Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

POV in article

This article is in my opinion not NPOV, and I will ad a notice. Here I will show why

Arguing to present lower death toll figures as more accurate:

from the text:

"The precise number of dead is not known. Estimates from reputable sources vary from 25,000 to more than 60,000, although the official German report (TB47) at the time refers to 25,000 expected dead, and historians now view around 25,000-35,000 as the likely range, with the latest research by a German historian pointing toward the lower part of this range. Contemporary official German records give a number of 21,271 registered burials, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt."

what is a "reputable source" - this is a weasel word. What sources - we are here not JUDGE, but to REPORT in a neutral way. Name the sources, dont weight/judge them.

why the word "although". it indicates arguing in favor of the lower estimate. also it is an expected number, not final count (and can we have a reference to it, please). expected numbers of deatsh in the recent tsunami were as low as 40,000 in the first few days, compared to 300,000 that is what is put now. it is a selective use of information, to substantiate the claim, not an objective account. No discussion is given for the higher estimates (60,000 - that is said to be an estimate, but not discussed). Nothing is said in the end about the missing and those possibly burnt in the firestorms. All these concerns omitted, leaving a bad impression of one-sidedness

"The number of dead between February and April 1945 was 25,000, war related or not. There was no registration of burials between May and September 1945.³ War-related dead found in later years, from October 1945 to September 1957, are given as 1,557; from May 1945 until 1966, 1,858 bodies were recovered. None were found during the period 1990-1994, even though there was a lot of construction and excavation during that period. The number of people registered with the authorities as missing was 35,000; around 10,000 of those were later found to be alive. ⁵ In recent years, the estimates have become a little higher in Germany and lower in Britain; earlier it was the opposite."

This paragraph starts with the number 25,000 as it is a fact, contradicting the uncertanty from the previous paragraph. It implies that all higher estimates are wrong (why then the discussion in the first place). The whole paragraph presents arguments for the lower estimates - that is very suspicious and one-sided sounding. Also, this is more something that should be relevant to the talk pages, than the article itself - it is a proper place for pesuasion, and article should merely report. All sides should be reported justly, not only one side or estimate with all the arguments supporting it. None of the arguments here is in fact conclusive, yet it might sound so to people who read the article - clearly this was put here by people with agenda to lower the estimates.

"Estimates are made difficult by the fact that the city was crowded at that time by many unregistered refugees and wounded soldiers. There have been higher estimates for the number of dead, ranging as high as a quarter of a million, but they are from disputed sources, such as the Nazi Propaganda Ministry, and controversial self-taught historical writer and prominent Holocaust denier David Irving, who has anyway retracted his higher estimates."

again, arguing rather than presenting; what does "anyway" stand for in the last sentence - it makes sense only

in an argument. These words give up the agenda, and add to a tone of onesidedness.

Issue of war crime

The existence of this issue is downplayed, if not entirely denied. There is no chapter discussing it, and it was all discussed in a suspiciously sounding chapter "was bombing justified". This is not an essay, but an encyclopedia article. So, reporting of facts, issues and views of people should be presented in a neutral way, not arguing and making judgements on our own (this is not a newspaper editorial either).

Therefore, I will add NPOV notice until these objections are settled (also, there is an edit war here going from October, and a note should be there for that very reason). User:MarkSOp of 06:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UCT)

MarkSop, I think the missing link of the arguing in the article is the document found in 1995 in the Dresden city archives which approves the number of 25.000 estimated dead by saying there were indeed around 25.000 offically buried dead by March 22, 1945. The later statement of your article seems to take that as a factual basis. This is pretty much in line with the arguing in the German Article. The "reputable sources" refered to could be those historians who also can only rely on these documents so far. For higher estimations there are indeed no verified documents found. At least I haven´t heard of any reliable ones exept later statements of politicians and a Red Cross Summary of 1946 speaking of 275.000 estimated dead without saying which sources lead to that estimation. Isr that a help to solve the impression of contradiction? Jesusfreund, German user --217.95.60.68 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are other sources - a figure of 135,000 is widely circulating. Not all dead were officially burried. Look what happened in the recent tsunami (it had more victims than the Dresden bombing, but we can get the idea from its coverage now). Personally, the figure of around 50,000 seems most reasonable to me, given the number of missing etc (on this very site), but we should not do research, just report the numbers that are circulating, with sources (and judging sources is not our buisiness - they speak for themself). See Wikipedia:No original research MarkSOp 14:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The figure of 135,000 is widely circulated and is based on figures which David Irving published in the Early 1960s. He retracted those figures (as is mentioneded in the references secton with a link to his web page and in more detail in the footnotes).

The wording you were objecting to:

1)"reputable source". is no longer in the text.

BTW "this is not an essay" (to use your phrase) and we do have to judge sources. For example a British Judge is on record of saying about David Irving (my emphasis)

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

2)what does "anyway" stand for in the last sentence - it makes sense only. The word "anyway" has been removed. The original was almost certianly written by a German and is a translation from how one writes in German. EG "I wash myself". You have to assume a certain amount of good faith when reading an article like this because it is written by many people in many styles, some of whom do not have English as their first language. If you do not like a word like "anyway" in a sentence and it does not change the meaning then you can always minor edit it out and no rational person is likely to object.
3)why the word "although". It is no longer there.
4)War Crime. War crime mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph in the section "Controversy".

Do you still have problems with the article? If so unless you have problems with all/most sections in the Article I suggest that we drill down to the problems and use {{NPOV-section}} section tags rather than {{NPOV-}} for the whole article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Number of victims

Currently, the article lists number of victims "reputable estimates are 25,000-60,000". I dispute this formulation. What does "reputable" mean. Are Columbia encyclopedia and Encarta encyclopedia disreputable?? As much as I do not like Microsoft, I can't agree that they are. And Columbia is an elite US University, is its encyclopedia not reputable? They both list number of victims from 35,000-135,000. This figure was disucssed here extensively Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1, that was before this current edit war started, and the figure 35,000 - 135,000 was in the article for 2 years. I think it should clearly be listed as one of reputable source (or do not use reputable, but list the figure and the source, Wikipedia should not make judgements according to NPOV policy. User:MarkSop 05:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UCT)

I agree. Unlike in the Tsunami, in Dresden didn´t show up more and more dead bodies. Instead, they found around 1.800 more dead bodies in 1945, around 300 later and then nothing more. But you´re right, no one knows how many were burnt completely in the firestorm. That´s why some even serious sources always come up with these big figures, although they are all estimations only, none of them based on documents. Look up which sources they give, then perhaps quote them telling the reader that they are not verified yet. - Here´s the name of the exact source for the buried:

"Lagebericht 1404" (situation report) of Berlin police on March 22, 1945 approves the "Tagesbericht 47" (daily report 47) of that same day in its first unmanipulated version (the one without the faked added zero at the end): They counted 18.375 found dead and estimated they would find 25.000, maybe up to 35.000 as whole number.
The acts of the "Bestattungs- und Marstallamt"

(Burial Office) found in the "Stadtarchiv" (city archive) of Dresden in 1993 (not 1995, my mistake) approve around 25.000 dead, which were buried until April 17, 1945. In this number are those victims of the February 14 and 15 raids already included.

Then you can say: Minimum was 25.000 plus those found in 1945 later, making it at least 27.000, plus those missing or burnt (careful: speculation) about at least 10.000, making it somewhere between 37.000 maybe 40.000. That´s what most historians I read of suggest.

No original research: does not mean to just copy numbers of encyclopedias who estimate only themselves, I think. These figures above are commonly presented by most German experts, including the historical commission of Dresden who searches again right now. It´s the most reliable we´ve got so far IMO. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.122.239 17:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Issue of War crime

Do people dispute that there is an issue of War crime here? You might think that it was not a war crime, but do you dispute that there is a war crime issue? Do you dispute it is a relevant issue?

