Blog powered by Typepad

« I can't read Cameron's book, I might throw up! | Main | Arnhem: Another glorious failure in our history »

Friday, 20 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David, the outcome was the best. If the Germans had known the allies knew their game then the survivors would have been less.

Couldn't the heavy bombers have been used to hit the railways leading to it? Carpet bombing of areas with bridges and marshalling yards

Professor Berenbaum is entitled to his opinion, though there's an appearance he has personal reasons for his argument.

The post is a reminder of the bombing of Japan. The 1943 Quebec Agreement between the US, UK and Canada required that all three countries agree before an A bomb could be used. The controversies and complications of that decision are less theoretical than the bombing of Auschwitz.

"Couldn't the heavy bombers have been used to hit the railways leading to it?"
That is one of the reasons for the Dresden bombing. As well as being the centre of optics, such as for bomb sights, it was the gateway to the eastern parts of Germany and helped to halt, not only movement of arms to the eastern front, but to halt the movement of prisoners earmarked for concentration camps.

If you want to start a many sided conversation about bombing Auschwitz just ask a group of my co-religionists. The opinions are wide ranging.

If a decision had been made to do so then what of the other 19 main ones? And the sub-camps attached to them of course.

To see the complexity have a look at

I tend to lean towards Jimmy's opinion but then none of my known relatives were in any of them

When the Hungarian railways were bombed, the NAZIs just made prisoners walk overland to the camps, or to convenient deep ditches hidden in the forests. I used to believe that the gas chambers ought to have been bombed, until I learned just how determined the Germans were in their mass-murder plans. Winning the war was the surest way to stop the murders.

Yes, what I have learned in the past year or so has made the Dresden bombing seem much more reasonable. I knew one of the survivors of the Dresden bombing, who wrote a short book about it. Her view made it sound like an unjustifiable atrocity. Knowing about the railway marshalling yards puts the whole matter in a different light. [The part about the optics for the bomb sights is less convincing, since by early 1944 the NAZI gasoline supply was much diminished.]

Diplomatic protests also appear to have has little to no effect. Pope Pius XII condemned the ill treatment of Jews, and the NAZI responded by deporting Catholics of Jewish background to Auschwitz. The NAZI were simply the second most devoted followers of JJ Rousseau, who made it very plain that the problems of the world were all the fault of the bourgeoisie. Yes, the Soviets were more effective in eliminating the "class enemies." However, the NAZI did their best/worst.

A moral protest that costs many lives and saves none, whilst diverting resources needed to win is a nonsense.
We seem to live in an age where meaningless gestures are regarded as important, practical results being of no consequence.

I always believed the bombing of Dresden was a deliberate demonstration to Stalin of the range and power of the Anglo-American Bomber Fleets.

The comments to this entry are closed.