Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

resurrected WWII thread,...

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
I went back and checked my liked post to copy and past some of the messages.

so far I’m really liking the way the board has been set-up. Mods have done a good job of separating forums {MB, LAC, and NSFW} for relevant subjects. On tMB I mainly did anniversary threads, to avoid repetition, but for here I made this thread for a more general discussion of military history and specifically WWII. I think with the board just getting started having one broader thread should suffice. But of I course I might or any other poster for that matter could start a new thread.

Stalingrad is as good a place as any to begin a discussion of WWII. On this day in 1943 the battle was entering its final phase. The Soviet offensive had pushed the Germans back to the outskirts of Stalingrad and the last link to the outside, Gumrak Air Field, would fall on January 23. Most German troops had already accepted their fate as many had begun to retreat without orders into the ruins of Stalingrad which would provide the final shelter for 6. Armee. As the fighting returned to the old stomping grounds of the Fall of 1942 German troops found themselves on familiar grounds but this time with their backs to the Volga. On January 26 the Soviets reached the Volga splitting 6. Armee into two major pockets and hastening the end. Gen. Paulus requested permission to surrender from Hitler but Hitler insisted the 6. Armee fight to the end as a point of German honor. By that point the condition of 6. Armee was deplorable practically all supply from the air, which was entirely insufficient to begin had ceased, German wounded were no longer even being provided the slightest medical care, ammunition was running out, and the troops were nearing complete starvation.

On January 30 Gen. Paulus was promoted to Field Marshall with the reminder from Hitler that no German Field Marshall had ever surrendered. The message to Paulus was clear. But the next day the southern pocket entirely collapsed when the Soviets reached the HQ for Paulus in a collapsed department store. While Paulus would infuriate Hitler by surrendering he refused to order the northern pocket under Gen. Strecker to lay down their arms. But all the same the situations was hopeless and February 2 the last major German force would surrender ending the bloodiest battle in history. The German Army would never fully recover from the loss of 6. Armee.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
about German doctrine

there have been entire libraries worth of books about the German method of war that was instituted from old Prussia. Basically the Prussian-German Armies relied on encirclement battles where higher quality troops from the Prussian-German Army would encircle the more larger armies opposing them. Main problem was if those early battles were not enough to defeat their enemies the greater resources of the alliances against Prussia-Germany would eventually overwhelm them. In the end this was saved the Soviet Union. The underlying belief of Operation Barbarossa was that by encircling Soviet Armies west of the Dnieper River along with an advance to Leningrad, Smolensk, and Kiev the Soviet state would collapse. In short the Germans planned for quick and decisive wars of annihilation to be won through encirclement battles.

When the Soviet Union withstood the devastating invasion in 1941,...the Germans advanced close to 1,000 kilometers East, conquered lands that had been home to 80,000,000 Soviets,...while devastating the Soviet military in 1941 the Red Army would have twenty-two entire field armies encircled and destroyed, take 8,000,000 casualties {killed, wounded, missing, and captured} and lose 21,000 tanks the Germans did not have a fall back plan. In the end what saved the Soviet Union in 1941 & 1942 was the sheer size of the Soviet landmass, population, military, and material resources along with the Soviet capacity to absorb horrific losses in each of those areas.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
about the German movie Stalingrad

it was a 7/10 or a C. I thought it was pretty good up until they got put into the probationary battalion. I thought the movement to Stalingrad and taking the factory was really good. Also after being put in the probationary battalion I thought the apocalyptic last week of 6. Armee was depicted pretty well. I mentioned in the OP the last German flight out of the Stalingrad Pocket took place on January 23, 1943. Was sheer desperation at that point and getting on a plane was viewed as a matter of life and death. Even though I have not seen the movie in over ten years I remember that scene very well. Last point that comes to mind is during the last stage of the battle 6. Armee suffered from soldiers regularly committing suicide. That aspect was depicted well.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
different German & Soviet views of battles

