http://geocities.com/clcing/Dresden.jpg
Imagine Our Town Being Bombed

[Remembering Dresden: February 13, 1945]

The planes would come in
from the west
at an angle, so as to run
up along the valley
to destroy our mills,
laying a carpet of bombs
half a mile wide
straight up across our town,
guiding on the Court House
then out beyond
to the hill
where the hospital stands
then further still
to our railroad yards
and the bridge across,
with twenty merciless runs,
and what still stood
would be ground
in drafts of fire—
Dresden
burnt into memory
murmuring:
Try to imagine.

And those who survived
would gather along the creek
where water soothed
or in our woods
under angels' wings
while one long dirge
of soft wailing
would be heard
for what had been.

Then one among them
would rise,
aged now and enlightened,
with that one word empowered:
Build.
And it would happen.


from: The Butler Pennsylvania Poems (http://geocities.com/clcing/)
http://geocities.com/clcing/CLC4.jpg

During three waves of attacks, over 1,300 bombers bombed Dresden .The terror bombing of the non-military cultural center of Dresden killed 135,000 . A totally unnecessary act as the Russian army was only 1 week away from liberating Dresden ! WHY ? Simple the object of the allies was to let the Communist government of Russia get a first hand view of western airpower and its destructive capability when they arrived in Dresden , likewise the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to demonstrate to Communist Russia the willingness of America to use this weapon and by using 2 to show that there was more of those from where they came from . In short it was a clear and dire warning to Soviet Russia not to interfere with the new post WWII world order being created by America the new leader of the Western Plutocracies .

That's a pretty provocative opinion. Do you have source material for that or is it your own thinking? I've never seen an adequate explanation for Dresden, yours is not unreasonable but that doesn't make it true. But I've seen a couple of other explanations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as apologists' writings.

For one thing the A-bomb damage must be taken in perspective compared to the damage done by cumulative bombing runs over Tokyo. There was more loss of civilian life and more destruction of civilian infrastructure in Tokyo from conventional bombing than in the two nuclear attacks.

For another it's said to have convinced the supporters of the intransigent Japanese military leaders, rather than the USSR, that America would stop at nothing short of annihilation of the Japanese people, and that without this show of dishonorable force that put even the Japanese atrocities to shame, the nation would literally have fought until the last Japanese baby was dead. It also grew cojones on the emperor, a peaceful Buddhist who was letting himself be carried along by historical events, so that he stood up to his own generals at last.

Its my own thinking , based on a good historical thinking over the incidents though . Japan was sending out peace feelers through the Vatican embassy and other neutrals directly before 1945 , Japan knew very well she was beaten . Much has been made of this fanatic Japanese resistance but lets face it as the American steamroller approached Japan resistance was crumbling after Okinawa Japan expended her power their . If the US had of launched a land invasion Japan would of crumbled in a matter of months . Just remember by 1944 the allies were looking for after WWII and they knew that when the current conflict inevitably ended you were going to have a Soviet Union fully geared for war . The ideological rivals of the Capitalist West diametrically opposed to the Communist East and in 1948 Russia was announced as the global threat to civilization . Cold blooded it may sound but these 'warnings' from powerful nations have been with us since the days of Empire .

I had understood that the pressure to bomb Dresden had come from the Russians. "Bomber" Harris was against it on military grounds, but Churchill had overruled him on political grounds.

When I use the words "I had understood" I mean that it is not an aspect of WWII on which I consider myself an expert, and I am willing to be better informed. But I want some convincing evidence before I put aside what I have believed until now to have been the situation.

See Frederick Taylor's Dresden.
Dresden was a road and rail communications centre and its industries had been converted to military use. One thing that Taylor doesn't mention, but which i think is possible, is that the destruction of German cities towards the end of the war may have been meant to make it plain that attempts to use them as fortresses like Stalingrad wouldn't work.
Japan's peace proposals were based on the retention of conquered territory. Certainly people who would have been involved were convinced that an invasion of the Japanese mainland and enormous casualties was necessary. Japan might have crumbled in a matter of months but a lot of people would have died in those months, not just in Japan but in other Japanese occupied territories. Japanese defence preparations rested on the assumption that all Japanese- including women and children- would fight and that Japan could accept much higher casualty rates than the US if it invaded.