I think that a chapter in this article should be devoted to this issue, since it is an important one cocerning Dresden. User:MarkSop 05:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UCT)

MarkSop, could you date your comments in future. Your name and the date will be automatically added if you write four tildes after your comment, like this ~~~~ Many thanks. On another note, I'm changing that Friedrich is a historian, because even his Wikipedia page doesn't say that. SlimVirgin 06:43, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know about the signatures. MarkSOp 06:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's better. :-) I wasn't sure whether I'd also moved old comments at the same time. If I did, sorry, and feel free to move them back. Regarding your comments, I agree with you that this article needs to be properly referenced. Figures aren't sourced, quotes aren't referenced. I also think we should stick to reputable sources, and not include people like David Irving, because his figures are very agenda-laden, and in fact he himself has restracted them, I believe. Regarding discussing it as a war crime, are there any reputable, authoritative sources that you know of who refer to it as a war crime, or suggest that it might be? Friedrich is quoted as saying that, but I haven't read his book and tonight I read online that, in fact, he didn't say it, so it's all a bit murky. I agree with you that we should characterize the dispute and not engage in it, as it were. I also agree that, as there has been an edit dispute since October, it would be good to do something to settle it. SlimVirgin 06:55, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

"People as diverse as the German socialist writer Gunter Grass and the former editor of the Times, Simon Jenkins have referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime" - so indeed there are quite a few people who have referred to this as a war crime (which is hardly surprising). Now, it is a moral assesment, not a legal one, since at the time the international law did not function (and even today the international tribunal is not ratified by USA who opposes to it and most major countries like Russia, China; also Israel). A question can be asked if it is a war crimes by the standards of Geneva conventions, and a chapter about this can be added. Or not - just listing some people (as in this sentence I've added to the article) might help. The way it was stated, it sounded almost that this Friedrich is the first one who has suggested it, and that his suggestion was very odd and contraversial. This is misleading, since in fact this discussion goes for decades, much before Friedrich, Irving and present day debate. As for Irving, I think that his views/book as well as the views of far right should be mentioned, since it is a relevant part of the story. The view does not have to be reputable or true to be reported - if people burnt witches in middle ages, then the view of inquisition that those persons were witches should be reported, as it is relevant - VIEW is to be presented as such, based on relevance of the phenomenon (consequences of Dresden bombing for the present day people and their feelings) - and in fact that is all that we can do. A view of historic science community A (present day) is such and such, a view of BBC and other media is such and such, a view of historic community B (for instance Soviet historians) is such and such. And that is it - the criterion should be relevance, and we are not suppose to make judgements here which view is correct (though of course we all have them in private, but it should not show in NPOV article)MarkSOp 07:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On Friedrichs historical background and quotes I‚ll try to find out. His book "Der Brand" is mainly based on American military documents plus German city archives: the latter haven‚t been researched so much up to him. Other sources he neglects instead, so you‚re right to question his reliability. In some points he is plain wrong: He says Mannheim didn‚t have any military relevanc f.e. which is false.
On refugees: You‚re right, some use higher estimations of refugees as propaganda. The figures range from 100.000 up to 600.000.
But that shouldn‚t keep us from taking a close look. There were evacuations going on for a while, f.e. in February 1945 all the people of Breslau (now Bonislaviec, Poland) were fleeing towards the west through Dresden which was considered to be safe.
The most serious source I know about the matter is G?tz Bergander: "Dresden im Luftkrieg", first edition 1977, new edition September 1998, 435 pages, Flechsig, ISBN: 3881892397. - Bergander is the German historican supposed to have written the most reliable factual book on the matter, dealing with a lot of "legends" around the attacks.
He is critical about the refugees: no wonder, because he was an administrator for refugees in Dresden at that time, so a time witness also. He is the only one of German historicans I know of that analyzes precisely every aspect from planning of the attacks up to the death toll numbers. In the new edition he also cares about many other books published since 1977. We rely on much of his in our article.
And he estimates the number of refugees "up to 200.000" (page 214): in February, not for the center of Dresden only but for the whole of the city area. He also stresses that the Nazis tried to make them leave the city as soon as possible, because it was crammed already and they feared attacks.

Hope this can help, I don‚t know wether there‚s an english edition of Berganders book. If there is, try to get it! Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.95.58.123 06:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On J?rg Friedrich:

1982 he published his first historical book "Freispruch fôr die Nazi-Justiz".
1984 another one: "Kalte Amnestie". In both he dealt with the juridical prosecution of Nazis in Western Germany, f.e. Majdanek-trial.
1993 he published "Das Gesetz des Krieges" (The law of war), 1000 pages, about the crimes of the Wehrmacht in Russia-war 1941-1945 and their prosecution in the Nôrnberg trials.
He also produced many radio and some TV pieces, together with another historican, Alexander Kluge, about world war II, NS-crimes and Allied war against Germany.
He now lives as free author and publishing historican in Berlin.
Hans Mommsen, famous conservative historican, has aknowledged his book "Der Brand" quite positively. Others have pointed out his lacking analysis of the political backgrounds of the air warfar.

More later about his "war crime" quotes. Jesusfreund --217.83.32.213 07:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him a historian just because he writes about history. That was one of the problems with David Irving being called a historian, when in fact he was a fraud. I'm not saying Friedrich is a fraud, but we should call him a writer if he isn't a qualified historian. SlimVirgin 07:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Marksop, the only way to sort out this dispute is to stick to facts and cite sources. You write above that people as diverse as Simon Jenkins and Gunter Grass have called it a war crime. That's a good example of what's wrong with this article. "As diverse as" is POV, and in what relevant way are they diverse (because one is left and the other right?) and these are TWO people, neither of them authorities on anything. I'm not saying their views don't matter, but just because those two people say something doesn't make it an issue. If this is really an issue, you'll be able to find multiple good sources. If you can't, that tells you something. Preferably, the sources should be war historians, law professors, or government documents (other than Nazi ones). We can't just add a section discussing whether it would be illegal under the Geneva Convention. We're not allowed to do original research and that includes no original analysis or synthesis. We may only refer to information and arguments that are in the public domain and have been published by credible, relevant publications. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin 07:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence I have entered was in fact not mine, it was taken from the talk page on which I raised the issue of being abused (by some anonimous user 151....) when I first entered this. So it might not be the best formulation, and I think they are not isolated people who say this - the Soviets did this, it is considered war crime by the left in US etc. But if you want to document the sources, and do some research (to find the sources - that is a sort of derivative research :) ) to prove the point that there indeed is such an issue (it is really strange to me that people would contest that, but this seems to be exactly the case). But it is rather the talk pages where this should be proved, and just reported in the article (if there are many prominent people who raised that issue, then not all of them should be detailed in the article - in fact saying something like "and some other" etc is not necessarily what you call here weasel word, but might be a summary (where there is no point in going into details). For instance, if we write an article about gravity, we could say something like "scientists have determined that when you throw an apple it falls down on Earth", without listing all the scientists who have tried this (or finding all the relevant papers about falling apples). The "no original research" means that we should not JUDGE who is right based on our research, just REPORT things and views as they exist (a point that I have made here a few times). Of course, then there is a meta-research into finding out the things and views, determining relevance - so it is not possible to make a clear cut, but the idea is I think clear.

As for Grass and this other guy, a simple google search can do. This is from what I have found:

When I asked Grass about the destruction of German cities by the Allies, he replied, ÔWhy was it necessary to bomb a residential city like Darmstadt at the end of the war, long after Dresden, in which thousands of people were killed [the estimated death toll for Dresden varies from 40,000 to 135,000]? I know that there were protests in England when a monument was erected to Air Marshal Harris, but I still feel unwell to know that this monument still exists because what he did was a war crime.

From Royal Society of Arts article. There are also references to his written work. Grass is a prominent intelectual, whose views are widely read, and so he can raise an issue, and so can the Times editor (who has a lot of power over opinion, and hence can stir a debate). But there can probably be found more data about the debate, no doubt some information will become available after this sunday (I hope NYTimes will have an article with a lot of useful information about the debate, and they are on a better level and less biased than BBC - though of course they have their own agenda, but are less crude in handling it). MarkSOp 14:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to have the article improved a little before Sunday. Can you supply the link for the Grass quote you found please? It's extremely important to have the right names, and to attribute statements accurately. Someone may criticize it, but stop short of calling it a war crime. SlimVirgin 14:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have quoted above the statement atributed to Grass (oral I guess) where he uses war crime wording. I have seen another, from material written, where he uses the world crime as well. He probably made this point many times over the years, I will google the quotes and add them. So Grass certainly did not only criticize it, but called it a war crime explicitly, and he is a reputable, Nobel prize winner.

Also, it is not correct to attribute the reasons for their assesment just "because of alledged targeting of civilians" or whatever was added. Noone said that, and it is better to leave it without qualifications why than giving the sloppy worded reasons (possibly misrepresented what they said, and arbitrarily interpreted), with the words "apparent" or "alledged" moreover. There were two issues here - Dresden was a city part of cultural heritage (called Northern Florence because of its architecture). The number of dead civilians is another. But just saying that they have called it a war crime, using that words, is what matters here - not the reasons they provided (indeed, if they did give reasons in a way that can be reproduced here without misrepresentations). MarkSOp 14:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have found two references to Grass saying this, from Times and from British Royal Academy of Arts (a reputable source, I would say) paper that interviewed him. I have mistakenly thought that Grass has put that in writting - I have misread part of the second article. Anyway, this is the evidence for the debate that I have found and put into article.

