My uncle says that the Dresden bombing was an act of terrorism, according to definition.
2007-03-15 06:25:46 · 12 answers · asked by one_dog_grinning 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is some truth to that. Dresden was not really an important target for the Western Allies. It was ultimately in the path of the Soviets.
Even worse, it was a choke point for refugees fleeing the Russians and among these were a sizable number of Western POW's including men like Kurt Vonnecutt.
We levelled Dresden with flame at night and US pounding in the day to further punish Teutonic Sin and to make sure the Russians understood the power of Western Air Superiority.
I think it's fair to suggest that the use of Incidiary bombs really does fit into terror, particularly when you are basically indiscriminately dropping them on a population center at night.
I guess there wasn't a "pickle barrel" at Dresden.
2007-03-15 06:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your uncle doesn't understand Total War. The Dresden bombing was an act designed to cripple Nazi Germany even more. The Blitz was caused by the Nazis so is that terrorism as well? In order to win WWII we had to do strategic bombing. Dresden is just another case of every other city around Germany that was bombed as well.
2007-03-15 15:29:07 · answer #2 · answered by A question or two... 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your uncle is wrong.
The point of an act of terrorism is to inflict terror. The definition of terrorism is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
The intention of the bombing of Dresden was to cripple the Nazi industrial base. Dresden was a major industrial center and had a major railway hub. These made Dresden a valid military target. Dresden was defended by near by anti-aircraft gun emplacements, meaning that the Nazis knew Dresden would be a target.
The bombing of Dresden was intended to destroy valid military targets, not inflict terror.
2007-03-15 13:43:31 · answer #3 · answered by David V 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Terrorism is defined as using fear for political reasons. I don't think that was political, just sadistic. Then again, maybe being bombed every moment of everyday for 5 years will get to some people? No, not terrorism but probably unnecessary.
2007-03-15 13:31:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your uncle is wrong and the bombing was done to try and bring NAZI Germany to it's
knees and to end Hitler's reign of terror to
the world and to end WWII!!!!!!
2007-03-15 14:34:59 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would your uncle call the bombing of London? especially the residential area near the docks?
2007-03-15 13:35:35 · answer #6 · answered by london.oval 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
By definition strategic bombing is just that. That's why we spent so much time and effort researching smart bombs.
2007-03-15 13:34:09 · answer #7 · answered by Land Warrior 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any bombing really can be considered an act of terrorism.
2007-03-15 13:29:53 · answer #8 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Your Uncle does not understand the concept of Total War. He is wrong.
2007-03-15 13:29:58 · answer #9 · answered by Flip W 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
By today's standards most of WWII was an act of terrorism.
2007-03-15 13:33:40 · answer #10 · answered by huckleberry1 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