Japanese defence preparations rested on the assumption that all Japanese- including women and children- would fight and that Japan could accept much higher casualty rates than the US if it invaded.

yes , isnt that why the Americans didnt invade because they needed to save the lives of their soldeirs. If they had beaten Japan the hard way theyd have come outof the war lots weeker and the rest of the 20th C could have turned out diferent too.

As for dresden, its strange that we dont get much war guilt here in the USA or in Britian for all the civvies who died there.. and all the other german citys. our bombers must killed a million or more inc. women + children - isnt that a holocaustt, just like the deathcamps?

The winners don't mourn about dead enemy, whether fictional or real.

During three waves of attacks, over 1,300 bombers bombed Dresden .The terror bombing of the non-military cultural center of Dresden killed 135,000 .
That is so sad. That is not a way to show military power to the world.

The actual civilian casualties were probably about 35000- bad enough, but not what was claimed. In total war- where everyone, civilian or not, is working to ensure that the armed forces are as well armed as possible, everyone is a legitimate target. Ironically, Germany wasn't engaged in such warfare, for all the propaganda they churned out, so the city-bombings had much less effect on german ability to fight than the allies supposed.

Ironically, Germany wasn't engaged in such warfare, for all the propaganda they churned out, so the city-bombings had much less effect on german ability to fight than the allies supposed.

I read somewhere that german war industrys had moved out of the cities by 1945, so they were building more tanks or planes than ever before - even with all the bombing. their real problem was they couldnt keep their machines fueld up or their forces at the front fed properly, not with supply colums under atack on the roads.

turn nazi or commie and it'll get blasted again.

Not really. Look at NK ;)

That is so sad. That is not a way to show military power to the world.
East and West , Capitalism vs Nazism vs Communism each as stupid as the other the only winners in this war and everyothers are the financiers .

East and West , Capitalism vs Nazism vs Communism each as stupid as the other

We are all much happyer + freer under capitalism than the Nazi or Commie civilains were!! from what you said, it wouldnt have been any beter if the Axis had won WWII.. not many would agree realy!

there might be something better thats POSSIBLE, but its never been tested ina great power.

We are all much happyer + freer under capitalism than the Nazi or Commie civilains were!
How do you know?

I watched a few nazi propoganda films and all seemed very happy!
I have seen a lot of communist propoganda and all seem very happy in it!
I see capitalist propoganda every day and all seem to be very very happy.

I've seen a lot of communist propoganda about the USA in the cold war days and it was a terrible shithole as depicted in it.

In reality -> it depends whether you serve and like the regime or oppose the regime.
If you serve, you are well off,
if not, your life sucks.

I imagine that all the nazi people would love a nazi regime.
By we all you mean "we all capitalists" then? I think so.
I imagine some hardcore communist isn't as happy as you are.

p.s. I favour neither, but I hate communism.

East and West , Capitalism vs Nazism vs Communism each as stupid as the other the only winners in this war and everyothers are the financiers .
Hardly. Financiers do a lot better out of peace. In wars everyone defaults on their debts.

Financiers do a lot better out of peace.

Tell that to weapon's manufacturers.

Tell that to weapon's manufacturers....who aren't financiers.

:) They can be.

:) They can be.
...and far more aren't, just as far more financiers aren't weapons manufacturers.
What financiers need is long periods of peace and prosperity so people borrow a lot and repay their loans.

I do not think that the survivors liberated from the death camps think the financiers were the only winners.
I doubt that the girls forced to be "comfort women" by the Japanese think that the only winners were the financiers.

Instead of talking about history - all of you should study it.