MarkSOp 15:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Citing sources==

I've started a copy edit. I'd appreciate it my changes were not reverted or deleted without prior discussion, as I'm now having to repeat a lot of the work that I did two days ago because it was changed. I've made the Friedrich claim about it being a war crime invisible until we establish whether he really did say that, because at the moment we link to a BBC piece that doesn't back up the claim.

Regarding the use of these little footnote numbers, these are not a good idea, and the references linked to at the bottom of the page either don't back up the claims, or else it's not clear which part of a paragraph they're referring to. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for a discussion about why these footnotes should not be used. If you want to refer to a book please say. "According to John Smith, X, Y, Z" (and after the sentence (Smith, 2005) or else just "X, Y, X, (Smith, 2005)", then include Smith's 2005 book in the References section. Also, please write (Smith, 2005) after the sentence taken from Smith 2005 not just after the paragraph, unless the whole paragraph really is taken from him. SlimVirgin 07:56, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the header of "were the attacks justified" to "controversy" which is more neutral. I've also found a couple of citations for the quotes in that section. For anyone wanting to pursue the war crimes issue, here is an interesting article [1] that says Chamberlain said it would be a war crime to do this, though he said that before the war. This might be a starting point for anyone wanting to pursue that angle. Here's the quote: "Many felt that the Germans deserved to reap the whirlwind they had sown. Yet Bomber Command's policy of targeting residential areas clearly contradicted Chamberlain's pre-war statement in parliament that it was 'against international law to bomb civilians as such and to make deliberate attacks on the civilian population'." SlimVirgin 08:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

What are you using as an editor? It seems to handle certain characters in an odd way and to change them. please see [2] [3]. One of the Characters it does not seem to handle is "´" as in I´ll inplace of I'll. In the first edit it replaced with "´" "«" it did somthing similar for "Eisenhower's" in the main article. At the moment all the German characters have been changed by these two edits. Of course if they look fine in your browser and you can not see what I mean then we have a problem:-( however you should still be able to see the red changes in the history diffrences though Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The controversy title is much much better. I think this should be in the introduction instead of "moral and legal justification of the bombing". I dont like that formulation, because it is not neutral - it suggests that this was indeed justified - if the objection to "war crime debate" was that it suggests that it was war crime, than what there is now suggests that it was somehow justified and I was stunned when I saw it first time - it struck me as extremely POV wording. Saying simply that there is controversy is both the simplest and most neutral way to say this. Bombing is indeed contraversial, and we can detail the issues of war crimes, justifications and whole debate in the separate section named "controversy". It is a term used in other wikipedia articles. Pitty it was not an option in the straw poll that was there before, noone had thought of this simple solution then it appears. But I am in favor of changing this, since it is clearly superior to other options - shortest, most neutral. MarkSOp 14:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip, do not change my edits again without prior discussion. I am not changing anything of substance, simply getting rid of commentary, and tidying grammar and punctuation. And please stop adding material that has no source - you are not allowed to insert your own opinion into articles. I have found the full Churchill quote and it seems he was not responding to public disquiet or expressing regret as previous versions said, so I have used more of the quote to show context. SlimVirgin 11:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Still in the Controversy section, I've also added a quote from a 1941 Air Staff paper:

The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death.

The weird punctuation is in the original, by the way. I also deleted that the Germans regarded Dresden as a non-industrial city, because it has no source. If it's to be added again, it would be better to say something like: "Historian John Smith writes that: blah, blah"

I'll stop editing for now in case there are any objections to the changes. SlimVirgin 12:41, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have looked up now every page where Churchill is mentioned in the book of Jörg Friedrich "Der Brand". And BINGO, you were right SlimVirgin: He is not saying that Churchill committed war crimes anywhere explicitly. But he suggests the reader to draw that conclusion, that is also true. In the very beginning of chapter two, "Strategy", Friedrich quotes Churchill: "Some are curable and others are killable." This quote is supposed to sum up the new strategy of "moral bombing" whose origins are explained in that chapter. Churchill is introduced as one of the main initiators of that strategy. But Friedrich avoids carefully to directly accuse him of being a mass murderer. He is instead drawing a line from German warfare - Göring sent the Luftwaffe against British cities in 1940 first - and also he admits that Churchill probably at that time seemed to have no other offensive weapon (before the Americans entered the war and after British Air force lost many of their air fighters in fall 1940).

Another interesting aspect: Friedrich is very much in line with the in Germany widely accepted historian Götz Bergander I mentioned above on the numbers of dead caused by the attacks saying: There were 640.000 registrated citizens plus 200.000 refugees living in Dresden at that time. And therefore there were probably 25.000 registered dead plus 15.000 missing, summing up to around 40.000 dead, in equivalence to the Hamburg raids.
Although, there is a "slight" difference: Friedrich adds "at least" to these numbers, whereas Bergander adds "up to" to them, meaning: For Friedrich they are a minimum, for Bergander a maximum. See how subjectively educated historians can argue?
If you quote relevant persons saying the Dresdens raids were a war crime, don´t forget Bishop Bell of Chichester, closest friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He clearly adressed Churchill and Harris for their bombing strategy, making very clear that to him it was a crime - in that time itself, questioning the whole British strategy because it did not help the small but existing opposition against Hitler to be successful in their plans to kill him. Very important aspect I think!! I will look up the source of that quote, hope I find it soon.
Hope I could help at least in some disputed points here. Ask more, I will answer from what I know. greetings, Jesusfreund --217.95.50.247 13:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesusfreund, thank you for doing all that research; it's extremely helpful. SlimVirgin 13:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would be helpful is to have a quote from Freidrich's book that most appropriately sums up his view of the bombing. At the moment, we only have Gunter Grass and Simon Jenkins criticising it, neither of whom have any expertise. If it would be easier for you, you could type it in here in German and we could translate it together, as I know a little German. If you have time, that is; if not, don't worry, you've already helped a lot. Best, SlimVirgin 13:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jesusfreund are you sure that Bishop Bell said that area bombing was a crime? I have read some of what he said and his argument seemed to be for a moral and Christian background not a legal one. Under British common law (unlike under codified system of law used on much of the continent) to introduce a legal argument into a conversation will tend to spark an adversarial debate, because that is how common law works I would have thought it unlikly that he would have done that. Much more typical are these quotes: "night-bombing of non-combatants as a degradation of the spirit for all who take part in it."; "How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?"; "All this is founded on the great and terrible fallacy that ends justify means. They never do. Is there no pity in the whole world? Are all our hearts hardened and coarsened by events?".

He said in this in a House of Lords :

"The suffering of Europe…are not to be healed by the use of power only, power unlimited and exclusive…It is of supreme importance that we…. Should so use power that it is always under the control of law. It is because the bombing of enemy towns –this area bombing – raises this issue of power unlimited ad exclusive that such immense importance is bound to attach to the policy and action of His Majesty's Government."[4]

That power should always be under the control of law is not the same as saying that area bombing was a crime. Philip Baird Shearer 19:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last sentence, first paragraph

I am editing the highly contraversial last sentence (which speaks of justifications, and some think there are none - if you wont mention the war crime debate because some think it was not a war crime (though there is a debate - but the wording was refused for suggesting that there was any war crime, god forbid) - so I think on the same grounds this other wording is POV (and I find it very apologizing sounding). There was not a suggestion to put simple "controversy" in the first sentence. If necessary, discuss the edit here. There is no need to say what was controversy about in the opening paragraph (it seems it would be seen as POV - either you use "justification" or "war crime" words, neither are seen as neutral by all) - and it is fairly obvious what the controversy might be anyway. MarkSOp 15:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for adding a link for the Grass reference. I reverted to the previous intro because this intro has been so controversial that we probably should get consensus here first, and also because the English wasn't quite right. I agree that the current intro could use some improvement, and the phrase "moral and legal justifications" is odd wording, but let's try to find something we can all agree on, otherwise it'll just be a constant revert war. What about that quote from the BBC I mentioned yesterday, saying simply "it remains the most notorious event of the war" and linking to the BBC? I think we should try hard to find something before Sunday. SlimVirgin 15:25, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is my suggestion. I don't think it's perfect, because I feel we should say briefly why it is controversial or notorious, but at least this gets rid of moral and legal justification, and it cites a credible source for the word notorious.

Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was bombed by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945, three months before the end of World War II in Europe. Sixty years later, the bombing of Dresden remains "one of the most notorious events of the war". [5]

What do people think of this? SlimVirgin 15:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then lets discuss it here. I am for the most neutral wording possible, just mentioning controversy. I like your edit, but controversy should be mentioned with link as it is now. But people who think that it was a legitimate action are clearly going to be against the word notorious - it suggests something negative. I just think that nothing more than stating that there is controversy is needed in the introduction, and it is also the most neutral approach. MarkSOp 17:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about the intro as it is without the justification bit and with the BBC link:

Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was bombed by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945, three months before the end of World War II in Europe on May 8 of that year. The bombing of Dresden remains controversial after 60 years [6]

It's neutral, though it suffers from the same problem as the current intro in that it doesn't explain why there's controversy, The current intro hints at it, but doesn't say. I feel we need to add something like: Over a period of three hours on the night of Feb 13-14, the RAF's firebombing killed at least 25,000 people and destroyed around 15 sq kms of the town center. SlimVirgin 18:49, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of that short sentence you proposed, with the link at the end. It does not have to be explained in the introduction. Also, reason for bombing being contraversial (from '45 on) was not only the number of dead or ruining the center completely, but the fact that the city was apparently famous by its architecture at the time, and it was also a huge cultural loss. But it would be too much to explain everything in the introduction, especially because this has become so sensitive because of extensive discussions about how to end the chapter. MarkSOp 19:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the wording "one of the most notorious events of the war" is acceptable. It has to be neutral and "notorious" is not neutral. Secondly SlimVirgin, you may not think there are any legal issues but anyone who says it was a war crime clearly things that there are. There are definitely a moral issue which both sides of the debate agree exists. "just mentioning controversy" will not work because the article had a first sentence like the one which MarkOp is suggested last year, "The bombing of Dresden in World War II by the Allies remains controversial after more than 50 years." and over time more and more POV and then POV to balance the first POV etc, built up at the end of the paragraph like plaque on teeth. In the end it was agreed in a straw poll that it should be paird down to "It remains controversial because of the legal and moral justifications for the raids." If you want to change the wording in that sentence you will have to hold a well advertised straw poll. (see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 4#Straw poll ) --Philip Baird Shearer 19:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this straw poll in any way restricting? It is said explicitly here in disclaimer that further edits are possible as we see fit. It is possible to hold a new poll, but it is better to find a consensus. Also, there are other ways to settle this - arbitration, if necessary - there is something like that on wikipedia. I think Philip pushes his "no war crimes" POV too hard - just saying that it is contraversial is clearly most neutral of all the options. MarkSOp 19:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those who point out to "war crimes" do not imply necessarily legal issues - it may be just a moral qualification. In fact, Nuremberg trials had legal issues raised mostly AFTER the events, which is somehow dubious. People can call a crime something for which there are no laws which treat it (a Soviet gulag might have legal base, but it is still called a crime; in East Germany, shooting of people who ran out of East Berlin was legal by the East German laws, but was tried as a crime after unification of Germany); What do you mean "last year" - this is a mistake probably. If the first sentence is the same as the last, then we do not need to repeat it (I think it is not); Also, if you agreed that there are moral issues then say it using those neutral words. "Justification" is not that. You can either say "remains controversial because of the legal and moral issues connected with the raids." or otherwise "remains controversial because of the legal and moral responsibility for the raids." Now I guess you would object to responsibility as much as I do to justification. Who says that we HAVE TO hold a WELL ADVERTISED straw poll? Is it in the rules? Please point them out since you must be refering to something like that, unless you are trying to mislead us and intimidate into accepting the present (very poor) version. User:MarkSOp Feb 12 20:07

Past straw polls don't restrict current editors of the page. We should try to reach consensus here. You both dislike "notorious" so that's out. Philip, we have so far not found a serious source for the allegation of war crime. By serious, I mean someone who understands the implications of that accusation, like an international law specialist, military historian and the like. Gunter Grass and an ex-editor of The Times don't cut it. However, in one of the links I posted there was a reference to Chamberlin having made the same claim before the war (that area bombing would be a war crime), so if either of you want to pursue that issue, it would be good to look for that. In the meantime, no serious legal challenge is mentioned in the article, and no legal justification whatsoever has been offered, so it's kind of odd to have that in the intro. Does anyone else have a view about the following as the intro? Philip, would you consider supporting this, or can you think of a compromise? SlimVirgin 21:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was bombed by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945, three months before the end of World War II in Europe on May 8 of that year. The bombing of Dresden remains controversial after 60 years. [7]

I agree fith the last proposal. I was against "notorious" since it is not neutral (although I think it is notorious, but it is going to be objected by people like Philip) User:MarkSOp Feb 12 20:07

It's not actually POV to call it notorious; it's a fact. Whether it ought to be notorious is a separate question. What about the following as a compromise between the short version and the justifications version?

Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was bombed by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945, three months before the end of World War II in Europe on May 8 of that year. The bombing of Dresden remains controversial after 60 years because of questions regarding the strategic, moral, and legal standing of the attacks. [8]

Or just moral and legal, without strategic. Standing is less POV than justification. SlimVirgin 21:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is not up to me to make any suggestions here but I can tell you we just compromised in Germany on a sentence in the introduction like: "How to look at the attacks - as a war crime or as a necessary means to win the war against Hitler - is still highly disputed up to now, both in public and in historical debate."

Probably this is not translated quite exactly, but I hope you get the sense. It is not giving hints but simply raising the main question which the article raises anyhow, inviting the reader to give his own answer. Greetings, Jesusfreund (haven´t found Bishop Bell´s quotation yet, sorry) --217.229.127.172 22:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesusfreund, you have as much right to comment here as anyone. Please do; you've been very helpful.

What on earth does "strategic, moral, and legal standing" mean? I am going to revert this phrase. It is an ugly phrase which does not have a clear meaning, If I remove "moral, and legal " we are left with "strategic standing of the attacks" which is very unclear. Remove either word from "legal and moral justifications for the raids" and one is left with "legal justification", or "moral justification" which still makes sense.

Secondly there is no need to give an outside link for such a phrase as it is not a quote (which is in dispute) and there is no argument that the bombing remains controversial. Also the link is wide open to POV arguments by people who think that that assessment is wrong. If it is to be discussed it should be done in the body of the article (as it is under the section 'The attacks': "There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims are not supported by recent work by a German historian" Philip Baird Shearer 14:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

blockquotes

Philip, why do you delete <blockquote>? Using colons to indent quotations is bad html. Please read the MoS and the talk pages, and Cite sources regarding the footnotes. You're creating a lot of extra work for me, and perhaps for others. How about we ask someone to be an informal mediator? Formal mediation would take an age to organize as there's a backlog, but we could ask Ed Poor. SlimVirgin 22:35, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Controversy: Bishop Bell as a time witness

As you start out that section "Controversy" with a German post war writer, I would like to point out that - as has to be expected in an old civilized democratic nation - there were Britains opposing the bomb raids at the time they were carried out and even before. Here´s some I found which might be related to the subject although Bell said it one year before the Dresden raids:

[9] ...During the Second World War few British subjects argued against strategic bombing. Vera Brittain, the mother of Shirley Williams, led the campaign against this tactic.

George Bell, Bishop of Chichester was another who shared Vera Brittain's views. In July 1943 Bell attempted to persuade William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to oppose strategic (also known as area) bombing. Temple refused as he did not share Bell's views on this subject. In February 1944 Bell raised this issue in the House of Lords. In the debate Bell asked:

"How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization."

Bell obtained no support from the Lords, but a couple of Labour Party MPs in the House of Commons agreed with him. This included Richard Stokes and Alfred Salter who in a debate argued passionately against the bombing of civilians:

"All this is founded on the great and terrible fallacy that ends justify means. They never do. Is there no pity in the whole world? Are all our hearts hardened and coarsened by events?" Yes. Strategic bombing is more an act of revenge than an effective military tactic.

