Bombing of Dresden: How and why the Allies killed ~100,000 in half a day

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
With the subject of "total war" raised in the other thread, I thought I would share an interesting/disturbing article about the bombing of the German city of Dresden by a combined British/American/Canadian air fleet. The 65th anniversary of the event was marked a few days ago (the 13th).

As with pretty much every decision made in the World Wars, I can't bring myself to criticize or compliment much of anything. The first few paragraphs of the article give the reader a glimpse of the nearly hopeless situation Britain was in early in the war.

The entire article is 7 pages long. A small snippet of it is mirrored below.

On the road to hell

The air offensive against Germany was born of desperation.

In the summer of 1940, her armies driven from continental Europe at Dunkirk, Britain stood alone and impotent, threatened by invasion. A strategic review concluded that if it was to survive the present danger, the British army would have to reach a maximum strength of 60 divisions by 1942, but it would still be no match for the might of the Wehrmacht and a German war economy drawing on the resources of all of Europe.

A three-part strategy was drawn up to compensate for this military inferiority, consisting of a naval blockade, subversion and a bombing campaign to destroy the German industrial base and the morale of the civilian population. Survival and stalemate were the best that Britain could hope for.

"When I look around to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Beaverbrook at the Ministry of Aircraft Production on July 8, 1940. "We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power. The blockade is broken and Hitler has Asia and probably Africa to draw from. Should he be repulsed here or not try invasion, he will recoil eastward and we have nothing to stop him. But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm him by this means, without which I do not see a way through."

Expanding on the theme, he told the War Cabinet at the height of the Battle of Britain that "the Navy can lose us the war, but only the Air Force can win it. Therefore our supreme effort must be to gain overwhelming mastery in the air. The fighters are our salvation, but the bombers alone provide the means of victory."

Air Marshal Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, was convinced that Germany could be defeated by a massive bombing campaign. Following America's entry into the war in December 1941, he recommended around-the-clock bombing by a combined force of at least 4,000 heavy, four-engined bombers. He calculated that such a campaign would render 25 million Germans homeless, breaking civilian morale and bringing war production to a complete halt.

Portal also believed an invasion of the Continent would be unnecessary and that ground troops would only be required as an occupation force. "It is imperative," he informed Churchill, "if we hope to win the war, to abandon the disastrous policy of military intervention in the land campaigns of Europe, and to concentrate our air power against the enemy's weakest points."

...

Dresden, a triumph of European baroque architecture, a city of no military importance, shared Hamburg's fate on Feb. 13-14, 1945, in the most controversial raid of the war. The city, widely known as Florence on the Elbe, had survived the war largely unscathed, and many residents felt it would never be bombed because of its cultural significance.

Indeed, there were no anti-aircraft defences. All the flak guns had been removed a month earlier to counter the Soviet offensive rolling in from the east, and fighters at nearby airfields were grounded because fuel was in short supply as a result of Allied attacks on oil refineries.

Civil-defence precautions adopted in other German cities to mitigate the effects of firestorms were never implemented in Dresden. Now, on Fasching or Carnival Night, crowded with refugees from the east, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war, it would be attacked by waves of bombers supposedly in support of the renewed Russian offensive. Over the course of 14 hours and 15 minutes, three separate attacks resulted in the deaths of anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 men, women and children.

...

The first assault occurred at 10:15 p.m., when 144 RAF Lancasters dropped high explosive bombs and incendiaries. In the resulting firestorms, temperatures within an eight-square mile area reached more than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, creating tornado-like ground winds.

The second attack came in the early morning hours of Feb. 14 -- ironically, Ash Wednesday -- and involved 529 Lancasters, fully loaded with incendiaries. They had no difficultly locating the target. Canadian James Letros recalled: "It was terrible. You could see fires 200 miles away. The whole sky was lit up ... The streets of the city were a fantastic lattice-work of fire. It was as though one was looking down at the fiery outlines of a crossword puzzle; blazing streets etched from east to west, from north to south in a gigantic saturation of fire."

The third wave consisted of 1,350 American B-17 Flying Fortresses and B-24 Liberators.

...

When the sirens sounded, 24-year-old Margaret Fryer, like so many others in Dresden, assumed it was a false alarm. Nevertheless, she grabbed a ready-packed suitcase she kept on hand for emergencies and made for the shelter in the basement of her apartment building as the night sky lit up with the dreaded Christmas Trees -- target markers dropped by the Pathfinders.

She was joined by 43 other women, terrified, weeping and praying as the walls and ceiling shook and the lights failed. When the All Clear sounded, she made her way upstairs, dragging her suitcase.

