Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The fire bombing of Dreden
Here is an interesting piece about the bombing of Dresden and the opposition to "terror" bombing in the US air force.
THAT THE media's exculpation of the Allied carpet bombing of places like Dresden and the lumping of its critics with neo-Nazis amounts to Orwellian revisionism can be seen by reading Mike Davis' 2002 book, Dead Cities. In it, Davis writes:
During the early days of the Second World War, tens of millions of American voters of German and Italian ancestry were reassured that the Army Air Force would never deliberately make a target out of "the ordinary man in the street." Americans were officially committed to the clean, high-tech destruction of strictly military or military-industrial targets. The Eighth Air Force sent its crews in daylight "precision" raids against visually identified targets, in contrast to its Blitz-embittered British allies, who saturation-bombed German cities at night by radar, hoping to terrorize their populations into flight or rebellion. The extraordinary technologies of the B-17 and the Norden bombsight allowed the United States to bomb "with democratic values."
Then, along came Operation Thunderclap. Churchill's science advisor, Lord Cherwell, argued that "the bombing must be directed essentially against working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space around them and so are bound to waste bombs." Even before the Battle of Britain, Churchill himself had called for an "absolutely devastating, exterminating attack."
Writes Davis:
General George McDonald, the director of Air Force intelligence, privately shared their revulsion against "indiscriminate homicide and destruction." General Cabell, another "precisionist," complained about the "same old baby killing plan of the get-rich-quick psychological boys."
Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Chief of Staff George Marshall also quietly struggled to maintain a moral distinction between the Nazi leadership and the German working class. (Stimson, not wanting "the United States to get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities," equally opposed the fire-bombing of Japan.) . . .
Key Air Force leaders were disturbed by the unsavory character of Thunderclap. Major General Laurence Kuter protested to colleagues that "it is contrary to our national ideals to wage war against civilians." Intelligence chief McDonald railed against a plan that "repudiates our past purposes and practices . . . [and] places us before our allies, the neutrals, our enemies and history in conspicuous contrast to the Russians whose preoccupation with wholly military objectives has been as notable as has been our own up to this time."
The British close to Churchill had a different idea:
The British clung to the belief (or dementia, as many Americans saw it) that Berlin could be bombed out of the war. . . They assumed that intolerable civilian suffering would inevitably produce a proletarian revolt in the heart of the Third Reich. . . Air power, according to this logic, would bomb industrial centers, creating mass unemployment and panic, especially among the working classes, who in turn would overthrow the government. In short, air attack against populations would cause workers to rise up against the ruling classes.
And then the American came on board:
Roosevelt's endorsement of Thunderclap, which paved the way for US complicity in Dresden, was a moral watershed in the American conduct of the war. The city burners had finally triumphed over the precision bombers. By committing the Air Force to British doctrine in Germany, Thunderclap also opened the door to the Zoroastrian Society alumni who wanted an unrestricted incendiary campaign against Japan. The hundred thousand or so civilians whom the Eighth Air Force burnt to death in the cities of eastern Germany during the winter of 1945 were but a prelude to the one million Japanese consumed in the B-29 autos-da-fé later that spring.
Thus, the Washington Post strongly inferring that those who question the morality and wisdom of the Dresden bombings are neo-Nazis is not only historically incorrect, it is a libel.
THAT THE media's exculpation of the Allied carpet bombing of places like Dresden and the lumping of its critics with neo-Nazis amounts to Orwellian revisionism can be seen by reading Mike Davis' 2002 book, Dead Cities. In it, Davis writes:
During the early days of the Second World War, tens of millions of American voters of German and Italian ancestry were reassured that the Army Air Force would never deliberately make a target out of "the ordinary man in the street." Americans were officially committed to the clean, high-tech destruction of strictly military or military-industrial targets. The Eighth Air Force sent its crews in daylight "precision" raids against visually identified targets, in contrast to its Blitz-embittered British allies, who saturation-bombed German cities at night by radar, hoping to terrorize their populations into flight or rebellion. The extraordinary technologies of the B-17 and the Norden bombsight allowed the United States to bomb "with democratic values."
Then, along came Operation Thunderclap. Churchill's science advisor, Lord Cherwell, argued that "the bombing must be directed essentially against working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space around them and so are bound to waste bombs." Even before the Battle of Britain, Churchill himself had called for an "absolutely devastating, exterminating attack."
Writes Davis:
General George McDonald, the director of Air Force intelligence, privately shared their revulsion against "indiscriminate homicide and destruction." General Cabell, another "precisionist," complained about the "same old baby killing plan of the get-rich-quick psychological boys."
Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Chief of Staff George Marshall also quietly struggled to maintain a moral distinction between the Nazi leadership and the German working class. (Stimson, not wanting "the United States to get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities," equally opposed the fire-bombing of Japan.) . . .
Key Air Force leaders were disturbed by the unsavory character of Thunderclap. Major General Laurence Kuter protested to colleagues that "it is contrary to our national ideals to wage war against civilians." Intelligence chief McDonald railed against a plan that "repudiates our past purposes and practices . . . [and] places us before our allies, the neutrals, our enemies and history in conspicuous contrast to the Russians whose preoccupation with wholly military objectives has been as notable as has been our own up to this time."
The British close to Churchill had a different idea:
The British clung to the belief (or dementia, as many Americans saw it) that Berlin could be bombed out of the war. . . They assumed that intolerable civilian suffering would inevitably produce a proletarian revolt in the heart of the Third Reich. . . Air power, according to this logic, would bomb industrial centers, creating mass unemployment and panic, especially among the working classes, who in turn would overthrow the government. In short, air attack against populations would cause workers to rise up against the ruling classes.
And then the American came on board:
Roosevelt's endorsement of Thunderclap, which paved the way for US complicity in Dresden, was a moral watershed in the American conduct of the war. The city burners had finally triumphed over the precision bombers. By committing the Air Force to British doctrine in Germany, Thunderclap also opened the door to the Zoroastrian Society alumni who wanted an unrestricted incendiary campaign against Japan. The hundred thousand or so civilians whom the Eighth Air Force burnt to death in the cities of eastern Germany during the winter of 1945 were but a prelude to the one million Japanese consumed in the B-29 autos-da-fé later that spring.
Thus, the Washington Post strongly inferring that those who question the morality and wisdom of the Dresden bombings are neo-Nazis is not only historically incorrect, it is a libel.