More is to come. Jesusfreund --217.95.56.88 23:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is very good material, thank you. I think the extra part of the quote from Harris that Philip found is also very good to show the other side of the argument. I won't add any of your material until Philip, Mark, and the other editors say what they think we ought to do with it, if anything. Many thanks again. SlimVirgin 23:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

And look here: [10] ...George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, criticised Winston Churchill and Arthur Harris for the policy of of area bombing. On 10th May 1941, Bell made a speech where he described the "night-bombing of non-combatants as a degradation of the spirit for all who take part in it". Jesusfreund, --217.95.56.88 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And here: [11]

The English bishop, George Bell of Chichester, published an article in November of 1939. It was called, "The Church's Function in Wartime." He [Bell] argued that it was essential that the Church should remain the Church, and not "the state's spiritual auxiliary." It should define basic principles of conduct, and "not hesitate... to condemn the infliction of reprisals, or the bombing of civilian populations, by the military forces of its own nation. It should set itself against the propaganda of lies and hatred. It should be ready to encourage the resumption of friendly relations with the enemy nation. It should set its face against any war of extermination or enslavement, and any measures directly aimed to destroy the morale of a population." [2]

I´m sorry: these quotations seem to be true and relevant. But I should give you the primary sources which I don´t know yet. Jesusfreund, --217.95.56.88 23:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to say earlier than I removed the following until we can find a reference for it. The reason I feel it's problematic without a reference is that we say "this implies that . . ." referring to the opinions of Grass and Jenkins. I feel that's a bit of a leap and might look as though we're just inserting our own opinions, because I doubt very much that Jenkins or Grass would want to see individual pilots. bombers and nagivators be tried, yet we're almost attributing that view to them. SlimVirgin 23:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. However as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

SlimVirgin 23:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is my translation out of a German encyclopedia article on Bishop Bell: [12]

...Risking his life Bonhoeffer travelled to Sweden on May 30, 1942, where he met with bell the next two days to inform him about the resistance and to ask him, to tell the British Minister of foreign affairs about the efforts of the German resistance movement. Bell added to his report a note:

„Dear Mr. Eden, I hope, it will be possible for you soon, to declare with emphasis and publically, that the british government and the Allies do not wish to enslave a Germany, which wants to get rid of Hitler, Himmler and their guilty company. I have found proof at many places in Sweden, that they (the Swedish people) make a sharp and correct difference between active Nationalsocialists and the very great number of disagreeing Germans. Exactly this differenciation the German resistance expects of the british government so badly.“

Bells efforts were in vain. But he did not give up. In his speech at the House of Lords on February 9, 1944, he declared:

„If the permanent and publically witnessed opposition against Nationalsocialism since 1933 means a recommendation, then I may in all humility take the right for me to be considered as one of the most consequent opponents of Nazi-regime in Great Britain. But, I would like to stand up against the policy of British government, because it directs the bombardements of enemy cities especially in the present way of exterminating non-combattant civilians and non-militarian objects. Let me give two sad examples: Hamburg and Berlin. Hamburg has a population of between one and two millions. Due to the methods applied now the whole city lies down scattered. All cultural buildings, livingroom, industrial and church-buildings have been destroyed to the ground. According to very cautious estimations 28.000 civilians are found dead. Berlin is four times as big as Hamburg. Up to now half of Berlin has been destroyed, quarter after quarter, livingspace and industrial space alike. By dropping thousands of tons of very effective Phosphor bombs men and women have been annihilated in a huge storm of smoke, gloom and fire. The number of these annihilated civilians is estimated around 74.000. Three million people are without shelter in Berlin now. That is total extermination policy but not an action of warfare which could be justified.“

When Bonhoeffer was executed on April 9, 1945 in Flossenbürg through rope, Bell said:

»What it means to serve God more than humans in a totalitarian state that I have learned from Dietrich Bonhoeffer.“

Shortly after he said:

„Because there has been a resistance movement in Germany carried out by a Christian minority, therefor the Christianity of England will not reject giving the German people even after their second failure (loss) the right of freedom and political selfdetermination (autonomy).“

Works: A Brief Sketch of the Church of England, 1929; Life of Archbishop Randall Davidson, 1935 (19523); Christianity and World Order, 1940; The Background of the Hitler Plot, in: Contemporary Review 10, London 1945; The Church and Humanity, 1946; The Task of the Churches in Germany, 1947; Christian Unity: The Anglican Position, 1948; The Kingship of Christ: The Story of the world Council of Churches, 1954; Edited: Documents on Christian Unity, London 1924-58; The Stockholm Conference 1925. Official Report, Oxford 1926; The Significance of the Barmen Declaration for the Oecumenical Church (with J. 0. Cobham), London 1943...

This long quote given to you just in case anyone is interested in this outstanding person. You haven´t an article about him yet, but at least he is in the list of bishops of Chichester. I think remembering him is not inconvenient when remembering Dresden attacks today. With love from Germany, Jesusfreund --217.229.124.170 00:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right Reverend George Kennedy Allen Bell, Bishop of Chichester to give him his full title is the best remembered critic of the Allied strategic bombing campaign, but he had no other support in the House of Lords. On this issue he had only two allies in Parliament both sat in the House of Commons and persistently criticised the bombing campaign. They were were both members of the Labour party. The first and better known critic was Richard Stokes MP [13]] who's questions after the Dresden raid helped to stir the politician in Churchill into action. The other was Dr Alfred Salter MP, a life long non-conformist Christian pacifist, who's own constituency, Bermondsey, was very heavily bombed in the Blitz (one raid resulted in the biggest fire seen in Britain since the Great Fire of London, when Surrey Docks went up in flames), he campaigned against the bombing of German cities. (I could not find a standard biography of A.S. on line but the second half of this webpage has some details on his life and work [14])Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Red Cross 1946 275,000 Dead

I have removed the following from the text:

The Red Cross Summary of 1946 has an estimate of 275,000 dead, but it does not say which sources lead to that estimation.

Does anyone have any source which can throw light onto this document. What was it? Who was the intended audiance. Where did the figures come from etc.

None of the Books sources I have mention it and after a quick Google search I could only find two web pages:

I think we need a little bit more in a way of a reference before it is included in this article article Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote of that report from a historian Forum in Germany: http://www.ns-geschichte.de/Forum/showthread.php?t=2641

Report of the Joint Relief Commission of the International Red Cross 1941-1946", Genf 1948, page 104: "At Dresden, in the Russian Zone, where 275 000 people were reported to have been killed during a bombing attack which lasted three-quarters of an hour, there were 200 suicides every day and the inhabitants were using the bark of trees for food".

According to that quote, supposed it is quoted right, the Red Cross in Switzerland relied on "reports" not saying where they came from. This number is also used by Alfred M. de Zayas in his book: "The Anglo-Americans and the (Vertreibung; don´t know the english word, sorry) of the Germans", München 1977, page 217: "The 'Joint Relief Commission' of the ICRC estimated up to about 275.000 victims. Other estimations reach from 25.000 up to 400.000." These high figures are indeed suspicious because Neonazis use them often. I wrote an e-mail to the archives of the ICRC, hopefully they will answer soon and then I will inform you.

In Dresden today there were some 5.000 Neonazis and their friends marching through the city very loud; but there were almost 10 times as many normal citizens with white roses and chandles demonstrating in silence, forming the words "Wir haben Nazis satt!" meaning: "We are fed up with Nazis!" Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.125.149 01:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn´t their source be themselves? Doesn´t the Red Cross do their own research into these things? Sure, they may get numbers from other people but I think they do their own research. But that´s besides the point. It´s a disputed number. Why shouldn´t it be listed with the other disputed numbers? DM123 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UCT) <=(Moved and sig added by) Philip Baird Shearer

What does "their own research" mean then? Did they recount the buried or ask people who counted them or look for other documents besides those known to us today? And when did that research take place? Jesusfreund, --217.95.52.4 11:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The wording above says "At Dresden, in the Russian Zone, where 275 000 people were reported to have been killed during a bombing attack which lasted three-quarters of an hour". The reports they seemed to have relied upon are wartime reports which are now known to have been doctored by the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels.

See:

Until it is proven that that they did not use doctored reports should Wikipedia publish figures which may have originated as propaganda from Goebbels? Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To ask that question means to answer it. Definitely NOT. Jesusfreund, --217.83.33.161 16:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hopefully, I'm not offending any of the neutrality considerations by editing the reconciliation section. I think it is surprisingly lacking in content, at present. Have added a bit about the cross made of nails from Coventry, which was originally on the roof of the cathedral, being given to the Frauenkirche. However, I've been unable to find out who has made the donation. Might be the church, might be the state. --MJW 81.154.1.63 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It´s an international christian foundation originated in Coventry: f.e. http://www.ccn-usa.org/coventry.html. From what I heard the cross yesterday was given to the Frauenkirche in Dresden by the congregation of the Coventry cathedral itself. And are you sure the original cross of nails was on the roof of that cathedral? In a brief German history of the cross-of-nails-Communities (which are now in hundreds of countries working for reconciliation) it says the cross was made of nails of the balcons which came down when the Coventry cathedral was bombed on 14th November 1940. It was initiated by Richard Howard then and is related to his two-word-prayer after he saw the result of the bombing: "Father forgive". He wrote that on the destructed walls of the cathedral, and since 1959 all Communities of the Cross of nails use the same prayer of reconciliation up to now. It is prayed every friday in the ruins of the old cathedral in Coventry and everywhere in the world, including Bagdad, Grosny and other places with bombing experiences.

