dew
Feral Kid
Posts: 1559
Registered: 05-08 |
Maes said:
What I found more disturbing is this pattern I saw in many historic books and articles: after lengthy moral and material/strategic analysis, more than one author agreed that both the bombing of Dresden as well as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually dictated by long-term geostrategical reasons, rather than tactical decisions to "end the war quickly" or "give those Krauts/Japs a lesson!".
"Shock and Awe" anyone? How about "Shake and bake"? Sounds familiar?
You could say that those WW II intensely focused offensive operations were an exercise, the prelude to the international bullying that would come not long after (Greece, Korea, Vietnam, and later Panama, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan).
The fact that they were directed at dying/defeated foes didn't matter, on the opposite, it was desirable: "We're badass, we'll be calling the shots, and we will kick you while you're down, and then some".
A way to show the World at large, not just Nazi Germany, who was going to "be boss" for the years to come, not just there and then. THe intended "target" for the message at the time was actually the USSR (you think they didn't know what was going to happen?) but bombing Soviet cities right away was not an option yet...
while there might be some logic to it, i think it's looking for patterns where there are none. i've seen sources claiming the dresden bombing was actually supposed to help soviet troops advancing. dresden was a major logistic node on the border with czechoslovakia, an industrial city with war production, etc etc.
the most famous reason to bombing dresden though? revenge for the air raid on coventry. churchill was said to be against such tactics, but the raze of warsaw (omfg controlled demolition!) was probably the last drop to change his mind.
|
03-07-10 21:24 