Some points - in no particular order.
1. Dresden didn't just "happen" - and it didn't happen to impress the Soviets. There were 4 long years of city bombing going on before that - starting w/ the Germans bombing Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry. What was unthinkable in 1940 was common place in 1945.
2. Hiroshima/Nagasaki - same thing, and as another poster pointed out, after the fire bombings of Tokyo, the destruction and death toll were actually less in these 2 cities. Oh, and the war was OVER - w/o the necessity of invading Japan.


East and West , Capitalism vs Nazism vs Communism each as stupid as the other the only winners in this war and everyothers are the financiers .

Foley - do you EVER tire of putting your foot in your mouth?

Barkhorn.

I've seen a lot of communist propoganda about the USA in the cold war days and it was a terrible shithole as depicted in it.

Are any of those films online today ? - I mean its a free information society right, and theyre just peices of history now - I might find them funny. did they say that in the US we were all fat, or all starving, or all hooked on shite music or what?

Don't think that any are online, at least I haven't seen any.
They basically were bashing rock'n roll, how degradating it was for human psyche,
how white american policemen were beating up black workers,
how unemployed workers were waiting in lines, etc, etc.
Nobody took that propoganda seriously though, not any propoganda.
By living in the USSR you become immune to propoganda.

About free information society.. society maybe is , but the government isn't..
Try asking for nazi propoganda films in an archive.. But old nazi propoganda is on internet. I'll ask some people around if there is any soviet propoganda.

Nobody took that propoganda seriously though, not any propoganda.
By living in the USSR you become immune to propoganda..

i can believe that alright! You supose anyone ever took the news seriouosly in a country like USSR, or NK today?

The less educated buy it of course. You can't distinguish truth from fiction if you have no overall picture or information from elswhere. Much of that was smuggled into USSR. I doubt that you can smuggle anything in NK.

1. Dresden didn't just "happen" –
I am sorry to inform you , but t“ It did just happen “ , ask any Dresdener old enough to remember !

and it didn't happen to impress the Soviets.
I can not think of any plausible reason why on the 13th of February 1945 with the German military unable to resist and on the verge of collapse at any day and the allied armies well inside German territory encountering little or no resistance , that this beautiful Baroque city became the object of 3 massive 1000 bomber raids ? The only logical reason would be a display of strategic Airpower for a desired effect on advancing Russians .

There were 4 long years of city bombing going on before that - starting w/ the Germans bombing Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry. What was unthinkable in 1940 was common place in 1945.
That’s was the early days of bombing and they were light by late 1942 and all through 1943 to mid 1944 the tactic of mass bombing was developed to smash the Ruhr which was Germanys industrial hub and various other cities with Military/Naval/Industrial significance such as Hamburg . Dresden had no war industry ! Dresden was not a communication centre ! Dresden had no military bases in its vicinity ! there was no reason to bomb Dresden . Dresden was not a military target it never suffered bombing during the war so why would they bomb this city into dust on the inevitable collapse of Germany ?

2. Hiroshima/Nagasaki - same thing, and as another poster pointed out, after the fire bombings of Tokyo, the destruction and death toll were actually less in these 2 cities. Oh, and the war was OVER - w/o the necessity of invading Japan.
OK the US drops one atom bomb why drop a second one ? And I think the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would know what the deathtoll of these attacks would be .

Foley - do you EVER tire of putting your foot in your mouth?
How is it that I have put my foot in it ? Seeing wars are operated on finance , and America which during the war was the centre of finance , bankrolled the allied war effort ! And that money came from the Federal Reserve which is a private concern ie: Private Finance !

I can not think of any plausible reason why . . .
The only logical reason would be a display of strategic Airpower for a desired effect on advancing Russians
You can't think of any PLAUSIBLE reason -- but you can suggest a LOGICAL reason!!! Does it follow that YOUR logic isn't plausible?

Would it not be more useful to try to study the available historical record than to engage in this sort of unsupported speculation? Do you have any special reason to doubt that this raid, together with that on Chemnitz, was carried out at the request of the Russians -- as most historians appear to believe? What has given you the idea that Dresden was NOT a communications centre?

Do you not feel the least compulsion to study the subject you are pontificating about?