Greetings, Jesusfreund, --217.229.125.149 02:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, the Frauenkirche in Dresden was given one copy of the nail cross of Coventry which means that the Frauenkirche is now member of the International Nail Cross Community. It hasn´t been before. Jesusfreund --217.95.52.4 11:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Na siehmaleinerguck! Meinst du, dass die Freunde das nicht selber wissen? --Brummfuss 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

German Article

Hi, it seems that our article is making efforts though many people with a half portioned knowledge try to fumble with it. By the way, I'd like to know where youve got these number from: 22 hospitals and 72 schools (cited in oure german article). It's a pretty paradise for nurses and teachers on 15 squarekilometers of a city - or was it square miles? Greetings from Dresden, I look outside the window, and nothing is destroyed. Is it real? --00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) silly signature: Brummfuss 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ah - I forgot: Can you give a GNU-FDL for this bloodstained-pictures? Germans need it to feel as victim (sorry, but it is true - you sometimes need to feel your own pain, to realize what has happened) - I mean: We have got no photographs. Second: The Map of the destroyed areas is exaggerated. It is false. If you have any question, ask at my german account. If you have areal Photogrphs, I have the ressources to make a map. And sorry for my bad english. Loving the freedom --Brummfuss 00:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

I'm once again removing this section, and requesting a reference:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

SlimVirgin 00:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed these and request references:

By February 1945, it was plain that the war would be over within months, and attacks upon German cities had been seen in these circles as largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

and

Churchill, who approved the targeting of Dresden and supported the bombing campaign prior to the event, in face of public disquiet initiated by the Associated Press report distanced himself from the bombing.

I'm also wondering why the Churchill telegram is being repeated, with one being called a draft and the second being called the "final," though they are virtually identical - no reference has been supplied to show that one was a draft and the second final; and the relevance of pointing this out has also not been shown. As we're dealing with history here, could we please stick to some basic standards of scholarship? Please see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verification, and Wikipedia:Cite sources.

Finally, there's no need to insert a period after footnote numbers. The period belongs as the end of the sentence. SlimVirgin 01:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

If war crime is to be mentioned -- as it should be because many people who contribute to this page think it should be. Then for Balanced POV, it should be pointed out that no one was ever been tried for it.

I agree, but it can't be your opinion. What you say is not accurate: that what Grass and Jenkins wrote implies that the pilots should be charged. They said no such thing, and it is not for Wikipedia to say that they implied it. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. But if you can find a commentator who says that they implied it, then that can be used. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

As only Axis personnel were tried Nuremberg, victors justice and all that, then it is significant that no Axis personnel were tried for bombing enemy territory because Karl Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted warfare despite the US doing the same in the Pacific. At the Nuremberg Trials in accordance with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: "The charter also stated that official position was no valid defence against War crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so requires", so it follows that if any war crime was committed then all those involved were guilty. There is no need for this to be sourced, it is not a quote.

Yes, but again this is your original research. You are not allowed to produce a novel narrative or an original analysis or synthesis of published information. Why not just find someone who says it was a war crime; then there would be no need for you to add your own commentary. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is mearly gathering facts from several sources and presenting them here in a summerised form. Philip Baird Shearer

That IS original research. No new narrative (Jimbo), no new analysis, no new synthesis. Please read the policy documents. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Beveers exact sentence on page 83 is "But Dresden's population was swollen by up to 300,000 refugees from the east."

Then we should say it was Beveers, but you keep deleting that name for some reason. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It was sourced within the refrences and the page number. Philip Baird Shearer

"it was plain that the war would" is part of the Hastings article. Then he should be quoted. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Then why have you removed it instead of quoting it? Philip Baird Shearer

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/materiel :equipment and supplies of a military force

Why did you change this and then revert it? Philip Baird Shearer

Churchill had agreed with the bombing, see earlier in this article. There is no need for a sourced, it is not a quote.

It is not only quotes that should be sourced. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

See next section Philip Baird Shearer

If you look at the copy of the telex you have provided you will see written on it withdrawn written in WC's own handwriting!.

So what? I don't follow. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It was withdrawn and a final one was substitted. The proof it was withdrawn is written on the document!

How does the so-called final one differ from the so-called draft one? Philip, I'm worried that you misunderstand how government works. A telegram from the PM is a telegram from the PM. It is an historical document. Nothing is "withdrawn" as you can see by the fact that we have access to it. You are making us look silly by reproducing a second one that is almost identical to the first. Please explain. Third time of asking. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bottomley did send Harris a paraphrased version of Churchill's draft memo. See Taylor.

See him where? SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

You go and see the reference is given. Or are you accusing me of lying about this? Philip Baird Shearer

You are supposed to make things easy for your readers. I am one of your readers, or have you forgotten that. It's not at all clear what you are trying to say. Someone sent someone a paraphrased version of a draft memo. So what? Please explain the relevance. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The bones is a deliberate echo of Bismark, see Taylor.

ditto? And if it comes from him, you must say "According to xxx Taylor", and then at the end of the sentence (Taylor, 2005) or whatever. Please be scholarly. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

No we do not. See the next section. Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No we do not? Do not what? SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

So is the final memo. It was (as you requested) sourced: Taylor Page page 434 and Longmate page 346. Here is an online source for you http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1081.htm Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look at it. But why not just put the sources in the article? But not as footnotes - please make things easy for your reader and for future editors. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find it in the mass of text. What does the source say: that it was a final memo or what? Also, that doesn't answer the question: why are you using it when it's the same as the previous one? SlimVirgin 12:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to stick with the book references. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1081.htm says the same as the other sources which were already attached to the quote.

That you could not find the quote in the mass of text is supprising. Try to use a local search on a phrase in the text and to help you find it here is the revelent text:

Winston Churchill, near the end of World War II, made Blackett's point very forcibly and added an economic consideration. In a minute prepared just after the bombing of Dresden that was directed to the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Chief of Air Staff and which, in its first form, had referred to the "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror," he declared:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves...

--Philip Baird Shearer

Yes. And? I still fail to see the relevance of introducing the so-called final memo. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The contriversial sentences in the memo as far as the Chiefs of Staff were concerned were "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." and "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing." These statments were removed in the second, final and official memo. Excluding these two sentences which are in the draft but not in official memo is significant because it shows that most of the military establishment disagreed with Churchill's wording and on reflection so did he (or he would not have re-worded it). Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you believe the first memo is not official, Philip? SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a Taylor quote to the intro, which was still lacking an explanation of why it's controversial, but he gives one, and it's nicely neutral. Also removed the word justification from intro, which has been removed several times and which several editors have objected to; please don't re-insert. Also added some of Philip's references: Taylor and Beevor. None of the books in References have the year of publication, so that needs to be added so when we write Taylor 2004, people can see which book that refers to. SlimVirgin 12:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is not only quotes that should be sourced

Churchill had agreed with the bombing, see earlier in this article. There is no need for a sourced, it is not a quote.

It is not only quotes that should be sourced. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The references are in the Reference section. This is the standard Wikipedia way of doing things. The regime you are imposing on everyone who contributes to this article goes way beyond the norms for Wikipedia articles. It is not the custom to have to reference with a author and page number for every single sentence in a Wikipedia article. Insisting that every reference is put in with full name and page is making the style of the article look stilted. Please stop doing it. Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not imposing any regime on everyone who contributes. I'm asking you to source the claims that I posted on this page, because I feel you're adding your own POV to some of the material. For example, Churchill's quote about not wanting to destroy Germany or else England would effectively inherit a wasteland - that does not sound as though he is distancing himself, bowing to public pressure etc. It sounds like a very practical position. So if you're saying the former, you have to provide a source, because it's POV, so you must say whose POV it is. Anyway, what you say is the standard way of doing things is always slightly different for academic subjects, which require more rigorous sourcing, and this is an academic subject. I have not asked for page numbers. It is you who is inserting page numbers. I have also not said that every single sentence must be sourced; please don't overstate. Finally, I have not said that the full name of the author must be used. Surname and year of publication in brackets after the sentence is enough. I am entitled to request references and I am doing that. My point is that this article cannot be anyone's personal essay. It's an important subject and it must be written in a more scholarly and encyclopedic way. SlimVirgin 13:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Slim is right. Please help us make this article accurate and neutral. By accuracy, I mean that every assertion, large or small, should be a matter of fact. Not my opinion, or Slim's or yours. If a fact is questionable, the article should provide as much documentation as needed to establish it.

By neutral, I mean Larry Sanger's definition of neutrality:

Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. --Larry Sanger

My impression is that you are resisting both of these requests: you're not paying enough attention to accuracy or neutrality. I have to ask you directly: do you WANT to? Because if you don't, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

This article should be written in the way that the most articles in Wikipedia are. The regime you (SlimVirgin) are imposing on everyone who contributes to this article goes way beyond the norms for Wikipedia articles. What you have written above in this section "I have not asked for page numbers." "I have also not said that every single sentence must be sourced; please don't overstate." which is contradicted by what you have written in the previous section eg:

Bottomley did send Harris a paraphrased version of Churchill's draft memo. See Taylor. (Philip Baird Shearer)

See him where? SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The bones is a deliberate echo of Bismark, see Taylor. Philip Baird Shearer 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ditto? And if it comes from him, you must say "According to xxx Taylor", and then at the end of the sentence (Taylor, 2005) or whatever. Please be scholarly. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Which are two an examples of where you are demanding that a specific sentence is referenced in the text.

