second Boer war. By your "logic" does that make the London blitz, or the use of V-weapons appropriate?
@@as-wv8ktwhat about bristol cardiff portsmouth plymouth southampton sunderland hull swansea belfast glasgow birmingham coventry manchester sheffield liverpool and so on who were targetted by the germans
@War Child Seriously? So Germany invading Poland and occupying other territories is justified? War was inevitable with Germany invading other territories!
@War Child They broke many promises and their leaders spoke of world domination. You sit here defending a tyrannical dictator, who wanted a "racially pure" nation.
Harris later said, "I want to point out, that besides Essen, we never actually considered any particular industrial sites as targets. The destruction of industrial sites always was some sort of bonus for us. Our real targets always were the inner cities."
@@LukeLovesRose a lot of people embrace hate. I don't like communism either, but we weren't fighting communists when we slaughtered the native Americans. We weren't fighting communism when we first bought slaves, and then treated people of color like second class citizens. Even a lot of our tv shows are based on supremacy. Audiences want to watch people lose. I see hate all around.
@@johnpapa8681 I don't consider it hateful for people to embrace their abilities, talents, and pat themselves on the back for how good they are. Even Jesus told us that we should be perfect because God in heaven is perfect as we are perfect. Communism doesn't make people feel better about who they are. All it does is bring people down to a level that will best serve the state
>industrial Complex >military garrison >Propaganda victim blaming >SS is there >the luffwaffe bombing warsaw, minsk and london >Telling the slavs that they will be massacred
It could have been worse. We started building the atomic bomb because we knew that Germany was trying to build one. That’s why Paul Tibbetts was chosen to drop it as he had been flying over Europe. The first target for an atomic attack would have been Berlin,but of course Germany had surrendered before the bomb was ready,and Japan became the target.
People murdered industrially, numbered like animals, anonymously and in humiliation in Auschwitz or in Belarus by Einsatzkommmandos would give a lot for such a dignified and humane death as in Dresden.
Whites, heterosexuals, and Gentiles. They are the ones who shout “free speech“ the loudest while suppressing the speech of everybody else and threatening our livelihoods if we question their hegemony in any way, shape, or form.
If he considers the bombing of Dresden a war crime, what does he consider the destruction of Warsaw by his fellow Germans? The Germans started it all and they were paid back in kind.
The Germans did not "start it all," in fact Britain was the first to violate the informal agreement between them and Germany to not target civilians in bombing raids.
@@KK-rg1wz While it doesn’t justify it, the bombing of Wielun was based on incorrect intelligence that a Polish battalion was stationed there. Regardless the agreement was in regard to German and British cities and the British did not react to the bombing of Poland.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 I belive it was the Luftwaffe. Whether that was a delibrate act or caused by someone messing up is unclear to this day. In the end it did not matter, once the deed was done it was gloves off
@@Viking1080 Agreed. All anyone needs to know is that the Germans pioneered bom bing civilians in WWI with Zeppelins and Gothas, then in Spain at Guernica. They started WW2 with destroying Warsaw, then terror bom bed Rotterdam. There's no sign of the Germans having any sort of issue against bom bing civilians.
Britain. Before that Poland. (The 1939 German-Polish Conflict was over when Britain began bombing Germany) What would it have to do with targeting civilians though? It's either wrong or it isn't.
@TÜRKMEN ALİ On September 1, 1939, germany invaded Poland from the west; two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, beginning World War II
@@doxholiday1372 Germany committed the first act of war on Poland. Unless you want to argue that Germany committed a war crime without a declaration of war as well.
@@patriciabrenner9216 But you should not. Dresden had burn down to ashes because of terrors of RAF area bombing directive. When do you ever unsterstand ?
That reminds me: my great parents also lives on the top floor in the center of Warsaw during the war. The city was bombarded in September 1939 and again in 1944. They also hid in the cellar. My grandmother hid the photo albums there. Today we can see what a great lives they had before war. This war was started by Germany. Many civilians died, lives destroyed on both sids. Did we learned anything ?
I guess we haven't learned anything from WW2, since we are witnessing what's happening with Russia and Ukraine. More people dying, homes being destroyed, people fleeing and years of people having mental problems. Especially the children! What a shame, our governments have not learned a thing. They are still willing to destroy the lives of their citizens. Political issues are more important than the lives of people.
Good job American Century too. They had a gweat team... *And so Brits bombed themselves into financial ruin.* "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] Aww. Too bad. Can't all be winners :-D How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Aww. So sad. Too bad. *Lost their impure empire, and then some...* Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
@the boss Yup. But look on the bright side. Winston *"expire the Empire"* Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with *"more than the measure",* and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... *Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...* Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] *Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]* Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany. *Lose your Empire, and then some...* Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... *"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".* It doesn't say "more than the measure". *OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED* *GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY* *BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED* *PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED"* *EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER* Reap as you sow counts for all.
Oh that's rich! Germany accusing others of war crimes. Oh man, now i''ve seen everything. What's next: Japan asking for reparations and an apology from Nanjing? lol
@@SCPKing1835 No, Coventry did not. But Dresden was not burnt to ashes because of Coventry. Dresden was bombed because RAF had to follow area bombing directive. Dresden was not the first german city to be attacked by that strategy and even not the last. Revenge for Coventry ? A fairy tale to justify war crime. Wasn't necessary anymore. Well, bomber command was able to do. So bomber command did.
@@michaelengel3407 It wasn't revenge for Coventry, it was a strategic decision. Dresden was an industrial city producing enormous amounts of ammunition for the German army
@@SCPKing1835 Well, then RAF had missed the target. Area bombing directive meant to attack a circle segment that contains a high load of flammable materials no matter what was within promising a fire storm. As a result complete downtown and people who lived there were under attack that terrible night. Killing people and devastating their homes was official strategy. Well, industrial production of Dresden may had been collateral damage.
"The bombing of Plzeň in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated that the Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons", and that "because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons. "The Americans received a rapturous welcome when they liberated the city. Zinn wrote: I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the 'Skoda works' (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)-not five." Copied from the Film Archives Channel (UA-cam) After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958). "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Henry Kissinger
yet it wasn’t America who did this bombing. It was a joint action by RAF and the USAF. Stop trying to paint the US as a villain. We were all complaisant in this bombing and the war at large. There are no heroes in war. But there is a right and wrong. The Germans did wrong. This bombing was righting their wrong.
@@informationoverload2487 I'm literally copying the words of one of the US bomber crews who was there. Do you want to disagree with somebody who was actually there? I suggest talking to him, not me...
4:16 “If it were to happen today it would be definitely certainly be regarded as a war crime” But there it is happened already in gaz@ and no one said it is a war crime !!!! What a hypocrisy is that !
"They" ? Do you mean thousants of women and children ? Nobody deserved to end up that way. Highly armed military attacked a defenseless city and ALL people who lived there. Well, that would I call war crime in any case. All bombing of civilians and their homes was war crime.
It was unnecessary but Germany bombed uk cities for 59 nights killing 40k people. The deaths wer horrific for those caught in firestorm and especially in the air raid shelter.
@@gregcameron6047 Prove it. To date there is still no proof of extermination. As for the concentration labour camps, didn't British have concentration camps with Axis prisoners? Didn't Americans? Didn't Soviets. Your arguments are based on ignorance, because you've never actually studied history and merely digest what they tell you to, like good cattle.
Actually, get your fact straight. England bombed germany multiple times well before germany retaliated. Englands indiscriminate night raids killed close to a million civillions, thats why germany retaliated on UK cities. Two sides to every story, don't be blinded by patriotism.
destroying this jewel of human civilization just few weeks before the end of WWII, has been a crime against humanity and civilization. there was no military reason to do so, but the Brits would like us to believe so. if Dresden has any military importance, it would have been bombed long before, since even the distant Koenigsberg was bombed earlier. But victors alway are "right" and innocent of all and every guilt. yeah, right!!