one of the basic points thats interesting about the East Front is the Germans and Soviets had very different definitions of battles. Main difference is the Soviets took a much broader view while the Germans tended to view battles separately or in isolation. Stalingrad was no different. In the chart you provide August 23 is listed as the start date of the battle which has pretty much become the commonly accepted date. But for a long time the Germans used September 13 which was when 6. Armee entered Stalingrad while August 23 was when the Germans began to attack east from the the Don River Bend towards the Volga River. However the Soviets claimed the Germans had taken 600,000 casualties and got to that number by including the 1. Panzerarmee and 17. Armee of Army Group A which was attacking towards the Caucus Mountains while the Germans only counted the 6. Armee and 4. Panzerarmee of Army Group B and later the forces of Army Group Don which put German losses at 400,000. So over time the Soviet timeline and German geographic terms of the battle have become accepted.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
about the Western Allies without the Soviet Union

certainly not in the same time frame. When Gen. Eisenhower was appointed to lead the cross Channel invasion back to France at the end of 1943 he said his greatest fear was that the Soviet Union and Germany would sign a separate peace. That would enable the Germans to form what Eisenhower referred to as an "unbeatable" force in the West. In June 1944 the Western Allies had prepared about 2,500,000 troops to move back to France. Germany had around 900,000 troops defending France and the Low Countries. But that was from a total German ground force of about 4,500,000. Of which 3,000,000 German troops were on the Eastern Front.

Without the East Front we don't move into France in 1944 or anytime associated with WWII afterwards. Germany would have been subjected to an unrelenting bombing campaign, of even greater scale than was historically the case, and dropping atomic bombs on Germany.

There was no high level Allied plan in place to continue the war without the Soviet Union after 1942. Of course the United States and Britain would have stayed at war with Germany but there was no even the most basic plan in place without the East Front from 1943 onwards.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
German problems or mistakes with Stalingrad

Hitler did not mention Stalingrad by name until issuing Directive 45 on July 23, 1942. The Red Army had been making a determined stand along the Don River Bend so Hitler decided to get the offensive moving by splitting Army Group South. Originally the plan had been to march to the Volga River and the Caucus Mountains in succession but frustrated by the Soviet defense along the Don Hitler ordered them taken simultaneously. German supplies had been carefully accumulated for the planned moment and Hitler completely derailed the German supply situation with that decision. Germany barely had enough to undertake the offensive at all and no where near enough to support a simultaneous drive to the Volga and Caucus.

Stalingrad was actually a pretty significant objective. That area of the Soviet Union was very sparsely populated and devoid of geographic features. Pretty only much open steppe with a couple of major rivers and very small towns were around Stalingrad. Not only was Stalingrad a major industrial city but it was also the only place where a railroad connected the Dnieper and Volga Rivers. However as the battle wore on the Germans were not able to entirely capture the place Hitler become more motivated by ideological reasons.

As for the oil fields in the Caucus Mountains the Germans never considered a large-scale type raid that you suggested. Of course had the Germans taken the oil fields and were forced to retreat later they would have set the refineries on fire. But as it was the only significant oil field in Caucuses the Germans took was at Maikop which had been destroyed by the retreating Red Army. The Germans were never able to get any oil from the Caucuses. As the logistical support of Army Group A collapsed and the Red Army defenses stiffened in the hilly and mountainous terrain Hitler did order the Luftwaffe to conduct large-scale strategic of the oil fields. This effort continued well into 1943 long after Army Group A had retreated back towards the Crimea. But in the end no consequential damage was ever done to the oil fields, aside from Maikop.

The main critiques of the offensive have been:
1.) splitting Army Group South when there was not enough supplies for two separate offensives at the same time. This would completely immobile Army Group A by the end of September.
2.) becoming fixated on Stalingrad after the Volga had been reached. The Germans actually reached the Volga on the very first day of the offensive, August 23, about 5 kilometers to the north of Stalingrad. While Stalingrad would have at least needed to have been partially secured Hitler ordered the attacks to continue well into November. From September 13 to November 19, 1942 the Germans had taken close to 180,000 casualties in and around Stalingrad.
3.) not releasing the 9. Armee and diverting the 11. Armee. During the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943 Stalingrad was not the largest battle on the East. 9. Armee of 30 divisions held the Rzhev Salient which was relentlessly attacked by the Red Army. Before the offensive began the German General Staff had advocated the massive 9. Armee be move to protect the flanks of 6. Armee. Additionally after 11. Armee had conquered Sevastopol to end the Crimean Campaign Hitler had ordered the 11. Armee be moved to Army Group North to take Leningrad, an offensive that of course never took place. So instead of poorly trained, equipped, and often low morale Romanian, Italian, and Hungarian troops protecting the flanks of the 6. Armee there could have been high quality German troops.
 