You can't think of any PLAUSIBLE reason -- but you can suggest a LOGICAL reason!!! Does it follow that YOUR logic isn't plausible?
PLAUSIBLE ! Yes I put forward a series of facts namely the late stage of the war making such an action uncalled for , that Dresden was not a military target nor was it an industrial centre .

Would it not be more useful to try to study the available historical record than to engage in this sort of unsupported speculation?
How and what did I put forward is unsupported ?

Do you have any special reason to doubt that this raid, together with that on Chemnitz, was carried out at the request of the Russians -- as most historians appear to believe?
What the hell are talking about ? The Russians never called for these aitstrikes where the hell did you get that from ? The ONLY historian that has gone into any detail on this event is David Irving and his conclusions are the same it wasnt a target ! He even interveiwed Airmarshal Harris about it . I would like to see what historians have claimed the Russians called for this singualr act of babarity on German civilians .

What has given you the idea that Dresden was NOT a communications centre?
Look on a map and see how many train lines run into the city ? The fact that Dresden is situated at the far corner of Germany geographically ? Dresden was a cultural centre it was Germany's centre of the book trade .

Do you not feel the least compulsion to study the subject you are pontificating about?
Jesus , Im at a loss ! I put forward a number of undeniable realities and all you do is deny it how about YOU put up some facts to displace my opinion ?

Ah! So you've been reading David Irving! How many people did he claim were killed in Dresden? Not a figure that any other historian regards as remotely likely. If you imagine HE is the ONLY historian to have written about Dresden you are sadly deluded. He does claim that there were huge numbers of refugees there - and that may be true. Why would they find themselves THERE, in particular? You don't suppose it may have had something to do with communications? With the routes from the east and south that converged there?

Do you really believe that the US/UK decided to launch air raids on Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig - in the route of the Russian advance - out of a simple desire for barbarousness? And not in support of that Russian advance? Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the whole thing? In that case, you have not begun to comprehend the relations that existed between the Allied Powers.

Ah! So you've been reading David Irving! How many people did he claim were killed in Dresden? Not a figure that any other historian regards as remotely likely.
Considering David Irving is the undisputed authority on Nazi history and in particular the event of Dresden which he uncovered and was the first to write into a book which today is the standard .

If you imagine HE is the ONLY historian to have written about Dresden you are sadly deluded. He does claim that there were huge numbers of refugees there - and that may be true.
What do you mean “and that may be true” who has disputed that fact ? Dresden housed something close to 600,000 refugees fleeing west . That was corroborated by the refugee committee after WWII .

Why would they find themselves THERE, in particular? You don't suppose it may have had something to do with communications? With the routes from the east and south that converged there?
They got there by foot or horse and cart , for petes sake all train lines in Germany by 1945 were unworkable due to aerial destruction .

Do you really believe that the US/UK decided to launch air raids on Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig - in the route of the Russian advance - out of a simple desire for barbarousness?
No they did it to intimidate the advancing Russian juggernaut , it is obvious America was preparing itself for the Post WWII role as global ciop for the Capitalists . And what better way to intimidate a powerful entity like Russia by displaying your firepower .

And not in support of that Russian advance? Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the whole thing? In that case, you have not begun to comprehend the relations that existed between the Allied Powers.
What relations ? Read Khruschevs book Khruschev remembers vol;1 that will leave you in no doubt .Explain this to me why with 2 years of the war ending did America declare Communist Russia the worlds worst threat ? They saw Communist Russia as a threat after world war 1 and all through the 1930s .

Considering David Irving is the undisputed authority on Nazi history .
Declaring anyone as the undisputed authority on anything is a very risky debating tactic. Do you wish to reconsider the absolute character of this specific statement of yours?

Declaring anyone as the undisputed authority on anything is a very risky debating tactic. Do you wish to reconsider the absolute character of this specific statement of yours?
As far as I know he is , I cant think of anyone who surpass's Mr Irving .

