[Jeff Head]

Sorry...we disagree. I said that their (NAzi) agression against innocent countries and issues like Ausshwitz led to the total war that produced Dresden. I stand by that.

Also, the city of Dreden was not "just full of refugees". Many of what we call refugees now, were soldiers at the time being reprovisioned there. As has been pointed out on this thread, in February 1945 Dresden was a significant military target in the Eastern front and played in to rolling up both fronts by destroying the Nazis ability to move men and material between east and west.

It was a horrific fire strom that it produced that did kill many, many civilians...but it, once again, crushed the will of the population of the German people as well as their military.

It was a horrific result of the all out war World War II was...and in my estimation, it was a necessary punctuation on the will of the allies to crush the will and capability of a bitter and ruthless enemy and her people.

[wolf78]

Sorry...we disagree. I said that their (NAzi) agression against innocent countries and issues like Ausshwitz led to the total war that produced Dresden. I stand by that.

Before we argue semantics for hours: I have no problem whatsoever when you say that the bombing of Dresden was a result of the need to crush a "bitter and ruthless enemy, because from a historical standpoint that's the truth (i.e. the logic behind the decision).

What I stand by is that Auschwitz either played no role at all or a very minor role in the decision making process, otherwise the Allies wouldn't have neglected destroying the infrastructure that made the holocaust possible right till the end of the war (be it out of other priorities or simple disbelief that the Nazis could indeed go through with such atrocities).

The only thing I find f*cked up is trying to describe the bombing of Dresden as almost a humanitarian mission, because that's not what happened. So let's just say Goebbels / Germany declared "den totalen Krieg" (total war) and he got his reply.