"it was plain that the war would" is part of the Hastings article. Then he should be quoted. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Then why have you removed it instead of quoting it? Philip Baird Shearer

Afterall the article from which the summary comes is already linked into that paragraph all you had to do was move the reference.

So is the final memo. It was (as you requested) sourced: Taylor Page page 434 and Longmate page 346. Here is an on-line source for you http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1081.htm Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look at it. But why not just put the sources in the article? But not as footnotes - please make things easy for your reader and for future editors. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find it in the mass of text. What does the source say: that it was a final memo or what? Also, that doesn't answer the question: why are you using it when it's the same as the previous one? SlimVirgin 12:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Two sources were supplied. Taylor and Longmate on the quote. I gave you an online source but you are not prepared to use a search look through it (using a search function)! This is way beyond what most people would consider reasonable. Philip Baird Shearer 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As to Churchill's change of position, it is stated by nearly every source which uses his quote and explains the Chief of Staffs reaction to it. For example in a previous version of this text you edited the large quote from the "Oxford Companion to the Second World War" which says the same thing in so many words. When you were editing the Ox-Comp quote did you read it? If so why are you claiming that sources are needed for it as it is not a controversial point of view? Why does it need to be sourced if every sentence does not need to be sourced?

I will address which parts of the memo were contriversial and why they are not the same in the previous section. Philip Baird Shearer 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of having edited the Oxford Companion to the Second World War quote. Can you show me the diff where I changed it? The problem with all these reverts is that it's very hard to keep track. SlimVirgin 06:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Things missing from the article

Overall, the purpose of the article is apparently to make the point that the bombing of Dresden was certainly a war crime. Other points of view are either buried in long passages or simply deleted out of hand. This makes for an unbalanced article.

It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing - with or without misgivings. And that he only AFTERWARD started to call it bad. (Unless of course he didn't actually approve it at first - in which case this should be documented.)
The section originally entitled "Was it ... a crime?" (later, it became "Controversy") should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. When a question is used to introduce a section, all relevant answers should be given, not merely the SINGLE POV which a particular group of advocates is pushing.

I think I've been pretty patient so far. But I'm considering going to the next step in conflict resolution: creating an RFS. I'd rather discuss the issue here, but I'm not getting much of a response. You're leaving me little choice, Philip. Consider this my last attempt. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed I like you wording but along with the Taylor comment in the opening section I would like to go back to the original wording in the initial paragraph as was agreed in a straw poll 2 months ago. Because exactly what happend before that is happening again the first section is getting bloated with POV. I would like to move both additions into the Controversy section. If you look through the archive you will see that it was throughtly debated at the time Philip Baird Shearer 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. If nothing else, sir, you are indeed prompt! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The straw poll is no longer relevant because the editors who are working on the page are not the same. Philip, please stop trying to control this article. The intro is not bloated with POV. It is straightforward and short, yet it manages to explain why the issue is controversial by using a quote from a British historian, a quote which does not say the bombing was right or wrong, but which simply states why the controversy exists. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Philip's reversions

For the record, Philip has once again reverted my edits. I have restored them. Sigh. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for your edits. You've improved the structure of the article and the NPOV, and it's more readable now. My edits yesterday to the Controversy section, now Points of View, were reverted again by Philip. I have done my best to restore them without deleting any of your changes. If anything is missing, I apologize and assure you it was not intentional. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not revert you edits (how could I and leave the new sections in place. I have in the previous sections given you detailed reasons why I have put back the text which you removed. A conversation on the talk pages involves people talking to each other and addressing the points raised. Instead of doing me the courtesy of addressing the points I spent a considreable time writing to address the issues you raised, you have just reverted the text wich no explanation which is not the first time you have done that. Please address each point and explain to me why you have deleted all the text again. That you edit or change some of it after a debate is one thing but just to delete it with no more explanation is not reasonable. Uncle Ed made some comments as well which you seem to have ignored completely. Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip, you must apply the same rules to yourself. I have asked you questions which you haven't addressed, yet you still go back and revert my edits. For example, I have asked three times why you keep repeating almost identical wording from two Churchill telegrams. You don't answer, but just keep inserting the second one. I feel it makes Wikipedia look silly, or as though the article has been badly edited and no one has noticed the repetition. You also deleted my attribution for the 300,000 refugee claim, though that provides the reader with more information than you did, and you have not explained why you did that. You also keep on inserting your personal commentary about what the claims of Grass and Simon Jenkins implied, though you have no way of knowing that; you do not quote anyone or attribute the view to anyone; you are not a historian, an international law professor or a logician — but even if you were all of these things, you would still have to attribute that statement to someone because it is an opinion.

Please leave Ed's edits and my edits alone. They are improvements to the text. If you feel that any of them are factually incorrect or badly written, by all means bring that discussion here. Please allow us to work with you, not against you. SlimVirgin 02:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than discuss in general terms, or mutliple examples at the same time, I suggest we concentrate on one example at a time. Regarding the number of refugees:

Here is my version:

Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe, and an unknown number of refugees had fled there to escape the fighting in the east. According to British historian Anthony Beevor, there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city at the time of the raids (Beevor, 2002, p.83 ). (7)

You keep deleting this and restoring your version, which is:

Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe. At the time of the raids the population had been increased by up to 300,000 refugees from the fighting in the east (7 p 83).

Now, tell me: why do you consider your version to be so superior that you're prepared to engage in an edit war, when mine gives more information and says where the 300,000 number comes from? You just give the number (7). This means the reader has to scroll down, find your number 7 even though it's not obvious where it should be found because you have a References section and a separate footnote section, and even if they do this, they still aren't told who Anthony Beever is. My version attributes the figure 300,000 in the text, which makes it easier for the reader, and it also says that Beever is a British historian (i.e. he can probably be trusted). SlimVirgin 02:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I see you haven't addressed this yet. May I suggest that we go through our disagreements one by one, discuss them separately, and resolve them before moving on to the next? If you agree with this, could you address the above first, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Ed, I have tweaked your intro a little; no content change, but I changed the structure slightly by moving the dates and RAF/USAAF higher to the top. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin 07:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

We need help

There's no doubt about it any more. SlimVirgin and Philip Baird Shearer disagree sharply even on such mundane matters as whether one has reverted the other's edits. This is simply unacceptable. We can't discuss a change to the article, if we can't even agree on whether the change did occur.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, cooperative project. The software lets us see WHO made a change and WHAT that change was. I am getting tired of checking the page history to decide whether Slim or Philip is right, every time they disagree over who made (or reverted) a change. In fact, I'm getting downright impatient.

I like to work with people I can trust. And so far, I trust Slim much more than I trust Philip. I'm on the verge of refusing to work any further with Philip, but that's a line a hesitate to cross. People deserve respect, and I don't want to write Philip off like a bad debt.

I call on others to help us sort this out now. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Imbalance of trust

Uncle Ed I am sorry to read that you trust SlimVirgin more that you trust me. You wrote on this talk page under #Things missing from the article:

"It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing" yet when I reinserted that with explanations on this talk page where the information can be sourced SlimVirgin removed it again.
The section [now called] The bombing was a war crime should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. SlimVirgin removed these two sentences:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Every time I re-insert them she deletes them despite the fact that she does not disagree that they are factualy accurate. She says they are original research which is like saying that if someone writes that the river Thames runs through London they have to reference an article otherwise it is original research.

To placate her, and to make it simple for other to follow the dispute, I am going to do as she suggests and insert each item separately and then discuss it with anyone who wants to join in. To help with this process I have placed an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about it, Slim? Do you agree that the, er, "deleted statements" are true? If so, aren't they relevant? (I seem to recall reading almost the same, word for word, in another article in the bombing series.)

See below for my reply. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If it's that historians point of view that the Dresden bombing was a war crime -- even if no one was charged! -- then I think it should go in. But only if (a) the historian (or novelist?) really said it and (b) we make it clear that it's his POV, and/or that HE is using it to make some sort of argument.

