 |
| Dreden, Germany: February 13 - 14, 1945 |
4. On pages vi and vii of the introduction, Vonnegut discusses the allied
fire-bombing of Dresden during World War II, which he, as an American soldier and prisoner-of-war, witnessed personally (click
here to listen to Vonnegut talking about it; click
here to see and read a letter he wrote when he was a Prisoner of war;). He deals with this event more extensively in his best-known novel,
Slaughterhouse-Five, but given
Mother Night’s concern with patriotism and crimes committed during World War II, you may want to explore the issue for yourself in order to respond to this question: Was the fire-bombing of Dresden justified? Was it a criminal act? Can you provide any examples of
an act in a just war that some would claim was unjustifiable? How would defenders of the act go about justifying it? What reasons might both sides provide to support their claims? Click
here for further reflection on the issue.
On the surface, the bombing seemed like a justifiable action. Dresden was a city with armament factories and a convenient route to the east. It was thought that this attack would slow down the production of war supplies and make it more difficult for Nazis to get to the eastern border and enter Poland. On the other hand, this also happened towards the end of the war and caused many civilian casualties. I think that the U.S. and British officials decision was a difficult one to make, but anything that could bring an end to the war was well warranted.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the bombing was justified. Killing innocent civilians is a crime. Sticking a label that says “war” on this awful event does not make murdering over 20,000 people okay. Many people justify dropping atomic bombs in Japan by placing more value in an end to the war than the end of countless human lives.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion (after learning more about it), the Dresden bombing was not justified. The excuses that the city was an industrial and supportive asset to the Reich seems more like a quick cover-up than an accurate reason to kill 20,000+ citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnother unjustifiable war act I can think of was the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War. There was a reason the U.S. was in Vietnam: to defend Vietnam from Communist overtake. However, the My Lai Massacre was way beyond just killing (victims were also tortured, raped, and mutilated) and not necessary to win, or even gain a foothold in, that war. I would most definitely consider that incident an American war crime. One explanation for My Lai I have read was that the soldiers were provoked by the Vietnam civilians…nevertheless, their actions were far beyond murder and accordingly unjustifiable.
I have not done any research on if the bombing was justified or not. But after reading the posts of David, Bethany, and Catherine; I think that I see both sides. I agree with David in that it was a tough decision, justifiable or not, it did help end the war. But I also agree with Catherine and Bethany in the number of civilians killed was great and there is no excuse for killing that many people. My question is probably more for Catherine and Bethany, I agree with both of you on killing that many civilians is wrong, but if it ends the war and saves more lives, is it still unjustifiable? I cannot decide myself. I was just wondering what you two thought.
ReplyDeleteEveryone who was directly involved with the fire bombing of Dresden believes that the act was justifiable. On the other hand, there is plenty of opposition to this act of war. According to historian Alexander McKee,"The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets ... for they knew very little about Dresden." This statement right here confirms that the bombing could not be justified. If the "bomber commanders" did not know where the military targets were then how could they accurately position the bombs? The answer is they couldn't. The RAF (Royal Air Force) and the USAAF (United States of America Air Force) chose to bomb Dresden to deplete moral support of the Nazi's by killing 20,000+ civilians. In war, there are certain acts committed by the government that we, as civilians, do not agree with, but that is why we are "civilians." The job of the government is to assess the possible outcome of different actions. Just because we do not believe the bombing wasn't justified does not mean that the bombing wasn't helpful. The bombing did help the United States to win the war. So there is always two sides to every argument.
ReplyDeleteKendall,
ReplyDeleteI also see both sides. I agree that it helped the Allies win in that the bombing severely weakened the morale of the German soldiers and I agree that it's hard to come to a conclusion on justifiability because perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives were saved at the price of 20,000.
I agree with Kendall about seeing both sides. When I read Bethany's comment, the question I thought was this, If the atomic bombs weren't dropped, how many more people would have died before one side surrendered? It's an awful thing to have to choose either option. It makes me wonder if the number of deaths before one side surrendered would have been higher or lower than the number of people killed by the bombs.
ReplyDeleteEither way, murder is a terrible thing whether it's one person that dies or 20,000.
I don't think murder of anyone for anything is justifiable; but war will always happen, and death is certain where war is concerned, so whichever way brings people back to a somewhat neutral state and with the least amount of deaths is in my opinion the most "justifiable".
You all make such great points and have insightful views on this subject.
Like in any war, many people see actions as either right or wrong. There is no right answer to the actions committed in wars unless the enemy is outright murdering innocent people. Like in Vietnam, Iraq, and many previous wars, countless American troops are prosecuted for killing innocent people. Many people debate whether these prosecutions are justifiable or not, because there are so many aspects to both sides, such as the accidental killing of civilians, brutality of war, and the use of different types of weapons. Personally, I view the bombing of Dresden as wrong, such that killing of civilians is never right, and there are many different possibilities to defeat a threat other than a bomb that can cause many unwanted casualties. Although I see why many Nations use the use of Weapons to defeat an enemy because their personal troops are at threat as well as their home front, and ending a war requires any means necessary.
ReplyDeleteMany tactics are used during times of war to ultimately wound one's opponent and win. To say which tactics are justifiable would be difficult because it is a war. Killing civilians whether by bomb or any other method is harsh to say the least. I agree with David that it would seem smart to cut off the army’s source of supplies and slow them down. By bombing these factories the Allies were, in my opinion, trying to save lives rather than destroy. Death is a part of every war, and it is not fair to value one’s life over another’s but each country was only trying to do what was right for their people. I don't see how an action that assisted in ending the war can be unjustifiable.
ReplyDeleteIf innocent civilians are fair game, what is the moral difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden and the attack on 9/11, given that the perpetrators of both attacks were seeking to demoralize and defeat their enemy?
ReplyDeleteKendall, I think that there is a very big difference in killing civilians and killing soldiers. Both are tragedies, of course, but soldiers have been prepared for war. They are fighting for their country, and they have been trained to do so. They understand that dying for their country is part of the job description. Our soldiers shoot and kill foreign soldiers. The civilians of Dresden weren’t killing our troops. They were unprepared and defenseless victims. The decision to bomb Dresden was just an easy shortcut for our army that murdered over 20,000 innocent people.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, no war is justifiable. And like Bethany said earlier, labeling it “war” does not make it right. Obviously, innocent people are killed in every war—both civilians and soldiers. However, with experience in the military, I think it’s safe to say that soldiers are tied into doing their duties in the field (no matter their morale on such doings). It’s sad how such persons are desensitized in such a matter, but its reality and there’s just no factual justification in war, ever.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there is any moral difference between the two attacks. Most, nearly all, Americans believe whole-heartedly that the 9/11 attacks are pure evil or however one would describe it. When, in fact, American sends our troops right on over to wherever we feel like and treat other humans the exact same way. Those “terrorists” did that because they thought they were doing something right, like that was something that needed to be done. Is it not the same as when we go over and kill masses of people in different lands also?
ReplyDelete