Sandford’s_Finest

Poster
Founder
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
210
Awesome stuff @preshlock !

I asked in the original thread but it kind of got lost in the shuffle - do you have any good reading material or video about Operation Market Garden? For some reason that particular event has always fascinated me, but I’ve only ever read surface-level information.
 

shiv

John
Administrator
Founder
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
13,915
about German doctrine

there have been entire libraries worth of books about the German method of war that was instituted from old Prussia. Basically the Prussian-German Armies relied on encirclement battles where higher quality troops from the Prussian-German Army would encircle the more larger armies opposing them. Main problem was if those early battles were not enough to defeat their enemies the greater resources of the alliances against Prussia-Germany would eventually overwhelm them. In the end this was saved the Soviet Union. The underlying belief of Operation Barbarossa was that by encircling Soviet Armies west of the Dnieper River along with an advance to Leningrad, Smolensk, and Kiev the Soviet state would collapse. In short the Germans planned for quick and decisive wars of annihilation to be won through encirclement battles.

When the Soviet Union withstood the devastating invasion in 1941,...the Germans advanced close to 1,000 kilometers East, conquered lands that had been home to 80,000,000 Soviets,...while devastating the Soviet military in 1941 the Red Army would have twenty-two entire field armies encircled and destroyed, take 8,000,000 casualties {killed, wounded, missing, and captured} and lose 21,000 tanks the Germans did not have a fall back plan. In the end what saved the Soviet Union in 1941 & 1942 was the sheer size of the Soviet landmass, population, military, and material resources along with the Soviet capacity to absorb horrific losses in each of those areas.
Woohoo! We back. So in talking German doctrine here you’re whole focus is around the encircling technique.

You don’t really mention the Blitzkrieg and the speed of the attack. Or was the speed more of a perceived thing.

Not just the speed in battle, but also the industry that brought everything in the field so quickly.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
Awesome stuff @preshlock !

I asked in the original thread but it kind of got lost in the shuffle - do you have any good reading material or video about Operation Market Garden? For some reason that particular event has always fascinated me, but I’ve only ever read surface-level information.

I haven't read about Market Garden in a very long time. The last book I read about it focused on the II. SS Panzerkorps which was deployed around Arnhem when the battle began. The book was written by Michael Reynolds who was {RIP} an acknowledged expert in later war German panzer formations and was also a general in the British Army during the Cold War, commanding a tank division. Reynolds has a vast amount of knowledge about tank forces in general. The main highlight of the book was Reynolds describing how quickly the Germans managed to piece together whatever forces they could around the front of British XXX. Corps and against the American drops near Eindhoven and Nijmegen. Against Arnhem the 9. SS Panzer Hohenstaufen and 10 SS. Panzer Frundsberg were about 80-85% established strength to begin with and were able to deal a decisive blow to the British Airborne.

In short the main highlight of book was how and why the Germans were able to so quickly and decisively deal with the airborne drops.
 

Sandford’s_Finest

Poster
Founder
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
210
I haven't read about Market Garden in a very long time. The last book I read about it focused on the II. SS Panzerkorps which was deployed around Arnhem when the battle began. The book was written by Michael Reynolds who was {RIP} an acknowledged expert in later war German panzer formations and was also a general in the British Army during the Cold War, commanding a tank division. Reynolds has a vast amount of knowledge about tank forces in general. The main highlight of the book was Reynolds describing how quickly the Germans managed to piece together whatever forces they could around the front of British XXX. Corps and against the American drops near Eindhoven and Nijmegen. Against Arnhem the 9. SS Panzer Hohenstaufen and 10 SS. Panzer Frundsberg were about 80-85% established strength to begin with and were able to deal a decisive blow to the British Airborne.

In short the main highlight of book was how and why the Germans were able to so quickly and decisively deal with the airborne drops.
Excellent, thank you sir! If I remember correctly, the Allies had a solid plan but poor weather conditions played a crucial role in the failure, as well as the aforementioned mobility of the Germans.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
Woohoo! We back. So in talking German doctrine here you’re whole focus is around the encircling technique.

You don’t really mention the Blitzkrieg and the speed of the attack. Or was the speed more of a perceived thing.