I understand that you think Irving is the top of the tree in this field. But you are asserting that everyone agrees with this view. Such a contention invites disagreement.
Am I indulging in word play? Perhaps. However I think there is an important point here. You are seeking to win this portion of the argument with a simple debating trick, thusly:

Foley: I believe A. Irving believes A. Irving is an undisputed leader in his field. Irving also says A. Therefore A is right. Therefore I am right.

Well, that is logical nonsense, and I'm just calling you out on it.

Considering David Irving is the undisputed authority on Nazi history . . . He is probably the most prolific author, and has made a contribution to history by his researches. An “undisputed authority” is the very last thing he is – as anyone more widely read than yourself will vouch for. He is regarded as a propagandist and of lacking a sense of balance in weighing his evidence. It is considered that the principle reason he lost his famous libel case was the 740-page document written by historian Richard Evans discrediting many aspects of his judgement.


What do you mean “and that may be true” who has disputed that fact ? Dresden housed something close to 600,000 refugees fleeing west . That was corroborated by the refugee committee after WWII . What may or may not be true is that the numbers of refugees approached the number given by Irving. I believe that his figure may be in some doubt. Which “refugee committee” are you referring to?


They got there by foot or horse and cart , for petes sake all train lines in Germany by 1945 were unworkable due to aerial destructionI am sure many did arrive by foot, barge, etc. However, you give the impression that once interdicted a rail route remains unworkable. The Germans made considerable use of forced labour to restore their railway system.


No they did it to intimidate the advancing Russian juggernaut , it is obvious America was preparing itself for the Post WWII role as global ciop for the Capitalists . And what better way to intimidate a powerful entity like Russia by displaying your firepower .
Are you asking this question in regard to the Dresden raid in particular? Do you think Stalin planned to visit Dresden, whereas he would not have the same opportunity to inspect Berlin? As for intimidating the enemy, Roosevelt and Churchill would have known that the first A-bomb was likely to be tested within six months – rendering any other sort of demonstration superfluous.


What relations ?
The wartime relations between US, UK and the Russians is not a difficult area to research. There is plenty to read. (Note that the post-war “division of spoils” was carried out very successfully in regard to the lack of conflict between the victorious powers – a reflection of the detail in which all had been agreed.) You have not directly answered my question: Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the Dresden raid?


What was unthinkable in 1940 was common place in 1945.That sums up the situation perfectly!

As far as I know he is , I cant think of anyone who surpass's Mr Irving .
Can you think of anyone else who has written on this?
Quite a few other people have in fact
It may be unfair, but Irving's findings ands methods have been analysed in a way that no other historian's have and found very inadequate. Other historians may be just as bad but no-one has demonstrated it yet.
As far as I can recall, Irving- and anyone else- has never analysed the role of the US federal reserve in the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps you would care to?
Wars are fought on the basis of what people know and believe at the time, not what is learned later. In February 1945 the allies believed that they had good military reasons to bomb Dresden [one reason was that they had bomber forces that could destroy towns- if you have a weapon the military mindset means that you find reasons to use it]. If you are going to say it was done for other reasons than the standard ones for destroying other German towns then you need some evidence to support your arguments

In Thersite's post immediately below he asked if any one had read someone other than D. Irving. about Dresden:

In early 1960s I read book by title (I think): Fire and the air war. It was mainly the story of the preparation for the Dresden raid, but did include some of the "success facts" in final chapter(s?). About this "success", I can not remember any of the numbers, but do remember that most of the people in underground bomb shelters died from suffication. (The fire storm consummed most of the oxygen.) Hours later (how many depended upon the depth of the shelter etc.) the fat in their bodies was rendered out by the heat and days (or months) later the well congelled fat was found on the floor.

At the time I read this book, Russia had recently tested their biggest bomb (50 MegaTons, I think it was) and the US was in a crazy shelter construction mood. I had a few articles published by the Baltimore Sun (letters to the editor). I had done some calculations based on the assumption of a optimium altitude (for fire generation) of a 50 MegaTon explosion centerted over the White House that showed all over Baltimore which is about an hours drive away, that dark dry leaves, paper etc would bust into flames (on a clear day). Under low wind conditions, a fire storm would develope over Baltimore.