Dresden was not much of a Western allieds concern and almost made it through the war unbombed before it's luck ran out and it got on top of their target list The decision to bomb Dresden was in response to the Sovjet requests to aid their advance toward Berlin by disrupting German communications and transport hubs within eastern Germany such as Leipzig, Chemnitz and Dresden. Dresden happened to be the primary one used as a staging are for troops and supplies to the Eastern front. The bombing of Dresden was not some random pointless act of savagery, but a part of a military campaign against a military target. The attack on Dresden, horrific though the results were for the population, was an act of war and not an "atrocity against a civil cultural city." RAF and USAF weren't Dresden keepers, the German Government was. The true obscenity in 1945 was that Germany was still prelonging the war. Germany had lost the war, everyone knew it, but they refused to stop let alone surrender. If they wanted to go down fighting so be it. In 1945 it was big boys rules at play.
@@OleLeik Russians had their own heavy bomber plains by the thousands. Dresden was only about 50 miles from the Russian front when it was so criminally destroyed by the British, dragging in the Americans. If Russians needed to destroy a non-militarized, NON-DEFENDED city (it fielded no air defenses to make it clear it posed no threat). Do not try to whitewash them. The Allies were as much of a war criminal as the Germans were in that fracas.
@@TWOCOWS1 The short answer is no. In 1941 the USSR did launch a series of raids, mostly at night, with four engine bombers on targets in Germany & Poland. the raids were small, & effect small as well. From 1942 the USSR kept a small heavy bomber group, but not anywhere as numerous as the UK or US fleets. The USSR didn't have remotely near the resources necessary to maintain a strategic air war against Germany while at the same maintain the eastern front. While the Western allies presumly would not mind to turn a blind eye to the activities of Dresden & Co and let them continue to feed German troops to the meat grinder on the Eastern front instead of having to deal with them on the Western front: Some horsedeal was made between the big 3 bosses and the UK and US bomber force ordered to destroy those hubs
@@OleLeik baby, when Dresden was bombed in Feb 1945, the Russian forces were close enough to use long range artillery against Dresden. Stop covering up for the inhumanity, barbarity and incivility of "Bomber Harris" and his war criminal pile
“No military reason” The rail hub and industrial quarter of the city disagree. Also, jewel of human civilization? Really? I’ve seen outhouses with more prestige than this place.
As a nine year old boy in 1940 ii sheltered in terror as the German bombers came over London night after night causing death and destuction. As Air Marshall Harris said later " they sowed the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind"
In 1944, Warsaw was razed, after the 1944 Warsaw Uprising of the Polish resistance .. The uprising infuriated German leaders, who decided to destroy the city as retribution.
Yes, a terrible war crime happened to Warsaw. That was the reason and justification why Dresden had to fall ? I don't think Arthur Harris thought of Warsaw when he gave the order to attack Dresden.
In 1970, German Chancellor Willy Brandt went to Warsaw and made his famous "Kniefall", asking for forgiveness for the crimes against humanity of a previous generation of Germans... "The Briggs' Plan was a military plan devised by British general Sir Harold Briggs shortly after his appointment in 1950 as Director of Operations during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960). The plan aimed to defeat the Malayan National Liberation Army by cutting them off from their sources of support amongst the rural population.[1] *To achieve this a large programme of forced resettlement of Malayan peasantry was undertaken, under which about 500,000 people (roughly ten percent of Malaya's population) were forcibly transferred from their land* and moved to newly-constructed settlements known as "New villages".[2] During the Emergency there were over 400 of these settlements. Furthermore, 10,000 Malaysian Chinese suspected of being communist sympathisers were deported to the People's Republic of China in 1949.[3] The Orang Asli were also targeted for forced relocation by the Briggs' Plan because the British believing that they were supporting the communists. Many of the practices necessary for the Briggs' Plan were prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[5]" *Note here. This happened during times of peace, not war.* A pathetic "empire" burning down entire regions, looting, deporting innocent people, setting up concentration camps and calling them "happy villages"... Tell me dear. Where do *you* live? Have any of your leaders ever asked for forgiveness for crimes carried out by a previous generation?
@@michaelengel3407 one of them. I would add hundred. This whiner is alive. A pity. And yes Harris probably thoughjt of Coventry and London. I for one am happy that at least some Germans got the price of their crimes. Not all. Too many didn't pay. mThose in Dresden did.
After learning about Dresden firestorm, I can clearly say that there was no battle of good vs evil. It was battle between evil and less evil in which millions and millions of people suffered.
I think you have watched to much Star Wars and Lord Of The Ring with their epic battles of good vs evil. It's fiction. There have never been nor will ever be good guys among the major powers. Some are more evil and dangerous than others, but there is no saints among them. Anyhow: I don't see what's so special with Dresden, just another destroyed city among so many others as far as I am concerned. Total wars are brutal and nasty at the best of times, Far worse stuff happened all over the place at the time and in the human slaughter bill of WW2 Dresden is a rather minor post.
As a three year old child in England in 1944 I stood in the garden with my grandmother and mother and aunt watching hundreds of American bombers get into formation and head off for Germany. My grandmother said. "Oh the poor Germans." One of the other women rebuked her. "How can you say that after what they did to us?" To which my grandmother replied "Those planes are not going to drop bombs on the men who dropped bombs on us. They are going to drop bombs on women and children just like us." The horrible truth of that made me cry then as it does now.
I like DW but I am disappointed that they belittle the memory of the thousands of women and children who died in Dresden at the end of this piece by using it to attack the far right. Carpet bombing is not about right or left it is about the cruel indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. Please DW use some restraint and just mourn all those lives lost, not try and excuse it.
@@christonefeltzs5149 jesus
@@christonefeltzs5149 bruh you didnt understand me
@@christonefeltzs5149 lmao, still valid point. We won.
@@christonefeltzs5149 yknow that america owes the world over 30,000,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt right
My man was 81 and still remember that day. Your grandmother sounds wise. R.I.P. Chad grandma. (There's no way she's not dead right. Right????)
"They were targetting civilians clearly" ok so you said it was a war crime.
@@pissiole5654 Very well said. Thanks.
@@pissiole5654 "We started attacking targets in Germany before the Germans did. This is a historical fact." (J.M. Spaight, state secretary in the british Air Ministry in his book "Bombing vindicated")
@@TrotzdemDeutsch yeah strategic targets of military importance, not area bombing of residential areas like oh i don't know, Coventry?
@@TrotzdemDeutsch Your quote is incorrect and taken out of context, a tactic frequently used by those seeking to promote apologia for the actions of another.
@@pissiole5654 They were targeting civilian hospitals and residents. Churchill wanted to send a clear message to Germany - they weren't in any way limited by Conscience and they will win at all costs, by any means necessary. And that's just what they did. Never for a moment did they stop or slow their attack on the innocent. Then they're lorded as the greatest heroes of modern history.
I was stationed in Germany for five years the fact that they were able rebuild that city is amazing I visited Dresden while living there you cannot tell a bomb was ever dropped there. Germans are truly a amazing people.
bunch of racists
I visited Dresden when stationed in Germany (mostly) between 2002 and 2005, and you could definitely still tell it had been bombed, by some current ruins and some almost "futuristic" refurbishing upon older ruins (seemingly "anachronistic").
the are particularly amawing at gassing
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 These buildings, inappropriate for the city, were erected during the communist dictatorship. East Germany was poor and could not afford reconstruction. Reconstruction only came after reunification, when a lot of money from West Germany was invested in the East.
At least the communists left the rubble pile of the Church of Our Lady as it was after the collapse of the church following the devastating bombing raids in 1945.