"I saw people right in front of me," she later wrote. They scream and gesticulate with their hands, and then -- to my utter horror and amazement -- I see how one after the other they simply seem to let themselves drop to the ground. I had a feeling they were being shot, but my mind could not understand what was happening. Today I know that these unfortunate people were the victims of lack of oxygen. They fainted and then burnt to cinders."
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Those were the days when we actually fought, at every level and with every weapon in our arsenals, to win.

/thread.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
What is the source for the death toll of 100,000? Estimates from historians range from 25,000-35,000.

- wolf
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,916
3,894
136
Dresden was much more horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And I don't believe it was AS justified at that point in the war. Germany was well on their way down.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Those were the days when we actually fought, at every level and with every weapon in our arsenals, to win.

/thread.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - George S. Patton
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Dresden was much more horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And I don't believe it was AS justified at that point in the war. Germany was well on their way down.

That`s possibly true about the Germans. Yet all it would take is for the German`s to develope even one atamic bomb....
The whole attack on Dresden was to totally demoralize the Naxi`s.

As was stated earlier -- by Palehorse -- Those were the days when we actually fought, at every level and with every weapon in our arsenals, to win.


If I may add, I believe had WW2 been fought in this day and age due to the world`s apathy concerning War thing`s would be very different...
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
1) It was a marshalling yard for rail stock.

2) The bombing also killed many allied POWs from the Battle of the Buldge. US soldiers were locked up in cattle cars on their way to POW camps. The POW train(s) were put on sidings for some materials trains coming through. Both the material trains and the POW trains were hit. Some POWs made it out of the cars when the sides were shattered; the doors had been locked down. Most that made it out were captured; some were shot.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
What is the source for the death toll of 100,000? Estimates from historians range from 25,000-35,000.

- wolf

Couldn't tell you myself. The article is credited to:

Bill Twatio is a contributing editor to Esprit de Corps Canadian Military Magazine. He is the author of Battles Without Borders: The Rise and Fall of New France, and Uneasy Neighbours: The Conflicts that Defined Canada.

Dresden was much more horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And I don't believe it was AS justified at that point in the war. Germany was well on their way down.

I think one major reason the campaign to break civilian morale in the method continued was because the Allied leadership was resolute in not repeating one of the mistakes of WW1: Accepting anything less than unconditional surrender from Germany and utterly breaking the spirit of the German people.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Couldn't tell you myself. The article is credited to:





I think one major reason the campaign to break civilian morale in the method continued was because the Allied leadership was resolute in not repeating one of the mistakes of WW1: Accepting anything less than unconditional surrender from Germany and utterly breaking the spirit of the German people.

Agreed. Not keeping the pressure on with every means possible would mean prolonging the war, losing more allied soldiers, and increasing the chances of a repeat of WWI.

Numbers I've seen range from 25,000 to 40,000 IIRC. It's difficult to calculate since many times that number were made homeless and scattered, some of whom were later killed in other cities or died of disease. I don't know if Dresden was as horrific as the Japanese fire-bombings though because the latter's buildings were much more commonly wooden or even rice paper. I have read though that the Dresden fires achieved the highest temperatures of any fire-bombed city, so perhaps it was. Kind of like comparing two sores on a leper.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What is the source for the death toll of 100,000? Estimates from historians range from 25,000-35,000.

- wolf

The first few decades after the war, the estimate was 200,000 or so, but that goes back to the German propaganda ministry making that estimate to use the incident for persuading others.

It did in fact have that effect - there a British MP who was against such bombing and cited the estimates to challenge the PM, and the policy was adjusted.

In more recent years, the estimate was looked at and reduced to about 25,000.

On another note, the people hear cheering 'total war' are disgusting and immoral.

Even Hitler began the war respecting the international law against civilian targetted bombing and when a few bombs feel on residential London, he apologized.

Our peace and safety is a breeding ground for moral idiots who lack any sense of right and wrong, gleefuly pulling out 'total war' excitement for any conflict without restraint for the evil of war - often for greed.

Such people are the enemy of our nation, trying to turn it into a monster.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
"It was bad enough that we had the luck of being hit by more bombs than any other German city," she said. "Now, every year they come out to play war again. Every year." -aged 6 at firebombing

I have to agree with Craig, some of you in this thread are damaged just like the pricks who march around Dresden this time of year for the anniversary.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
The first few decades after the war, the estimate was 200,000 or so, but that goes back to the German propaganda ministry making that estimate to use the incident for persuading others.

It did in fact have that effect - there a British MP who was against such bombing and cited the estimates to challenge the PM, and the policy was adjusted.

In more recent years, the estimate was looked at and reduced to about 25,000.

On another note, the people hear cheering 'total war' are disgusting and immoral.

Even Hitler began the war respecting the international law against civilian targetted bombing and when a few bombs feel on residential London, he apologized.