Not just the speed in battle, but also the industry that brought everything in the field so quickly.

one of the main reasons why the Germans were so successful with panzer and motorized formations beyond getting the most effective combination of panzer and motorized units together under air support to begin the war,...was the Germans took these new technologies and incorporated them into long established doctrine. When the German Army officer corps went back and reevaluated the performance of the Army during the Great War they came to the conclusion that the prewar concepts of encirclement were correct. It was just that the conditions on the West Front had heavily favored the defender so that decisive battles of encirclement were not possible. Despite this though the Germans did come very close to encircling large amounts of Allied troops in 1914 and close to achieving a decisive breakthrough in 1918.

What we refer to commonly as blitzkrieg was officially referred to by the German Army as bewegungskrieg {maneuver warfare} which was the same term used in German field manuals before 1914. German officers believed that panzers and the air force could provide the decisive punch to breakthrough the front lines that had been lacking in the last war. After the breakthrough had been achieved German doctrine, which in WWII was Army Leadership 300-33 & 300-34, closely followed what had been established before 1914. German panzer and motorized forces would lead the attack but 80-85% of the combat units in the German army either consisted of foot marching infantry or horse drawn artillery.

Industrially the Germans did not move to total wartime economy until after the defeat at Stalingrad. Before the war and into the beginning of 1943 the German economy remained on a peacetime footing. When the Germans struck to the West the French and British had 1,000 more tanks than the Germans. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union the Red Army had nearly a 7:1 tank advantage. Germans were mainly successful due to doctrine and the quality of the troops. Motorization was equally problematic as mentioned above only a small fraction of the army was provided with wheeled or tracked vehicles. Even this was done by requisitioning large amounts of trucks from German civilians and after early campaigns. particularly against the French, confiscating trucks from conquered lands. The Panzer force, despite being given the highest priority in the prewar rearmament program, was also forced to use either use panzers that were deemed obsolete by the army or those manufactured from the Skoda works in Bohemia. As late as Operation Barbarossa about 1/4 of the German panzer force was of Czech design or manufacture.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
Excellent, thank you sir! If I remember correctly, the Allies had a solid plan but poor weather conditions played a crucial role in the failure, as well as the aforementioned mobility of the Germans.

the plan was pretty solid, particularly when you consider the attacking force by WWII standards in Europe was relatively small. Three airborne divisions and XXX. Corps had the prospect of outflanking the entire German front. Keep in mind that the combined strength of the German and Allied armies on the West Front in September 1944 was well over 100 divisions and 3,000,000 troops. Yet that small force had a realistic chance of securing a bridgehead across the Rhine.

Main problem though was that the attack was to be conducted along one major road. The British, Canadians, and Americans were to advance from the frontlines to Eindhoven, Nijmegen, and ultimately Arnhem along the same road. Moreover because the Germans had opened the dikes when they retreated into Holland the advancing forces could not deviate much from the main road, Highway 69. So the attacking force was not really allowed any room to maneuver and the Germans were in a position from the beginning to attack the narrow flanks.
 

Sandford’s_Finest

Poster
Founder
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
210
the plan was pretty solid, particularly when you consider the attacking force by WWII standards in Europe was relatively small. Three airborne divisions and XXX. Corps had the prospect of outflanking the entire German front. Keep in mind that the combined strength of the German and Allied armies on the West Front in September 1944 was well over 100 divisions and 3,000,000 troops. Yet that small force had a realistic chance of securing a bridgehead across the Rhine.

Main problem though was that the attack was to be conducted along one major road. The British, Canadians, and Americans were to advance from the frontlines to Eindhoven, Nijmegen, and ultimately Arnhem along the same road. Moreover because the Germans had opened the dikes when they retreated into Holland the advancing forces could not deviate much from the main road, Highway 69. So the attacking force was not really allowed any room to maneuver and the Germans were in a position from the beginning to attack the narrow flanks.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. I think I remember it being labeled Hell’s Highway, but that may have been an old video game or something haha. So this pretty much put our troops into a kill zone correct? I remember it briefly being touched on in Band of Brothers and the subsequent retreat but I think it always stood out to me as important because if successful it seems as if we could’ve ended the European campaign much sooner, relatively speaking.
 

shiv

John
Administrator
Founder
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
13,915
one of the main reasons why the Germans were so successful with panzer and motorized formations beyond getting the most effective combination of panzer and motorized units together under air support to begin the war,...was the Germans took these new technologies and incorporated them into long established doctrine. When the German Army officer corps went back and reevaluated the performance of the Army during the Great War they came to the conclusion that the prewar concepts of encirclement were correct. It was just that the conditions on the West Front had heavily favored the defender so that decisive battles of encirclement were not possible. Despite this though the Germans did come very close to encircling large amounts of Allied troops in 1914 and close to achieving a decisive breakthrough in 1918.