I was highly oppossed to the false sense of security the shelter movement was creating - Everyone was saying shelters would save lives except for the direct hits and blast effects. Many were saying: "Lets attack the Russians now, before they hit us with these big bombs." I wanted to show that even in deep shelters in Baltimore the population could die, as they had in Dresden, from lack of oxygen. (Baltimore would be on the target list. The smaller A-bombs they already had would do the job just fine. etc.) (The correct title of that book is in one of my letters to the editor. Perhaps the author was David Ivring, but I doubt it.)

The only other thing I remember from the book was that the British mathematicians who were desiging the mix of bombs to be used (What % should knock down buildings to provide fuel. What % should have hooks to catch on gutters as the slide down roofs. How many minutes should they burn there before releasing to fall into the rubble of other bombs. etc.) were working in a very cold office with numb fingers doing probability calculations with pencile and paper. (The irony of them cold and what they were doing was not lost on me.)

They were cold because coal was rationed and not available for their office. After weeks of calculating in the cold, their chief said "We can't work like this." and they stopped. Eventually the "coal work stopage" problem came to Churchill's attention. He took prompt action: "Give them their God Dam coal!" and they soon found the "optimium" mixture of incindary and explosive bombs.


.....Do you really believe that the US/UK decided to launch air raids on Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig - in the route of the Russian advance - out of a simple desire for barbarousness? And not in support of that Russian advance? Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the whole thing? In that case, you have not begun to comprehend the relations that existed between the Allied Powers.

I would also like to tell a few little know facts about the nature of the relationship with the Russians in the last days of WWII and the nature of " the Russian advance." (in responce to River Ape's comments above.)

The people of occupied Warsaw had a well organized but dormant undergound. In a few days the Rusian army would cross a river on the East and liberate the city. The Poles wanted to do it themselves first - They knew Stalin well. - So they launched a well coordinated attack on the German control points, which were usually located at major street intersection with a tank in the center of it. They had few guns, typically one for ever 10 men charging the fortified German contol points. That gun passed from one man to the next (They were attacking the German posts in line formation.) as the one recently carrying it was killed.

Because the Germans were totally surprised and the Polish attack was well coordinated they actually captured several German tanks and many guns. They held at least a third of Warsaw for at least 10 days, hoping for the Russians to now cross the river. But the Russian did not. Stain wanted the Poles to fail, and they did when furrious Hitler threw every reservist he still had at the defiant Warsaw Poles. - He wanted to make a lesson of them so no other Polish city dared to try the same.

The temporarly victorious liberators of Warsaw begged the western allies for air support and were quickly promissed it, but there was a problem. The distance from the nearest airfield the allies controlled to Warsaw, was more than half the max flight range. The planes would need to land in the Russian controlled fields east of Warsaw to refuel. Stalin refussed to let them land. It did not serve his post was plans (to own Poland) if the the poles, rather than the Russian army, liberated it. Many of these brave polish liberators were killed by posion gas the Germans pumped into the sewers they were wading thru in a desparate effort to live. They knew they would not if they surrendered to the Germans. (The German had a good supply of this type of gas still, but had to make gas for their tanks by the distructive distalation of coal. - Coal was important to both side.)

I tell this history as it needs to be better known. (Think of it next time you hear a "Polish Joke." Would you charge a tank unarmed!) I tell it here in responce to River Ape's comments about the relations with Russians, who were allies, soon to take Dresden, so the raid was unjustified. The irony is that I strongly agree it was unjustied, but my reasons are different.

I understand that you think Irving is the top of the tree in this field. But you are asserting that everyone agrees with this view. Such a contention invites disagreement.
Am I indulging in word play? Perhaps. However I think there is an important point here. You are seeking to win this portion of the argument with a simple debating trick, thusly:

Foley: I believe A. Irving believes A. Irving is an undisputed leader in his field. Irving also says A. Therefore A is right. Therefore I am right.

Well, that is logical nonsense, and I'm just calling you out on it.

Im sorry you are losing me here , what relevance has this ? How about offering an alternative argument to mine ? I gave a good opinion as to why the bombing of Dresden happened and all you offer me is word play !

As far as I can recall, Irving- and anyone else- has never analysed the role of the US federal reserve in the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps you would care to?
Why dont you enlighten me , after all you are the one to introduce this angle I would be extremely interested to read what you write .

You raised the question of federal finance in its relation to the Dresden raid, actually:

wars are operated on finance , and America which during the war was the centre of finance , bankrolled the allied war effort ! And that money came from the Federal Reserve which is a private concern ie: Private Finance !

Im sorry you are losing me here , what relevance has this ? How about offering an alternative argument to mine ? I gave a good opinion as to why the bombing of Dresden happened and all you offer me is word play !
Brian, I am surprised by your reaction. I have read numerous posts by yourself over the last couple of weeks. While I have not always agreed with what you have written, I have thought that they were generally well argued, and certainly interesting.
Then in this thread you use a cheap debating trick that I would have thought beneath you. I know insufficent solid facts about Dresden to comment either way on your hypothesis. I do know that when an appeal to an 'undisputed authority' is made that the writer has either made a careless slip or is panicking because he (or she) knows they are on weak ground. You may consider my posts wordplay, I think they go to the heart of the groundlessness of your argument, by revealing their dependence upon a single (arguably discredited) source.

I know insufficent solid facts about Dresden to comment either way on your hypothesis. I do know that when an appeal to an 'undisputed authority' is made that the writer has either made a careless slip or is panicking because he (or she) knows they are on weak ground. You may consider my posts wordplay, I think they go to the heart of the groundlessness of your argument, by revealing their dependence upon a single (arguably discredited) source.
Fair enough 'undisputed authority' was contrived but I hasten to add David Iriving on the subject of Dresden would ceratinly be , using the more accurate term , the leading authority on the events of the Dresden event . My argument is not groundless , and I was not relying on one source , I introduced Irving later in the thread . As for wordplay I had the feeling you were attempting to pidgeon hole me just on this aspect . The fact is Ophiolite , Dresden was a non-nmilitary target bombed at the wars end , the Anglo-American strategic bombing effort was being wound down and German resistance was to say by Feb 1945 virtually non-existant . The city was knowingly going to be liberated by the Russians within days so Ophiolite why bomb Dresden with 3 massive 1000+ bomber raids ? There is enough circumstantial evidence , and historical hindsight for conjecture on what happened to Dresden .

You raised the question of federal finance in its relation to the Dresden raid, actually:
Sorry I got a little ahead of myself there ! Anyway here is breifly what I mean.....
June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . The American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe . Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance . American airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West . What Russia inherited in Eastern Europe was complete scorched earth from retreating Germans , at a great expence to Russia she had to rebuild East Europe . In 1948 America announced Russia to be a sinister threat to the World the Cold War started . Thus providing a unique excuse to fund the Arms Race which was lucrative to the American industrial/financier complex , the Cold War ended in 1989 .