Our peace and safety is a breeding ground for moral idiots who lack any sense of right and wrong, gleefuly pulling out 'total war' excitement for any conflict without restraint for the evil of war - often for greed.

Such people are the enemy of our nation, trying to turn it into a monster.

Lol Wut? Talking out of your ass again as usual.....

The Luftwaffe was bombing cities in Poland during the Blitzkrieg into that country. In the initial attack hospitals, schools and other civilian structures were targeted and destroyed. Hell there was an attack on Warsaw purposefully aimed at the Jewish ghettos in that city and during that raid Hitler personally issued commands to prevent civilians from leaving the city so as to further increase the terror of the bombings and to break the spirit of the Poles.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
War sucks. I hate to read about it. Any one of us reading put in the situation civilians in WWII had to endure would act exactly as they did: terrified, sad, depressed, angry, fearful.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Dresden was much more horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And I don't believe it was AS justified at that point in the war. Germany was well on their way down.

And the Tokyo firebombings were worse. IMHO Dresden isn't on the same level as Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Both of those killed more, and both had more "walking dead" (i.e. people who died long, slow, painful deaths) due to the bombs.

Nagasaki- 40,000-75,000 killed instantly with another 10,000+ injured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombing

Hiroshima- 70,000 killed instantly with another 70,000 injured
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#WWII_and_atomic_bombing

Dresden was bad, but the atomic bombings along with the firebombings of Tokyo were worse. (Tokyo firebombings killed ~100,000)

Agreed. Not keeping the pressure on with every means possible would mean prolonging the war, losing more allied soldiers, and increasing the chances of a repeat of WWI.

Numbers I've seen range from 25,000 to 40,000 IIRC. It's difficult to calculate since many times that number were made homeless and scattered, some of whom were later killed in other cities or died of disease. I don't know if Dresden was as horrific as the Japanese fire-bombings though because the latter's buildings were much more commonly wooden or even rice paper. I have read though that the Dresden fires achieved the highest temperatures of any fire-bombed city, so perhaps it was. Kind of like comparing two sores on a leper.

Highest temperatures sure, but I don't think that means it's "worse". As you mention Tokyo buildings at the time were heavily wood/paper based and burned very well. Dresden was bad, but any of the 3 Japanese cities (Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) were all worse.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
Lol Wut?

Hell there was an attack on Warsaw purposefully aimed at the Jewish ghettos in that city and during that raid Hitler personally issued commands to prevent civilians from leaving the city so as to further increase the terror of the bombings and to break the spirit of the Poles.

Source?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Those were the days when we actually fought, at every level and with every weapon in our arsenals, to win.

/thread.

Well, those were wars of no choice. Today, we will not be exterminated should we lose. Unfortunately, Israel, our ally, still faces such threats today. I'm surprised you actually miss days like that.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0

Several books written about the event....if memory serves me, and I'm at work right now so I don't have access to my library, the operation was named Wassarkante (or something like that) and coincidentally was commanded by a relative of Baron Von Richtofen.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Those were the days when we actually fought, at every level and with every weapon in our arsenals, to win.

/thread.
Those were the days when we actually had a reason to fight.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Doesn't speak only to the bombing campaign, but here is a cited Wiki entry, yeah not the best source sometimes, that has some civilian casualty numbers in it:

Civilian losses
The Polish September Campaign was an instance of total war. Consequently, civilian casualties were high during and after combat. From the start, the Luftwaffe attacked civilian targets and columns of refugees along the roads to wreak havoc, disrupt communications and target Polish morale.

Apart from the victims of the battles, the German forces (both SS and the regular Wehrmacht) are credited with the mass murder of several thousands of Polish POWs and civilians. Also, during Operation Tannenberg, nearly 20,000 Poles were shot at 760 mass execution sites by special units, the Einsatzgruppen, in addition to regular Wehrmacht, SS and Selbstschutz.

Altogether, the civilian losses of Polish population amounted to about 150,000&#8211;200,000[68] while German civilian losses amounted to roughly 3,250 (including 2,000 who died fighting Polish troops as members of a fifth column).[69]

It is from here if you are interested
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Hitler was all about love, big eyed puppies and pretty fluffy clouds in the sky.

Everyone knows this.

That wasn't it. Hitler respected Western Europeans more than those from the East. He looked down on Poles and Jews and thought the worse of Russians.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
From the start, the Luftwaffe attacked civilian targets and columns of refugees along the roads to wreak havoc, disrupt communications and target Polish morale.
That's one war the Nazis did not lose: the war of being the biggest aholes in Europe.
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
That wasn't it. Hitler respected Western Europeans more than those from the East. He looked down on Poles and Jews and thought the worse of Russians.

Hitler respected and/or trusted none and often pitted his closest "friends" and military leaders against themselves simply for his own enjoyment......hell, the man had no problem sending children to war!