The article should do nothing to take sides for or against ANYONE's point of view. That is, we should not (1) restate someone's claim + (2) list AS FACT all the reasons their claim is true. Because this smacks of making their argument for them. It's better to outline their ENTIRE ARGUMENT, and attribute the WHOLE THING to them. Bo Zeau says they were blatantly guilty (or, clearly innocent). He lists the following in support of this view, blah blah blah. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY. We should not state anyone's argument for them. They either said it, or they didn't. It's not for us to add: "And this is what they meant." And that's what Philip is doing. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

War crimes trials for area bombing

The disputed text is shown here in strikeout:

Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, and Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times, have both referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime. [15] [16] This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Now, could we please discuss why this text is or is not relevant to the bombing of Dresden? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

As I have already written in this discussion page above in #Request for references

As only Axis personnel were tried Nuremberg, victors justice and all that, then it is significant that no Axis personnel were tried for bombing enemy territory because Karl Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted warfare despite the US doing the same in the Pacific. At the Nuremberg Trials in accordance with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: "The charter also stated that official position was no valid defence against War crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so requires", so it follows that if any war crime was committed then all those involved were guilty.

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your last talk page edit. The only part I really "get" was changing the heading (a few sections above) to More reversions. It actually improves the flow of the discussion. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay removed for sixth time

I have once again removed Philip's opinion about the implications of what Grass and Jenkins said. They called Dresden a "war crime." I do not know what the implications of that are, as I am not an expert on military law. Even if I were, I would still have to quote someone else if I wanted to discuss the implications. Philip will not do this. He just keeps inserting his own views. I am therefore bringing this section to the Talk page and I am requesting a reference, and I will keep on removing it until a reference is supplied:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Philip might like to note that his opinion piece contradicts itself. Just as there is no legal precedent to indicate whether Dresden constituted a war crime, there is similarly no legal precedent to indicate that calling it such necessarily implies that the pilots, navigators, and bombers be tried. SlimVirgin 21:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note this: if Philip's claim is as obviously correct as saying "the Thames flows through London" (which he argues above), then it will be easy to find an authoritative source for it, which is all I'm asking for. SlimVirgin 22:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like original research to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did Churchill approve or distance himself from the bombing

Ed, you asked my views on the above. My understanding is that Churchill had qualms about area bombing both before and after Dresden, but he did support it, yes, or else it wouldn't have happened, as he was prime minister. What I dispute about Philip's edits is the wording, and the claim that Churchill changed his mind about Dresden in response to public pressure. But I have no problem whatsoever with that claim if a credible published source is cited. That is the position with all my objections here. I don't mind if we say Churchill believed the moon was made of cheese, so long as that belief is relevant to the article and we cite a credible published source. SlimVirgin 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The material below was archived by SlimVirgin on February 17, 2005

Red Cross 1946 275,000 Dead

I have removed the following from the text:

The Red Cross Summary of 1946 has an estimate of 275,000 dead, but it does not say which sources lead to that estimation.

Does anyone have any source which can throw light onto this document. What was it? Who was the intended audiance. Where did the figures come from etc.

None of the Books sources I have mention it and after a quick Google search I could only find two web pages:

I think we need a little bit more in a way of a reference before it is included in this article article Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote of that report from a historian Forum in Germany: http://www.ns-geschichte.de/Forum/showthread.php?t=2641

Report of the Joint Relief Commission of the International Red Cross 1941-1946", Genf 1948, page 104: "At Dresden, in the Russian Zone, where 275 000 people were reported to have been killed during a bombing attack which lasted three-quarters of an hour, there were 200 suicides every day and the inhabitants were using the bark of trees for food".

According to that quote, supposed it is quoted right, the Red Cross in Switzerland relied on "reports" not saying where they came from. This number is also used by Alfred M. de Zayas in his book: "The Anglo-Americans and the (Vertreibung; don´t know the english word, sorry) of the Germans", München 1977, page 217: "The 'Joint Relief Commission' of the ICRC estimated up to about 275.000 victims. Other estimations reach from 25.000 up to 400.000." These high figures are indeed suspicious because Neonazis use them often. I wrote an e-mail to the archives of the ICRC, hopefully they will answer soon and then I will inform you.

In Dresden today there were some 5.000 Neonazis and their friends marching through the city very loud; but there were almost 10 times as many normal citizens with white roses and chandles demonstrating in silence, forming the words "Wir haben Nazis satt!" meaning: "We are fed up with Nazis!" Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.125.149 01:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn´t their source be themselves? Doesn´t the Red Cross do their own research into these things? Sure, they may get numbers from other people but I think they do their own research. But that´s besides the point. It´s a disputed number. Why shouldn´t it be listed with the other disputed numbers? DM123 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UCT) <=(Moved and sig added by) Philip Baird Shearer

What does "their own research" mean then? Did they recount the buried or ask people who counted them or look for other documents besides those known to us today? And when did that research take place? Jesusfreund, --217.95.52.4 11:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The wording above says "At Dresden, in the Russian Zone, where 275 000 people were reported to have been killed during a bombing attack which lasted three-quarters of an hour". The reports they seemed to have relied upon are wartime reports which are now known to have been doctored by the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels.

See:

Until it is proven that that they did not use doctored reports should Wikipedia publish figures which may have originated as propaganda from Goebbels? Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To ask that question means to answer it. Definitely NOT. Jesusfreund, --217.83.33.161 16:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hopefully, I'm not offending any of the neutrality considerations by editing the reconciliation section. I think it is surprisingly lacking in content, at present. Have added a bit about the cross made of nails from Coventry, which was originally on the roof of the cathedral, being given to the Frauenkirche. However, I've been unable to find out who has made the donation. Might be the church, might be the state. --MJW 81.154.1.63 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It´s an international christian foundation originated in Coventry: f.e. http://www.ccn-usa.org/coventry.html. From what I heard the cross yesterday was given to the Frauenkirche in Dresden by the congregation of the Coventry cathedral itself. And are you sure the original cross of nails was on the roof of that cathedral? In a brief German history of the cross-of-nails-Communities (which are now in hundreds of countries working for reconciliation) it says the cross was made of nails of the balcons which came down when the Coventry cathedral was bombed on 14th November 1940. It was initiated by Richard Howard then and is related to his two-word-prayer after he saw the result of the bombing: "Father forgive". He wrote that on the destructed walls of the cathedral, and since 1959 all Communities of the Cross of nails use the same prayer of reconciliation up to now. It is prayed every friday in the ruins of the old cathedral in Coventry and everywhere in the world, including Bagdad, Grosny and other places with bombing experiences.

Greetings, Jesusfreund, --217.229.125.149 02:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, the Frauenkirche in Dresden was given one copy of the nail cross of Coventry which means that the Frauenkirche is now member of the International Nail Cross Community. It hasn´t been before. Jesusfreund --217.95.52.4 11:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Na siehmaleinerguck! Meinst du, dass die Freunde das nicht selber wissen? --Brummfuss 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Number of people killed

Since the number of residents who died as a result of the bombing is controversial, let's not try to "settle" the controversy but just report on it fairly.

I suggest we report every figure given, along with its source. Readers who are likely to credit one source over another will be satisfied: your source says it was X, but see here, my source shows it was really Y.

We could sort the sources alphabetically, chronologically, or in ascending/descending order. I prefer the latter, because it tends to corresponde also with the "sides" in the controversy over whether the bombing was justified.

Here's a sample (numbers wildly inaccurate, but it's a start)

6,000 - Allies' record of people actually buried
25,000 - "best estimate" of pro-Western historians
10,000 to 50,000 - Red Cross
250,000 - Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister)

Note that the range varies statistically by a factor of 40 (from smallest to largest). So, the method of estimation is possibly a factor as much as the motive of the estimator. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV is not about representing all views equally (otherwise my web page saying that 100 Billion innocent Icelanders were killed by Germans of the 1980s during the bombing of Dresden would have to be given equal weight to other estimates). This formula demonstrates clear anti-NPOV tendancies. "Pro-Western Historians" ??!!!???!! This was a joke I hope? If not, then consider this: please define "Western". It cannot be done without a clear POV. Do you mean Anglo-american? Do you mean NATO? Do you mean pro-Ally anti Axis? Rather you should say something like "according to the officials of the modern Germany" and remember to pick the best source for each.

More important is that methodology appears to have been determined by point of view. E.g., according to the findings of the UK court, David Irving used a methodology known as "lying" and "misrepresentation" to give a number of 100,000. Where there is serious and unrefuted evidence that people are lying, then you have to reduce their weight in an article. Appropriate would be something like "pro-Nazis have attempted to use Dresden as a form of propaganda (reference to court case) and have given much higher estimates, up to 250,000". Later historians such as FT have said that these numbers are discredited". If you don't do this, then my 100Billion Icelanders have just as much right as anyone else to be represented. Thus, equal representation of numbers which have unequal methodology and validity is, in and of its self, POV. Mozzerati 08:41, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

270,000 dead is congruent with equivalent fire bombing in Japan, yet official history tells us a miracle occurred in Dresden and less than 25,000 died, miraculous. Raid on Tokyo used only a fraction of the fire power and killed 80,000 to 100,000.