Dresden was literally part of a British terror bombing campaign designed to kill civilians. American forces accompanied and intensified the destruction because Dresden was also a target in the American strategic bombing campaign in Europe (we had a policy of strategic bombing in Europe, but US terror bombing was policy in Japan).
Strategic bombing is terror bombing. Killing civilians and terrorizing the survivors was the stated goal. If Israel needs to learn anything from the Allied experience of strategic bombing, it’s probably that it doesn’t fucking work.
From Wikipedia:
Area bombardment came to prominence during World War II with the use of large numbers of unguided gravity bombs, often with a high proportion of incendiary devices, to bomb the target region indiscriminately—to kill war workers, destroy materiel, and demoralize the enemy. In high enough concentration, it was capable of producing a firestorm.[35] The high explosives were often delay-action bombs intended to kill or intimidate those fighting the fires caused by incendiaries.[36]: 329
It’s also pretty dishonest to frame the conflict from Oct7 as some isolated event. Like the charge of genocide rests only on the events of the past hundred days. It’s not like the Allies had forced Germans into Dresden then walled it off before bombing it.
It should also be stated that Dresden is often used as a whataboutism by Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.
Strategic bombing is terror bombing. Killing civilians and terrorizing the survivors was the stated goal.
Of the Brits and of the Americans in Japan? Yes. Of the Americans in Europe? No. We endured high casualties for little gain because US bomber command in Europe recognized that attempting to break the enemy’s will to resist by killing civilians was a fool’s errand. We targeted strategic targets, such as factories and oil refineries. This is the whole reason for US daytime bombing vs. British night-time bombing. Unless you think the Americans just really liked taking heavy losses under daytime AA fire?
If Israel needs to learn anything from the Allied experience of strategic bombing, it’s probably that it doesn’t fucking work.
Yes, Israel needs to learn from the Allied experience of terror bombing - that terror bombing doesn’t work.
Strategic bombing is not much of an option for Israel because Hamas operates very few traditional material-production facilities that could be targeted.
It’s also pretty dishonest to frame the conflict from Oct7 as some isolated event. Like the charge of genocide rests only on the events of the past hundred days.
I don’t remember claiming that.
It should also be stated that Dresden is often used as a whataboutism by Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.
I’m well aware. That doesn’t change that the British policy was explicitly one of terror bombing in retribution for Nazi terror bombing campaigns. Dresden got its reputation because British and American bomber command both agreed Dresden had to go for different reasons, which meant they got it double compared to most other targets.
Of the Americans in Europe? No.
The USAAF didn’t do daylight bombing to spare civilians, they did it because of doctrine. They thought it was more effective to target industry. But those daylight bombs fell on cities just like they fell on factories and just like they fell on empty fields. They didn’t care about the aircrews, much less the people on the ground. What do you think it means to “demoralize” the population?
My comment about the framing was directed at the author of the article, not you.
The USAAF didn’t do daylight bombing to spare civilians, they did it because of doctrine. They thought it was more effective to target industry.
… okay? So you do admit, contrary to your initial claims, that the target of US bombing campaigns in Europe was NOT to terrorize and kill civilians but to target industry?
But those daylight bombs fell on cities just like they fell on factories and just like they fell on empty fields. They didn’t care about the aircrews, much less the people on the ground.
I’m pretty sure the US cared quite a bit about the loss of manpower and material? Do… do you think the US was operating under the presumption of infinite resources and soldiers?
What do you think it means to “demoralize” the population?
Something very different than what ‘targeting industry’ means.
A good article. War is much more destructive than many people appear to think, and war against a well-fortified enemy in an urban area is especially so. No malicious intent beyond the intent to defeat the enemy is necessary.
The Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions were adopted specifically because of the horrors of WWII. Things like Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, and (obviously) Horoshima/Nagasaki would obviously be war crimes today even if the charge wouldn’t be genocide.
In a just world, the leadership of both Israel and Hamas would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. We may not live in that world today but I hope they at least spend the rest of their lives unable to travel to countries that arrest war criminals.
(obviously) Horoshima/Nagasaki would obviously be war crimes today
The same man was the President of the USA when nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan and when the Geneva Convention of 1949 was written. There was certainly discussion at the time about whether the Allied bombing campaigns had been in accordance with the laws of war, but the stance of the US government was that they were, and this stance was apparently not incompatible with the Geneva Convention of 1949.