Bit more complicated:
Lend-lease began long before 1941. Even though Roosevelt saw the dangers to the US of a nazi-dominated Europe he was not an admirer of the British Empire himself- like most americans then and saw no reason why he shouldn't destroy it at the same time. Lend-lease should be separated from the enormous amounts of material supplied free to the UK Russia and anyone else that joined in. The main reason for using air power- especially by Britain- was that before the invasions of Europe it was the only way to fight an offensive war at all. [In fact, the RAF would have done much better to use the heavy bombers on long-range anti-submarine patrols rather than attacking Germany]. One reason for bombing Dresden may have been that the USSR persistently complained that the US and UK weren't fighting the Germans hard enough, so giving them a destroyed city just ahead demonstrated what they were doing further west to German war industries.
Western Europe in 1945 was far from affluent- there was near starvation and starvation in quite a few parts. As for the Soviet Union's rebuilding Eastern Europe, what industry survived in most of Eastern Europe was looted to the Soviet Union. The main reason for western prosperity was the US babnegation of many loans and the Marshall plan- donation of money and materiel to western European countries. Certainly the USA benefitted from it in the long-term, but at the time the old-fashioned financiers were horrified at "their" money going away for no good purpose.
The Soviet threat is more complex. The Soviet Union had spent years making propaganda about how they would overthrow the evil capitalists. On the other hand they had not actually done anything but murder millions of peasant and working-class Soviet citizens and dedicated communists. Given the disparity in the size of military forces in the 1940s the US could- on what it knew at the time- make a good case for its policy. The other factor was that- whether or not the Soviet Union believed or meant its rhetoric or not- the USA had a very good excuse for pursuing policies that would eventually destroy the USSR economically.
Turning to Irving. As I said, he has been examined and condemned as a reliable historian. Taylor's book has the advantage of all the material Irving did not have without his idees fixes.

One reason for bombing Dresden may have been that the USSR persistently complained that the US and UK weren't fighting the Germans hard enough, so giving them a destroyed city . . .
In fact, it went much further than that!

Earlier in this thread, I asked Brian Foley
Do you have any special reason to doubt that this raid . . . was carried out at the request of the Russians -- as most historians appear to believe?
I receive the reply
What the hell are talking about ? The Russians never called for these aitstrikes where the hell did you get that from ?
The following can be ascertained from files CAB.120/176 and /179 which may be examined at the Public Record Office, Kew, Surrey, England.

At the Yalta Conference, on 5 February 1945, Sir Charles Portal, British Chief of Air Staff, reported that the Russians had again proposed air attacks on a line of targets from Stettin to Berlin to Dresden to Zagreb. Portal sent this memo to the Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) in London:
To enable me to argue against this please send Most Immediate a few good objectives against which we desire to maintain our attacks until they become involved in tactical situation on land. Reply must reach me by 1000C tomorrow 6th February.
DCAS replied giving oil targets, especially in the Vienna area, as the first priority. Berlin and Dresden were rated as second priority. It is reasonable to conclude that Churchill’s desire to meet the Russian demand for bombing raids ultimately decided Dresden’s fate, and that he overruled the strong misgivings of Portal and Harris. How far Churchill was reluctant in this is an open question. Certainly, he seemed to harbour a hatred for the Germans not present among most of the military top brass.

Bit more complicated:
No it is very simple.......... US aid , or lend-lease , that had been given to Britain during the war came with harsh conditions. Britain’s capital assets had often to be sold, sometimes at a loss, and Britain’s export capacity had to be run down, preventing the accumulation of reserves and forcing Britain to take on ever-larger debts with Sterling Area countries. The sterling balances by 1945 were equivalent to 7 times the value of Britain’s gold and dollar reserves in other words the US looted out Britain . Then there was the Marshal plan...............

the US looted out Britain .No. the UK was giuven what it paid for and quite a bit extra and the amount it had to repay was nothing like the cost to the US. The US was then anti-imperialist and believed they were doing the right thing by destroying the British empire.

It is you who are wrong. Gordon Brown in his budget speech every year has to take into account the payments to the US for Lend-Lease that will be finally paid off in 2007. It was not free.

I did not say it was free: I said that the UK got what it paid for and quite a bit extra. In many things I'd agree that the UK traded future wealth for immediate need - antibiotics, jet engine and radar research and other inventions had to be handed over for free use by US industry- but the actual immediate supply of armaments even when they could not be paid for [and the supply to the USSR with no expectation of payment] exceeded the price the British paid. You could argue that this policy saved American lives and aided American industry of course, but that's another matter.
Oddly enough, i came across a passage in Nicholas Monsarratt's The Cruel Sea, published about 1950 by a conservative writer, which echoes what you say. The fact remains that given their productivity US industry workers made a greater per capita contribution to defeat of the Axis than the US armed forces. That isn't true of Soviet or British industries.