What we refer to commonly as blitzkrieg was officially referred to by the German Army as bewegungskrieg {maneuver warfare} which was the same term used in German field manuals before 1914. German officers believed that panzers and the air force could provide the decisive punch to breakthrough the front lines that had been lacking in the last war. After the breakthrough had been achieved German doctrine, which in WWII was Army Leadership 300-33 & 300-34, closely followed what had been established before 1914. German panzer and motorized forces would lead the attack but 80-85% of the combat units in the German army either consisted of foot marching infantry or horse drawn artillery.

Industrially the Germans did not move to total wartime economy until after the defeat at Stalingrad. Before the war and into the beginning of 1943 the German economy remained on a peacetime footing. When the Germans struck to the West the French and British had 1,000 more tanks than the Germans. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union the Red Army had nearly a 7:1 tank advantage. Germans were mainly successful due to doctrine and the quality of the troops. Motorization was equally problematic as mentioned above only a small fraction of the army was provided with wheeled or tracked vehicles. Even this was done by requisitioning large amounts of trucks from German civilians and after early campaigns. particularly against the French, confiscating trucks from conquered lands. The Panzer force, despite being given the highest priority in the prewar rearmament program, was also forced to use either use panzers that were deemed obsolete by the army or those manufactured from the Skoda works in Bohemia. As late as Operation Barbarossa about 1/4 of the German panzer force was of Czech design or manufacture.
So interesting how tactics and techniques can shift momentum some much.

Makes me think of how Alexander first used his infantry to hit the enemy front lines at a diagonal (rather than head on). They would be able to create a wedge in the enemy front line and then rout groups with their much smaller cavalry unit. Maybe it was kinda like a divided encirclement.

What's even more interesting is its almost always the same tactics and techniques that are useful across all kinds of things. Sports and business are good examples.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,097
I just finished WWII in HD and the Pacific campaign needs more run. I had no idea the Japanese had set up 2 bases in the Aleutian Islands.

Also, our soldiers were some bad motherfuckers.
It amazing how different the two types of warfare were. I'm not WW2 buff but recently I've been diving deeper and its amazing how much in that theater gets overlooked. The different phases of the war in that theater from almost having the US fleet destroyed to quickly flipping over to island hopping has got to be one of the most dramatic changes in a war in world history.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,097
@preshlock do you believe the allies would have nuked Berlin trying to cut the head off the snake or would there have been a different strategy if the soviets had reached a peace agreement.

I'm putting you on the spot with the speculation but picking your brain on WW2 is a privilege.
 

tgsio

Legendary
Founder
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
2,261
Just so you know, I'm printing out @preshlock posts for my 16yo son.

He is studying WWII in history and has always been fascinated (finally.... no fights over homework or test grades🤣).

Other than sports stats, it's the only thing he willingly reads.

The information/deep details and ensuing discussions y'all post is exactly what he loves and it's a great resource for supplementing his education.

All that to say thank you. I hope you know how truly valuable these posts are outside of people reading and enjoying your threads.
 

GarnetPild

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,914
The most interesting thing about WWII to me, is the great technological advancements made by the U.S. from '41 - '45. Of course there is the atomic bomb, but so many other things advanced so much during the war... RADAR, code-breaking, the proximity fuze- my personal favorite.

Before the proximity fuze, anti-aircraft guns would fire their shells into the sky, and they would be set to go off at a pre-determined time (altitude). The proximity fuze allowed them to explode only when they got close to the target. I have seen alot of numbers on this, but one that stands out is their huge success against German V-1 rockets, in England. They went from shooting over 20,000 rounds to down 1 V-1 rocket before the proximity fuze, to just 40 after. Most impressive to me, is the fuze's ability to withstand 20,000g and thousands of RPMs, and still work.

Awaken a sleeping giant, they certainly did.
 