The reconstruction of Dresden is far from complete and perhaps in the future Stalinist buildings will be demolished and replaced with reconstructed buildings.
@@ruhri0411 I thought the intention of keeping the ruins is to memorise the launch of WW2. To some extent, a relic recording what British did in Germany. Apparently, Britain was enemy of the soviet union. The reason was not East Germany was poor. Similarly in China, there were arguments whether the Summer Palace should be rebuilt. The consent was not to rebuild it, just use the ruins to memorise the consequence of being a sick man of Asia. China is rich now, but never forgets the history.
The people of Germany had to be told in this worst way, that the world will never tolerate what they inflected upon the world.
Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion.
Geneva who?
The Germans respected it?
@@patriciabrenner9216 no they didnt. Neither did anyone else.
@@lilzp9106 wello action, reaction.
@@Cybop-xd9mm hail bomber harris they deserved it
Open your eyes... it is happening today, just go visit Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen......
We don't have to visit. We wait for another 70 odd years and will watch it on UA-cam.
@@hegemonys there's always that UA-cam video about Syrian/Russian bomber bombing Syrian city, where civilian dies, and buildings got destroyed, soo many have been destroyed the whole city looks like was struck by some massive earthquake.
@@xponen What's illegal in SYRIAN bomber in SYRIA? Anyway more legal than American bases in Germany
Yeah, but they're brown. Or so you deny the fact of their skin color? Fug you, we have a military industrial complex that has been starving, let them eat oil.
@@rehmsmeyer What are you trying to say?
The only unforgivable crime in war is losing.
@Führer 将軍 Shogün maybe the edgiest username pfp combo in existence
Hello, I am german!
War is terrible. Let’s try not to have another one.
Trevor7775 OK then.
What about in self-defense?
@@angelusvastator1297 Ok.
well, in africa there are still ongoing wars for decades lol
Ok
No such thing as “the good guys” in war. If you’re looking for morality you’re looking in the wrong place.
This war was the exception. Emphatically so.
@@charlessanders7972 Nah they weren’t really *the good guys*. They all just happened to be fighting much much much worse guys
@@Teboski78 And because the bad guys where much much worse we are the good guys.
@@ajcso7844 *least bad guys
@@Teboski78 You do not need to be a saint to be the good guys. The difference between good people and bad people is that good people feel bad when they do bad things.
If targeting civilians in Dresden was a war crime, so was the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in London by German V1 and V2 rockets also a war crime.
Yes, it was. Therefore we haven't erected any monuments for our bomber crews. "The butcher" is celebrated for killing masses of people. For Indiscriminate bombing. That's quite strange and a big misunderstanding in english history.
@@michaelengel3407 "the butcher" was a nickname given to him by his own crews, based upon the severe losses they were incurring in raids over occupied territories. It was not given in reference to any moral judgements of the day.
Both are war crimes
They were. Whataboutism doesn't change what is and isn't a warcrime.
When has anyone said the bombing of civilians in London wasn't a war crime? Or is that your personal view?
The Germans should have surrendered after Operation Overlord was successful. There was absolutely no hope at that point for a German victory. Every death after that had no purpose whatsoever and could have been prevented. Most German military leaders knew this and still fought on.
The germans had no hope way before d-day. The Germans were in full retreat in the eastern front and there is not enough resources or manpower to have a successful counter offensive in the east. Germany was doomed since the end of 1943.
As long as the mustache man was in charge, there was no hope of peace. So he had to go first, which fortunally happened.
@@freekjobse7051 im late but i wonder if operation valkyrie suceeded
They knew there'd be another Versailles, so they thought they might as well deserve it this time.
@@freekjobse7051 Churchill was the warmonger
Well, Dresden was a legitimate military target, whether you consider the bombing itself to be a war crime is another story.
Very high number of civilian casualties and few strategic targets seems that Dresden bombing was a crime against humanity and very controversial too.
There were not "2 sides" but rather several conflicting agendas.
Even in war, as well as during peace, "a side" doesn't exist, irrelevant of what the "history books" tell us.
*Reality? There were "3 sides" on the "side" of the so-called "Allies" alone.*
That makes a large part of your comment re. "sides" a "false premise" (please google false premise" in case you're not familiar with the concept).
Sad reality?
There were three "sides" on the "side" of the "winners" alone, and who would *really win* would be decided after the war, by boring men in boring back rooms making "deals".
No leverage = your "side" would lose.
"Dresden" and all other cities "area bombed" out of existence would have *2 "winners"* only.
The American Century.
Communism.
The British Empire in the form of "London", which advocated it, would not be one of the "winners" of it's own strategy of "flattening entire cities" (of which Dresden was only one), when the war was over, despite what all the emotional argumentation wishes to claim.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Most of the strategic targets were outside the city,it seems unnecessarily bombing on the civilian. German soldiers were already retreating and bombing of Dresden at the later stage of war is something unnecessary.
@@Sk_max-k3m To add to the above:
The decision to "area bomb" entire cities was not only immoral, but also counterproductive.
The "price tag" for London came after the war...
Logically, also fatally flawed:
Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944?
Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe?
Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns?
*If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?*
Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k?
At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional.
It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k.
Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works.
At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so.
At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack.
Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
@@ralphbernhard1757 So you mean to say killing of innocent German civilian by British and American in Dresden was a revenge for London Bombing?? 🤔
@@Sk_max-k3m No.
Fighting a war on civilians was policy for London (the Area Bombing Directives).
Harris fought tooth and nail to prioritize city centers (civilians), even if the weather permitted precision attacks on specific targets, which Harris had given the derogatory term "panacea".
Harris didn't want to attack factories.
He loved the idea of attacking civilians.
You say Dresden, I say Warsaw. You say Hamburg, I say the Blitz. You say Budapest, I say Leningrad. You say Tokyo, I say Nanking.
Don't dish out what you can't take.
*What about Warsaw, Budapest and Leningrad?*
Guess what?
Not even two years after WW2 and you would have gladly nuked them...
Nanjing?
I guess all you'll need today to nuke them to be able to thump your chest and chant "got what you deserved" is someone whispering "Chy-naaah" in your ear...
@@ralphbernhard1757 "Everybody got what they deserved." - Ralph Bernhard, June 2021
@@ralphbernhard1757 "The only criminal thing about Coventry and the bankrupcy [sic] of London was that it didn't happen soon enough." - Ralph Bernhard, May 2021
“Don’t dish out what you cant take” is not applicable to civilian populations not participating in the war. That’s just murder lmfao
shalom
What most seem to forget to mention is, that the bombs were designed to kill (not destroy or injure). There was an initial wave if carpet bombing that cleared the housing roofs and another wave of fire bombs to set everything on fire. They were well aware of what they were doing and the war was pretty much over by that point. It was a last chance for British revenge....
Chuck : the attack was carried out at the request of Stalin. Dresden was a hub in the transport of troops and weapons etc to the eastern front. Was there any element of revenge? Maybe, and so what? After everything the Germans had done is it any surprise? As Bomber Harris said "As you have sown the wind, so shall you reap the whirlwind."
@@seamusoflatcap That's some great logics there. Bombing of Dresden took place two months before the Germans lost. There were so many bombers involved that Dresden was flattened just after three days (about ~2500 heavy bombers). Destroying the housing of half a million people and a culture rich city sure was only a strategic (military) decision. Or it might have been an act to inflict so many public casulties to break the moral of the people. But at that time nobody cared about the Geneva convention anyways, why shoul've Britain?
@@ChuckN0rr1st Thanks. Plus there were factories in Dresden engaged in war work. At the time, the Allies weren't to know exactly when the end of the war in Europe would end. Obviously they knew it would be soon but meanwhile the Germans kept fighting not only on the ground but also launching V1 and V2 rockets.
Dresden was a legitimate target. What happened was tragic but then so was the whole war. People criticising the bombing do so from the comfort of an armchair in peace time and with the benefit of hindsight.
@@ralphbernhard1757 I never said he was a nice chap.
@@seamusoflatcap Correct, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a slogan that cost the Brits their Empire.
Did you know the slogan is false dichotomy?
Even without hindsight, it was a mistake to isolate France and completely destroy Germany. Two key elements in the balance of power.
civilian bombing in ww2 was so terrible. Imagine thinking oh its just another bomb raid, little did they know that they were coming to turn the entire city to dust.
Gravity did this
🤣
Lmfaoo
prove that mass attracts mass
Wind helped do this
Obviously gravity has caused a lot of damage to your brain.
I find it quite interesting that people talk about this a lot more then Nanking does...
It's because the Japanese are seen as the victims of WW2 because they got nuked so no one talks about Nanking lolol
It's also a German TV, which reasonably deals with German events from a German perspective. I don't see anything wrong with that.
wow, you are very smart! you must have a very high iq to talk about something that other people aren't.
(it's definately not because nanking is completely irrelevant to this discussion and talking about it is quite thoughtless)
Nanking shouldnt be spoken about more because it wasnt done by the US or UK. Nanking is irrelevant.
And artifical bengal famine
People saying this is a war crime but they should look at what happend to Warsaw 1944-45 nothing was left of Warsaw
Didn't know kids and women flight in planes.
Does war-crimes in Warsaw exclude one occurring in Dresden?
@@incubi51 of course not because dresden wasn't a war crime
yeah soviets killed more polish people than the germans ever did
@@incubi51 yes.
_Why in the world are they continuously talking about the “right wing”…?!_ I thought they were going to discuss the historical event.
Cause they are trying to remove the right wing as a whole, I never understand why, but its like they just want to make everyone conform to their political stance instead of the 'political liberties' that everyone talks about.
@@theurbanexperience6787 You are watching a documentary about WW2 and you "don't understand why" the right wing is a bad thing. Do you not see the irony in that?
@@matthewdavies269 , _enemy in WWII = the “right wing”…!?_ You're not that simple, are you?? 😳
@@theurbanexperience6787 is this a serious question or satire? I honestly can’t tell.
@UA-cam Netizen Definitely not lol
"History is writen by the victors"
Revisionist stories are written by apologists.
And look what the empire gained ? That bum Churchill sold out the empire for Eastern Europe to be communist ; enabling the Cold War and thus giving way to red China.
The empire is no more and Brits will be a minority in their own country in a free decades. Karma.
True
Made possible by evil aggression. Germany deserved worse in my opinion.
@لبنان العظيم 🇱🇧 The Great Lebanon im english and i agree england didnt get so much from being kind. Churchill was a war mongering alcoholic mudering fanatic.. ww2 was orchestrated by the ysnks and many other countries. The joooos was murdered by the yanks
War is horrific, such a waste of beautiful lives to appease the will of weak insecure men.
I mean if an army was firebombing your capital city and taking over Europe, how would you react? Completely impossible to compare your life to what people were experiencing then.
Male feminist?
Targeting civilians with mass bombing was, of course, a war crime, but in war the victors are never 'guilty'. Guilt depends on whether you lose or win - the losers are always guilty.
Yes ... agree
@Johnny Myers Just a meaningless statement. Lazy.
@Johnny Myers Did all citizens of Dresden who died really sow the wind ? Quotes from the hebrew bible do not turn a crime into a "higher call"
while the truth germans defenatly were guilty of war crimes
@@michaekrynicki8330 As were the allies, but the allies won and wrote the history books.
Ask that to people from London, Warsaw or Rotterdam.
Or maybe also the people in Rome, Copenhagen, Oslo, Helsinki,Bucharest who were part of the "strategic Bombing"
@@kakadukif1676
Birmingham, Coventry and also a city in Spain...
or> make wind and you get storm.
Churchill said> we gave them an extra dosis for what they did to us,
That s war!
Britain killed over 2-4 million citizens with bombings, Germany killed roughly 400,000-600,000
@@andrewalbrandt7585 Germany started a war that killed 50 million. Crawl back under yr rock.
@@andrewalbrandt7585 source?
Warsaw met a similar fate, as did many European cities. Much of Europe was rebuilt from pictures & film footage. The German word for this type of war was Vernichtungskrieg - war of annihilation.
The idea was to turn the east into farmland.
A policy idea later copied by the west as Morgenthau plan.
The main reason it wasn't implemented, is because the beginning Cold War meant that Germany had to be rebuilt as an ally.
@@ralphbernhard1757 The idea (Generalplan Ost) was the extermination of the existing population down to levels that would enable those lands to feed the Reich. These lands would be settled by German's, using any remaining population, deemed sufficiently "acceptable" on their sliding scale of racial "purity", as slave labour.
It was indeed Vernichtungskrieg, in every sense of the word.
Note...the above is sarcasm, if it isn't immediately evident from the wording ;-)
@@bolivar2153 Note: "the above" comment was also swiped again by the censor...
@@ralphbernhard1757 the Morgenthau plan was dropped before the cold war. Hard economic facts came into play. If Germany had been deindustrialized the Western allies would have been forced to provide economic and or food assistance for the indefinite future as Germany could not produce enough food to feed its population without its industrial base would be unable to produce the wealth needed to purchase food for import.
I seem to recall the German people were asked if they wanted total war, they said yes, that’s what total war looks like.
I absolutely love this. Do you believe they held a vote or something?
@@tempo5366welll…. Yes?
Its crazy to me how many people don't know that Germany had sent multiple peace offers to Britain which were all ignored by Churchill. In fact many peace activists were arguably illegally arrested in Britain.
@@tempo5366 Total war was waged by Churchill first.
But who were you to deliver that "total war" to them? If you think you had moral rights to incinerate their cities because of a couple of bombs, how far should've USSR went?
Dresden can rebuild itself in ONE generation, but Africa, Haiti and many parts of Latin America can't rebuild itself in MULTIPLE generations!
Maybe ask why.
@@patriciabrenner9216 We know why, its because they are simply not capable.
@@mrnobodytheuser2950
No because they need money and resources which they don’t have. You don’t rebuild a nation from thin air
Well, south america is on its way there; but France was still charging Haiti for its independence until recently, and in the case of Africa, an african ruler that puts its people before the country's mafias is a dead ruler.
Why do you make such Videos when you forget the bombing of all countries at this time like Coventry fire bombing etc
after torturing and killing millions of innocent people, they talk about war crimes?...
Who is "talking about war crimes"?
The title?
Look closely.
It is a question.
@@ralphbernhard1757 1:58
Did u even watch this video, or just commenting ?
@@blazejabc7330 Yes I did.
He said "in my opinion", meaning he is speaking for himself.
@@ralphbernhard1757 so what ?
@@blazejabc7330 Expression of opinion? That's "freedom of speech".
What's wrong with that?
Anytime civilians are targeted during war, it raises certain ethical questions. With that being said, you reap what you sew. Germany during WW2 Gaines a reputation for targeting Allied civilians, starting the Holocaust and mistreating POWs. They broke the rules and they paid the price with interest.
You are right. Germany committed war crime and got war crime back. Logic of war. Unfortunately most people reaped that what they never sowed . Never broke the rules but were paid the prize anyway. No matter if in cellars of Coventry or bunkers of Dresden. Mostly the unguilty, that were the people you called "they".
@@michaelengel3407 More than half of German's were voting to dismantle democracy. They were voting for authoritarianism. They got it. Where was the massed voice of opposition when the rights and civil liberties of the citizenry were slowly nibbled away piece by piece? Their freedom wasn't stolen, it was given away. Their silence cost the lives of 60,000,000.
@@bolivar2153 How is 37% in federal election in 1932, more than half? I think you maybe have wrong informations.
The allies were the first one to bomb civilian targets to " affect the morale "
@@tarot-sama3119 did you just completely forget about the Germans bombing Warsaw?
War is a crime.
no
What about the London blitz? Coventry? The German war machine felt no pity for the many England cities they bombed. It ony hurt when someone did it to them.
Dresden was bombed because of Coventry. Five years later ? Ok. Well, Dresden was bombed to ashes to fullfill the strategy of RAF "area bombing directive" which had been managed since early 1942. Therefore Dresden was not the first city attacked like that and even not the last. No reason to be proud of "the butcher". Ah, you raised a honourful monument for him in London? Well, that might be the famous british humor.
@@michaelengel3407 "the butcher" was a nickname given to him by his own crews, based upon the severe losses they were incurring in raids over occupied territories. It was not given in reference to any moral judgements of the day.
It was the biggest war the world has ever seen and probably ever will, rules went out the window.
Rules maybe, but not logic...
British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
@@ralphbernhard1757 hindsight is 20/20
@@chippewaguy4193 Not even the "hindsight" excuse is valid.
In reality it was a lack of foresight, and sheer stupidity.
Because interestingly at the same time as German industrialisation after their 1871 unification, there was another "power" concurrently rising on the other side of the Atlantic.
Concerning "the biggest picture of all", aka "geopolitics", they too, were in the advantageous position of a having geographical advantage. Only this time, the rise of technology (steam trains, railways, steam ships, turbines, etc.) at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century, meant that the geographical advantages the *American Century* enjoyed, would eventually surpass the geographical advantage of the rather narrow English Channel.
Similarly to London concerning the continent...
[Search for: Splendid_isolation]
...Washington DC could similarly innocently claim to be "just isolating" themselves, while at the same time gaining from the mistakes of other less "isolatable" European powers...
The world was M-A-I-N after all, so why not? :-)
After WW1 and especially WW2, Washington DC was now in the same situation as GB was pre-WW1. The Atlantic as a "barrier" between the *Americas and Europe,* had supplanted (in importance) the English Channel as the barrier between *GB and the continent.*
They had the political "leverage" to impose a favorable geopolitical situation for themselves.
After 100 years of playing "balancing games" with the continent, the British Empire became a victim of their own *"game".*
That isn't "hindsight".
More like sheer ignorance, stupidity, arrogance of power, misuse of a geographical advantage, short-sightedness...
And if you give me a few more minutes, I can come up with a few more terms...
You know we Americans have been at war ever since?
@@ralphbernhard1757 The writing was already on the wall. It had been for Empire since the end of WWI. I don't understand how you can ignore the independence movements in India, and later in Africa and the far East. Playing at power balencing in Europe wasn't ever going to prevent the inevitable.
"War crime"? War alone is already a crime
Yes, a never ending sequence of war crime, retaliation, revenge, retaliation, revenge, etc...
war is not a crime.
@@AsymmetricalCrimes no, it is not. Not retaliating against war crimes is a crime.
"...He's been collecting photos and videos of Dresden since the 19th century for his film archives." That's a pretty good trick.
Dresden bombed by the Allies - 3 nights - Bombs and Incendiaries dropped - 4,000T
London bombed by Germany - 71 nights - Bombs and Incendiaries dropped - 18,200T
(+ anti-personnel parachute bombs with delayed fuses)
Where was the war crime exactly ???
One should assume number of casualties is a more relevant figure than the weight of Bombs dropped.
You seem to not understand that there can be more than one war crime in a war. Or is it only the worst one that is a war crime and the rest are forgiven?
@@NissEhkiin No such thing as a war 'crime' when fighting for your life. It is not a court. It is survival. Looking retrospectively from snivelling millennial armchair critics gets tiresome.
@@richardwills-woodward well you sure are dense. By your logic there are no war crimes at all in the history of the human race
London 25.000 Dead
Dresden 250.000 Dead.
Where is your sanity exactly ?
It was a war crime, but it is never seen this way when the winner commit it. The same applies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Commits *
@@FreeIsraelll the spam troll has a bug.
Germany started bombing british cities in WW1 and started doing the same thing in WW2 with no reguard to who were killed,we gave them some of there own medicine in WW2 hence a 1000 bomber raids that flatened their cities as for innocent people there has never been a war that did not involve innocent people the ones who start it are to blame.
Then you cant complain about "muh innocent people" being killed by the germans, because clearly that isnt important, only who "started" it
Both are war crimes. End of the story.
Not a war crime because of the time(only75 years ago) ? i cannot believe that those people are serious...
Not a war crime at all. Sweet retribution.
@@patriciabrenner9216objectvely, it is still a war crime today
@@LittleHomieLightningtech Who cares? After all people are upset at Israel defending itself today.
People should watch a documentary called hellstorm. Shows the true horrors of what really happened in Dresden
Allieds had the right to defend themselves, hey Germany?
Moral of the story: when you throw the rules of war out of the window don't expect others to follow them either. I think Germany was let off relatively easy considering the harm done.
I agree. And that is the reason why RAF and USAAF committed war crime on Dresden. Allies can't escape from this point of responsibility.
Germany got off easy, and the Palestinians got punished severely
Germany got off easy? Are you really aware of what you are talking about ?
Agreed
@@michaelengel3407 compared to the people who didn't do the holocaust but were punished for it anyway (the Palestinians), yeah they did
Germans bemoaning war crimes. Precious.
Yeah, burning innocents is always a war crime. This is why the world is siding with Palestine when they see this happen in modern times.
To be fair it was not Germans who intentionally targeted British population centers first, it was the British who targeted German ones. Perhaps not in WW2, but throughout history Britain has been the clear winner in terms of sheer number of war crimes committed.
Sorry mate, you sowed the seed and reaped the whirlwind.
Not only Churchill, but an entire network of "old boys" stiff-upper-lipped Empire into ruin...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
*The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.*
[britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world.
*Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "honor".*
It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"...
London made Germany, the strongest continental power, "the enemy", as a default setting.
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
*Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.*
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
*Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...*
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable *"Nr.1"* in 1900, down to *"merely on par"* with Washington DC after WW1, down to *"third fiddle"* during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
Sorry 'bout that.
Causality is a b*tch...
Keep in mind, we only know what those in power want us to know.
Also, who knows...had England and France honored their commitments to Poland and actually helped them in 1939, it's possible no other allied cities would have been bombed.
@@Bernacide uh. Make a point please
@@Bernacide They weren’t ready to take on Germany at that time though lacking military means
They had my attention until they started talking about the "Far right"...lame
The only reason this is being “debated” IF it’s a war crime proves it’s not a war crime if you win
This I actually agree on because usually if you are the victor then you can get away with near genociding a free people. 1.3 million Germans post war estimate deaths.
How can somebody that this is not a war Crime ???? This is a big war crime
only the winners of a war arent targeted for war crimes.
maybe because the Germans did the same but worse
Germans got what they deserved!
That's exactly the point, my friend: in 1945 there was no Treaty, Convention or any other legal instrument that stipulated what was and what was not acceptable in air warfare. The laws of war on land and sea were well established, but large-scale aerial assault was a relatively new phenomenon. Attempts were made to reach international agreements during the interwar years, but by the time the second world war started, nothing was ratified. This meant that the entire subject was only covered by a few paragraphs of vague and ambiguous language, most of it from the Geneva Convention of 1907, and which pre-dated air warfare by almost a decade. So what little law did exist was wide open to interpretation, and both sides exploited this to the full.
You are making the classic mistake of judging historical events by modern standards. Area bombing was not outlawed until 1977, by Protocol One of the Special Ammendment to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Of course it was a war crime in today's legal framework, but that framework simply did not exist in 1945. The shocking fact is that German and Japanese cities - and the people who lived in them - were perfectly legal and legitimate targets under existing international law, because these locations contained production facilities of use to the enemy war effort, and also because the bombers had to fly through defended enemy airspace in order to reach them. The legal situation really was as simple and as straightforward as that, and the contention that Dresden was a war crime only holds water from a moral standpoint, because in law it most definitely was not.
Because Germany wasn’t doing anything at the time to deserve it?
Yall forget the Holocaust?
Maybe don't start wars that you can't finish.
That goes for Japan as well
Yes, you are right. But war was not finished at the skies over Dresden. War crime does not finish any war. However allied fairy tale of humanity was finished finally.
@@michaelengel3407 The llies were fine. The Grman civilians were all guilty.
"They sowed the wind"
Say no more!!!
🏴🇬🇧
If you look back, the main reason for war is greed.
Greed? The Allies were out to stop a murdering regime.
Ahh but whose greed?
all wars are banker's...
It doesn't take long to find out that the German 'strategic' bombing started from the outset in Polish cities and British civilian areas (The Blitz). After such aggression yes the Allied forces did strike back in Dresden which was a garrison city. In this era it is unacceptable and rightly so, and it is horrible now thinking of the German civilians who suffered in this way.
The "garisons" were not stationed in the sport stadium in the city centre, which was the *target point.*. According to released material, the direction the bomber stream was taking had the *intention* of creating a fire storm in the city centre...again. No soldiers were stationed here.
Furthermore, today one doesn't find apologetic Germans, raving about Warsaw and Coventry, as one does of other nationalities in the forums of the internet, 75 years after these events.
The Frauenkirche and homes of civilians, burnt to ashes, were garrison buildings ? Dresden as a "garrison city" wasn't in focus of bomber command that terrible night. Attacked were the entire city with all people within. That had been real purpose of "area bombing directive" since early 1942. Dresden wasn't the first victim of that directive and even not the last.
@@ralphbernhard1757 WTF?? But Germany were the aggressors to begin with. Its entire gangster Government, if I remember well, were executed for Initiating and waging wars of aggression. It's just normal that a sane individual will prefer not to defend his country plundering another country for no reason.
@@michaelengel3407 the city employed 50000 munitions workers.
Also, it is common to use a large, visible structure as a point of reference for bombing because, you know, bombers had a spread of several miles in ww2....
and twenty years to-the-day
Operation Rolling Thunder
commences in Southeast
Asia...Go Figure, history
does have its way
Linebacker as well
Legitimate target...over 400 small factories in Dresden making optics, gun sights, periscopes, wireless radio communication equipment, radar, binoculars, cameras , electrial components, instruments for aircraft and vehicles, all for military use. All housed within the city itself. It was also a main rail hub for troops headiing East, and later retreating west to defend Berlin..so indeed, a legitimate target.. There are many good books written on Dresdens period during the war years, many noting the destruction of Coventry, and targets like York and Bath.
Very sad! WW2 is a horrible example what happens when human hatred and human prejudice are unleashed.
Just imagine what WW3 would look like.
And the bad guys won again
@@americanozoomer9738 the bad guys won twice indeed, next time won’t be so fun
@@JogenMogen damn straight
Still happening today
War is a crime! The winner writes the history.
Arthur "RAF LIT-AF" Harris approves of the destruction of Dresden.
If God wanted Harris' Bwitish Impure to survive, why did He make them so bankruptable?
Arthur Harris definitely fooked. That man destroyed a whole city. Imagine what he could do to a cervix
@Omar Little I wish to see the logic behind your vulgar statements.
@therightstuffbiz Why should citizens waste their tax Euros on nuclear deterence if British and US taxpayers pay up big time for Germany?
@@ralphbernhard1757 Germany doesn't have to; that's the point. Which is the only reason they have yet to kick the US out of their territory. Personal unwillingness to militarize.
Look what London looked like?
This is obviously a horrible thing but honestly considering what happened to other cities in europe as well I am not surprised.
I agree. All air raids on civilians were pure war crime.
War crimes.
Germany wanted total war they got total war
So Winston *"expire the Empire"* Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with *"more than the measure",* and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
*Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...*
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
*Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]*
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
*Lose your Empire, and then some...*
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
*"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".*
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
@@ralphbernhard1757 peek skitzo posting
@@kekistanimememan170 Sorry Mr Mememan, but after WW2 the British Empire imploded rather rapidly, with *"a little help from a friend".*
Because during WW2, British leaders had bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently "flattening Germany" was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under..."third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Such a "special relationship" :-)
US historians are far more candid about how "Empire" got screwed over.
@@ralphbernhard1757 flattening Germany twice mate was well worth it.
@@gary8306 Losing your Empire a little bit, then totally after WW2, then flat broke, and then getting screwed over by "best fwiends" was very entertaining.
I'm still ROTFLMFAO...
War crime. Also Hamburg.
@@FreeIsraelll Bible sayings do not always correspond to the truth. Bombing Dresden was war crime same war crime as bombing Coventry or The Blitz
@@FreeIsraelll "Who starts" isn't the point. The point is that attacking Dresden and many other cities was the same war crime as Coventry was. No moral difference. No "Eye for an eye" but hate and destructivness.
@@FreeIsraelll Do you mean Auschwitz ?
@@FreeIsraelll Concentration camps were first used by the British during the second Boer war. By your "logic" does that make the London blitz, or the use of V-weapons appropriate?
@@FreeIsraelll Yet again, I've wasted moments of my life engaging a fool.
Germany killed so many civilians that it sound ridiculous him complaining about war crimes.
@@as-wv8ktwhat about bristol cardiff portsmouth plymouth southampton sunderland hull swansea belfast glasgow birmingham coventry manchester sheffield liverpool and so on who were targetted by the germans
the bombardment of civilian zones was started by the british, search it up.
No different than Germany did to a lot of cities. War is war. Unfortunately.
@War Child?
@War Child Seriously? So Germany invading Poland and occupying other territories is justified? War was inevitable with Germany invading other territories!
@War Child They broke many promises and their leaders spoke of world domination. You sit here defending a tyrannical dictator, who wanted a "racially pure" nation.
@War Child BOMBER HARRIS DO IT AGAIN
@War Child you've shitted your pants right now huh?
Harris later said, "I want to point out, that besides Essen, we never actually considered any particular industrial sites as targets. The destruction of industrial sites always was some sort of bonus for us. Our real targets always were the inner cities."
War is war, no matter whatever people want to call it. We will continue to have wars as long as people embrace hate instead of love.
haha because that's possible isn't it?
What’s your point?
Who embraced hate? All the NSDAP wanted was to get rid of Communism. But of course you probably the lies which lead to these atrocities
@@LukeLovesRose a lot of people embrace hate. I don't like communism either, but we weren't fighting communists when we slaughtered the native Americans. We weren't fighting communism when we first bought slaves, and then treated people of color like second class citizens. Even a lot of our tv shows are based on supremacy. Audiences want to watch people lose. I see hate all around.
@@johnpapa8681 I don't consider it hateful for people to embrace their abilities, talents, and pat themselves on the back for how good they are. Even Jesus told us that we should be perfect because God in heaven is perfect as we are perfect. Communism doesn't make people feel better about who they are. All it does is bring people down to a level that will best serve the state
This is the reason why I despise warfare.
Yeah. Soldiers on either side just blindly follow orders and sooner or later they don't even know what they're fighting for anymore.
Don't push socialism on people enjoying freedom.
>industrial Complex
>military garrison
>Propaganda victim blaming
>SS is there
>the luffwaffe bombing warsaw, minsk and london
>Telling the slavs that they will be massacred
Really, the Holocaust and Rape of Nanking don't get you pizzed off?
Azshle.
War crime and definitely more than 25k died
It could have been worse. We started building the atomic bomb because we knew that Germany was trying to build one. That’s why Paul Tibbetts was chosen to drop it as he had been flying over Europe. The first target for an atomic attack would have been Berlin,but of course Germany had surrendered before the bomb was ready,and Japan became the target.
People murdered industrially, numbered like animals, anonymously and in humiliation in Auschwitz or in Belarus by Einsatzkommmandos would give a lot for such a dignified and humane death as in Dresden.
yeah is ure love getting killed for something i didn´t do
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
Whites, heterosexuals, and Gentiles. They are the ones who shout “free speech“ the loudest while suppressing the speech of everybody else and threatening our livelihoods if we question their hegemony in any way, shape, or form.
@@Attmay Im sorry, this must be satire, that was a good one
He cries out in pain as he strikes you.
Jjjuuuiiiiccceeeeeee!!!!!!
And Warsaw, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, London, Antwerp, etc, and Gaza today, hypocrisy!!! 😗
War crime
@@FreeIsraelll ...and all the world becomes blind.
Pablo Maz you know who died? Women and children. families. How tf is it an eye for an eye
If he considers the bombing of Dresden a war crime, what does he consider the destruction of Warsaw by his fellow Germans? The Germans started it all and they were paid back in kind.
The Germans did not "start it all," in fact Britain was the first to violate the informal agreement between them and Germany to not target civilians in bombing raids.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 Wrong, the germans started, the bomb ing of Wielun in Poland took place on September 3th, 1939.....
@@KK-rg1wz While it doesn’t justify it, the bombing of Wielun was based on incorrect intelligence that a Polish battalion was stationed there. Regardless the agreement was in regard to German and British cities and the British did not react to the bombing of Poland.
@@dafeekielelliott2442
I belive it was the Luftwaffe. Whether that was a delibrate act or caused by someone messing up is unclear to this day. In the end it did not matter, once the deed was done it was gloves off
@@Viking1080 Agreed. All anyone needs to know is that the Germans pioneered bom bing civilians in WWI with Zeppelins and Gothas, then in Spain at Guernica. They started WW2 with destroying Warsaw, then terror bom bed Rotterdam. There's no sign of the Germans having any sort of issue against bom bing civilians.
Who started the war?
Britain. Before that Poland. (The 1939 German-Polish Conflict was over when Britain began bombing Germany) What would it have to do with targeting civilians though? It's either wrong or it isn't.
@TÜRKMEN ALİ On September 1, 1939, germany invaded Poland from the west; two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, beginning World War II
@@doxholiday1372 Germany committed the first act of war on Poland. Unless you want to argue that Germany committed a war crime without a declaration of war as well.
@Let's Travel lmao cry some more wehraboo
The biggest crime in war is to lose.
In late 1944, the Germans razed the polish city of Warsaw. Around 800 000 were murdered, including women and children.
Yes, Warsaw had to suffer during german occupation. That was the reason why Dresden and its people had to fall ? I don't think so.
@@michaelengel3407 you no, I yes.
@@patriciabrenner9216 But you should not. Dresden had burn down to ashes because of terrors of RAF area bombing directive. When do you ever unsterstand ?
@@patriciabrenner9216 God had nothing to with any of it.
@@anthonyeaton5153 God had a lot to do with it.
N'oublions pas Coventry et Londres aussi ....ainsi que le Havre également ....période terrible pour les civils quoiqu'il en soit.
Targeting civilians for murder is always a war crime, no matter which side did it. Women and children must suffer for the actions of men.
A retoric question, easily answered: it was a war crime.
And?
another east thing to answer is German bombings in that case were also war crimes
It's really not. The allied bombings were and still are justified.
@@reaperz5677 how
@@reaperz5677 no they are not. Warcrimes are warcrimes even if they come from the supposedly "good" side.
That reminds me:
my great parents also lives on the top floor in the center of Warsaw during the war.
The city was bombarded in September 1939 and again in 1944.
They also hid in the cellar.
My grandmother hid the photo albums there.
Today we can see what a great lives they had before war.
This war was started by Germany.
Many civilians died, lives destroyed on both sids.
Did we learned anything ?
Don't forget how the Geermans bombed the escaping civilians from Warsaw from the air in September 1939. And they have the chutzpah to complain?
No we ever?
I guess we haven't learned anything from WW2, since we are witnessing what's happening with Russia and Ukraine. More people dying, homes being destroyed, people fleeing and years of people having mental problems. Especially the children! What a shame, our governments have not learned a thing. They are still willing to destroy the lives of their citizens. Political issues are more important than the lives of people.
We learned a lot.
@@sandranatali1260 Oh they have learned.
London, Coventry, Bath, Portsmouth, Dover...... the Baedeker raids (specific civilian targets)... V1-V2..... it goes on......
Good job allies
Good job American Century too.
They had a gweat team...
*And so Brits bombed themselves into financial ruin.*
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Aww.
Too bad.
Can't all be winners :-D
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
*Lost their impure empire, and then some...*
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
@the boss Yup.
But look on the bright side.
Winston *"expire the Empire"* Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with *"more than the measure",* and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
*Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...*
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
*Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]*
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
*Lose your Empire, and then some...*
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
*"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".*
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
*OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED*
*GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY*
*BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED*
*PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED"*
*EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER*
Reap as you sow counts for all.
@the boss Not at all. It was retribution.
@the boss It was sweet retribution. A pity more weren't incinarated.
Good job joe biden. Send in more of those illegal fighting aged immigrants
Obvious war crime
Nope.
Oh that's rich! Germany accusing others of war crimes. Oh man, now i''ve seen everything. What's next: Japan asking for reparations and an apology from Nanjing? lol
Like has been said, Germany tore up the rules. It just didn't work out in their favour
I hope those who died in cellars and bunkers of Dresden did really tear up the rules. More likely they paid for those who tore up.
@@michaelengel3407 Did Coventry tear up the rules?
@@SCPKing1835 No, Coventry did not. But Dresden was not burnt to ashes because of Coventry. Dresden was bombed because RAF had to follow area bombing directive. Dresden was not the first german city to be attacked by that strategy and even not the last. Revenge for Coventry ? A fairy tale to justify war crime. Wasn't necessary anymore. Well, bomber command was able to do. So bomber command did.
@@michaelengel3407 It wasn't revenge for Coventry, it was a strategic decision. Dresden was an industrial city producing enormous amounts of ammunition for the German army
@@SCPKing1835 Well, then RAF had missed the target. Area bombing directive meant to attack a circle segment that contains a high load of flammable materials no matter what was within promising a fire storm. As a result complete downtown and people who lived there were under attack that terrible night. Killing people and devastating their homes was official strategy. Well, industrial production of Dresden may had been collateral damage.
100% mission accomplished.Germany had to taste some of its own medicine.
"The bombing of Plzeň in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated that the Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons", and that "because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons. "The Americans received a rapturous welcome when they liberated the city. Zinn wrote: I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the 'Skoda works' (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)-not five."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (UA-cam)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Henry Kissinger
yet it wasn’t America who did this bombing. It was a joint action by RAF and the USAF. Stop trying to paint the US as a villain. We were all complaisant in this bombing and the war at large. There are no heroes in war. But there is a right and wrong. The Germans did wrong. This bombing was righting their wrong.
@@informationoverload2487 Plzen was in Czechoslovakia.
@@informationoverload2487 I'm literally copying the words of one of the US bomber crews who was there.
Do you want to disagree with somebody who was actually there?
I suggest talking to him, not me...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Good soldiers follow orders. If he disagreed with his orders his inaction is between him and god.
@@informationoverload2487 Yes. They "just follow orders".
God will sort them out...
Errr...there *is no "God".*
4:16
“If it were to happen today it would be definitely certainly be regarded as a war crime”
But there it is happened already in gaz@ and no one said it is a war crime !!!!
What a hypocrisy is that !
It's not a war crimes.
They totally deserve it
"They" ? Do you mean thousants of women and children ? Nobody deserved to end up that way. Highly armed military attacked a defenseless city and ALL people who lived there. Well, that would I call war crime in any case. All bombing of civilians and their homes was war crime.
It was unnecessary but Germany bombed uk cities for 59 nights killing 40k people. The deaths wer horrific for those caught in firestorm and especially in the air raid shelter.
6 million in cocentration camps, Warsaw plus other minor events,
They got what they asked for but it was terrible
@@gregcameron6047 Prove it. To date there is still no proof of extermination. As for the concentration labour camps, didn't British have concentration camps with Axis prisoners? Didn't Americans? Didn't Soviets. Your arguments are based on ignorance, because you've never actually studied history and merely digest what they tell you to, like good cattle.
@@thomaspridmore106 no it was sweet retribution.
Actually, get your fact straight. England bombed germany multiple times well before germany retaliated. Englands indiscriminate night raids killed close to a million civillions, thats why germany retaliated on UK cities. Two sides to every story, don't be blinded by patriotism.
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
destroying this jewel of human civilization just few weeks before the end of WWII, has been a crime against humanity and civilization. there was no military reason to do so, but the Brits would like us to believe so. if Dresden has any military importance, it would have been bombed long before, since even the distant Koenigsberg was bombed earlier. But victors alway are "right" and innocent of all and every guilt. yeah, right!!
Dresden was not much of a Western allieds concern and almost made it through the war unbombed before it's luck ran out and it got on top of their target list
The decision to bomb Dresden was in response to the Sovjet requests to aid their advance toward Berlin by disrupting German communications and transport hubs within eastern Germany such as Leipzig, Chemnitz and Dresden. Dresden happened to be the primary one used as a staging are for troops and supplies to the Eastern front.
The bombing of Dresden was not some random pointless act of savagery, but a part of a military campaign against a military target. The attack on Dresden, horrific though the results were for the population, was an act of war and not an "atrocity against a civil cultural city." RAF and USAF weren't Dresden keepers, the German Government was. The true obscenity in 1945 was that Germany was still prelonging the war. Germany had lost the war, everyone knew it, but they refused to stop let alone surrender. If they wanted to go down fighting so be it. In 1945 it was big boys rules at play.
@@OleLeik Russians had their own heavy bomber plains by the thousands. Dresden was only about 50 miles from the Russian front when it was so criminally destroyed by the British, dragging in the Americans. If Russians needed to destroy a non-militarized, NON-DEFENDED city (it fielded no air defenses to make it clear it posed no threat). Do not try to whitewash them. The Allies were as much of a war criminal as the Germans were in that fracas.
@@TWOCOWS1
The short answer is no. In 1941 the USSR did launch a series of raids, mostly at night, with four engine bombers on targets in Germany & Poland. the raids were small, & effect small as well. From 1942 the USSR kept a small heavy bomber group, but not anywhere as numerous as the UK or US fleets. The USSR didn't have remotely near the resources necessary to maintain a strategic air war against Germany while at the same maintain the eastern front.
While the Western allies presumly would not mind to turn a blind eye to the activities of Dresden & Co and let them continue to feed German troops to the meat grinder on the Eastern front instead of having to deal with them on the Western front: Some horsedeal was made between the big 3 bosses and the UK and US bomber force ordered to destroy those hubs
@@OleLeik baby, when Dresden was bombed in Feb 1945, the Russian forces were close enough to use long range artillery against Dresden. Stop covering up for the inhumanity, barbarity and incivility of "Bomber Harris" and his war criminal pile
“No military reason”
The rail hub and industrial quarter of the city disagree.
Also, jewel of human civilization? Really? I’ve seen outhouses with more prestige than this place.
Don’t give what you can’t take
Tom Walker Expect a ton of innuendoes from the childish community here.
Just got done watching the show on Netflix, I never knew this happened rip to those women and children that lost their lives that day.
That Netflix show is a joke
@@WalterModel45 why do you think so?
There is the reason of why you didnt knew that. None of those criminals want to face justice
The allies called it "OPERATION GOMORRAH" that says it all.
Both sides commited atrocities but because the Germans lost only they had to pay
@@christonefeltzs5149 not
@@christonefeltzs5149 America is not a person
@@christonefeltzs5149 Canada.
USA has never won a war
As a nine year old boy in 1940 ii sheltered in terror as the German bombers came over London night after night causing death and destuction. As Air Marshall Harris said later " they sowed the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind"
damn 90 year old
You started it, you should not have invaded Poland.
War crime. It was terrorbombing not targeted attacks
As long as humanity exists wars will never end, WW2 wasn't the last war, far from it.
In 1944, Warsaw was razed, after the 1944 Warsaw Uprising of the Polish resistance .. The uprising infuriated German leaders, who decided to destroy the city as retribution.
Yes, a terrible war crime happened to Warsaw. That was the reason and justification why Dresden had to fall ? I don't think Arthur Harris thought of Warsaw when he gave the order to attack Dresden.
In 1970, German Chancellor Willy Brandt went to Warsaw and made his famous "Kniefall", asking for forgiveness for the crimes against humanity of a previous generation of Germans...
"The Briggs' Plan was a military plan devised by British general Sir Harold Briggs shortly after his appointment in 1950 as Director of Operations during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960). The plan aimed to defeat the Malayan National Liberation Army by cutting them off from their sources of support amongst the rural population.[1]
*To achieve this a large programme of forced resettlement of Malayan peasantry was undertaken, under which about 500,000 people (roughly ten percent of Malaya's population) were forcibly transferred from their land* and moved to newly-constructed settlements known as "New villages".[2] During the Emergency there were over 400 of these settlements. Furthermore, 10,000 Malaysian Chinese suspected of being communist sympathisers were deported to the People's Republic of China in 1949.[3]
The Orang Asli were also targeted for forced relocation by the Briggs' Plan because the British believing that they were supporting the communists.
Many of the practices necessary for the Briggs' Plan were prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[5]"
*Note here. This happened during times of peace, not war.*
A pathetic "empire" burning down entire regions, looting, deporting innocent people, setting up concentration camps and calling them "happy villages"...
Tell me dear.
Where do *you* live?
Have any of your leaders ever asked for forgiveness for crimes carried out by a previous generation?
@@ralphbernhard1757 who cares about Malaysia? When we are talking of the crimes executed by the Germans? I really couldn't care less.
@@michaelengel3407 one of them. I would add hundred. This whiner is alive. A pity. And yes Harris probably thoughjt of Coventry and London. I for one am happy that at least some Germans got the price of their crimes. Not all. Too many didn't pay. mThose in Dresden did.
@@patriciabrenner9216 Ah, you don't care about the victims of horrible crimes...
Why are you here whining about victims of horrible crimes then?
After learning about Dresden firestorm, I can clearly say that there was no battle of good vs evil.
It was battle between evil and less evil in which millions and millions of people suffered.
I think you have watched to much Star Wars and Lord Of The Ring with their epic battles of good vs evil. It's fiction. There have never been nor will ever be good guys among the major powers. Some are more evil and dangerous than others, but there is no saints among them.
Anyhow: I don't see what's so special with Dresden, just another destroyed city among so many others as far as I am concerned. Total wars are brutal and nasty at the best of times, Far worse stuff happened all over the place at the time and in the human slaughter bill of WW2 Dresden is a rather minor post.
Because it was the "good guys" commiting the act, that's why.