GarnetPild

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,914
Some interesting WWII trivia, and a record that still stands today- The USS Indianapolis set a speed record from San Francisco to Hawaii in 1945.

Everyone knows about the Indianapolis' terrible return trip from delivering the atomic bomb, thanks to Quint and that classic scene in Jaws. They had been on a secret mission to deliver the components of Fat Man and Little Boy to the island of Tinian in the Northern Mariana Islands. Even Captain McVay did not know what the mission was, but had been told that every day they took of their trip would be a day off the war. Truer words have never been spoken.

The heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis made the 5,000 nautical mile journey from S.F. to Hawaii in just 10 days, an average speed of about 25mph!
 
Last edited:

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
@preshlock do you believe the allies would have nuked Berlin trying to cut the head off the snake or would there have been a different strategy if the soviets had reached a peace agreement.

I'm putting you on the spot with the speculation but picking your brain on WW2 is a privilege.

yeah if Germany and the Soviet Union signed a separate peace than the atomic bombs would have been dropped on Germany.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,097
yeah if Germany and the Soviet Union signed a separate peace than the atomic bombs would have been dropped on Germany.
Would they have started with Berlin in your opinion?

Obviously they rule out Tokyo as the first drop so just curious what you think.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
Would they have started with Berlin in your opinion?

Obviously they rule out Tokyo as the first drop so just curious what you think.

would really depend on how much Berlin had been bombed. Remember Tokyo had largely been destroyed in an enormous fire bombing raid that occurred in early March 1945. Had most of Tokyo still been standing than Tokyo likely would have been the first target of the atomic blast. You have to think that if the Germans and Soviets had come to a separate peace than much more resources would have been devoted to the Luftwaffe and air defense in general. So Berlin likely would not have been as heavily damaged as it had been during the war. Also of course without the front lines reaching Germany the number of raids would have been drastically reduced. Even after the introduction of the P-51 the distance required to go from England to Berlin or from southern Italy to Berlin was pretty considerable. Which left the bombing forces vulnerable to multiple attacks. After the front lines reached the German border the number of attacks on Berlin drastically increased.

Would very much depend on just how much the Luftwaffe and German air defenses had been suppressed along with just how much of Berlin had been leveled.
 

preshlock

Poster
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
75
on the night of February 13, 1945 the Royal Air Force began a massive bombing operation against Dresden creating a raging firestorm. As day broke on this day in 1945 American bombers in huge numbers began to appear over the burning city. Had the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire. Dresden would be one of the most controversial actions taken by the Allies in Europe. With 20,000 to 25,000 German civilians dead Dresden would be the second deadliest single bombing of a German city, after Hamburg in July 1943. Not only would Dresden be controversial after the war but in the immediate aftermath prominent Allied leaders such as Winston Churchill questioned the mortality of the attack.

However while the defeat of Germany was on the horizon in 1945 it did not appear imminent. Actually it was the surrender of Germany just three months later that would distort much of the reasons for bombing Dresden. By February 1945 the Allies were steadily approaching the Rhine River and the Soviets had reached the Oder River. Bringing Allied and Soviet forces closer than ever before. In order to support the Soviet advance in the East Allied leaders had asked for a list of targets for bombing. Dresden was high on the Soviet list as it was a major transportation & logistical hub supporting the German defense of Silesia and Hungary. Moreover Dresden was the largest German city to have been bombed the least. In addition to supporting the Soviet offensives it was thought that the destruction of German factories in Dresden would further cripple the teetering German economy.

So why was Dresden so controversial? Mainly because of two statements in the mission objective by Bomber Command. While the United States would provide about half the bombers and practically the entire fighter escort the overall attack was under Bomber Command. The Red Army advance into the eastern German provinces had caused millions of civilian refugees to flee westward. Dresden would viewed as a sanctuary for these people escaping the revenge of the Red Army. Bomber Command specifically stated that the destruction of Dresden would further dampen the resolve of the German people. However one of the main reasons why the attack on Dresden was so destructive was because the refugees had overwhelmed the city's bomb shelters. Additionally Bomber Command stated that when the Red Army did reach Dresden that the Soviets were to be left with a strong impression of just what Allied bomber forces could achieve. These two objectives along with the unexpected German collapse in May meant Dresden would be highly controversial both then and now.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom