The Student Room Group

Should we apologize to the Germans for the Dresden bombings?

I never knew so many died in the Dresden bombings and seeing all the pictures it's horrifying to think we did that to them. I've seen pictures of the holocaust too, but all I see is Allied soldiers pushing a few hundred dead Jewish bodies into a ditch, not millions of people. Some say they deserve it. How did they deserve it? they were German civilians, they were no threat in any way just as those murdered by the atomic bombings of Japan. Some say minimum of 100,000 and a maximum of 250,000 Germans were murdered in the Dresden bombings which is similar to the atomic bombings of Japan. I see ethnic German people and British as not being that different when we kill them it's like killing our own.If European people had better unity we should never have killed our brothers.

Scroll to see replies

its all atrocious tbh. some would argue that it was needed for winning the war and it was for the 'greater good' however I would disagree- killing civilians is never acceptable. Also whats the point in saying sorry? what is going to change? and also leads to the next question how far back in history do we have to go and keep apologising? are we going to apologise to the descendants of slaves? what about the crusades?

saying sorry wont achieve anything and is pointless
Reply 2
whilst you're at it, Let's just apologies for all the countries the british empire took over then
Original post by DivideAndRule
I never knew so many died in the Dresden bombings and seeing all the pictures it's horrifying to think we did that to them. I've seen pictures of the holocaust too, but all I see is Allied soldiers pushing a few hundred dead Jewish bodies into a ditch, not millions of people. Some say they deserve it. How did they deserve it? they were German civilians, they were no threat in any way just as those murdered by the atomic bombings of Japan. Some say minimum of 100,000 and a maximum of 250,000 Germans were murdered in the Dresden bombings which is similar to the atomic bombings of Japan. I see ethnic German people and British as not being that different when we kill them it's like killing our own.If European people had better unity we should never have killed our brothers.


Strategic bombing during WWII was only done once countries were in a state of "total war" with each other, which is to say that the military on both sides regarded the enemy country's civilians as combatants, since they were part of an economy geared towards eliminating their side. It is terrible and I regard those bombings as crimes - perhaps unavoidable, but crimes nevertheless.

But let me get one thing straight. It was not "us" that did anything to anybody, any more than it was "us" that fought the battle of Waterloo. More importantly perhaps, the ideas which Britain and its allies were fighting for were noble, while the Germans were fighting for Nazism and the USSR was fighting for Communism (the relationship of military cooperation with the USSR during WWII was another crime in my opinion - helping a country which starved and mass-murdered its own citizens, in order to defeat another country. Perhaps necessary, but a crime nonetheless).

I don't think Germany needs an apology from anybody. Britain and America built what Germany is today; they owe everything to the allies (apart from the USSR of course, who would have destroyed the country).
Original post by Joshale
whilst you're at it, Let's just apologies for all the countries the british empire took over then


By "took over", don't you mean "founded"?

Edit: people seem to have misread what I was trying to say here. I certainly didn't wish to portray Britain as the only contributor to world history or human progress, or apologise for its crimes during the colonial period; far from it. But its contribution has been massive and largely for the better; it pioneered in the modern world the concept of a liberal democracy (along with the USA), and that is essentially what I mean by "founded" rather than "took over".
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by felamaslen
By "took over", don't you mean "founded"?

no took them over, destroyed them and then new ones created from the ashes of the old states
Original post by James222
no took them over, destroyed them and then new ones created from the ashes of the old states


In some cases maybe, but in most cases there wasn't a country to destroy. For example, there was no entity known as Australia previously, or Canada or the United States, and even India consisted of several different civilisations which were in no way unified under any sort of republic or anything (there was the mughal empire of course, but that followed on from many, many different empires over a period lasting many centuries).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ihateusernames
its all atrocious tbh. some would argue that it was needed for winning the war and it was for the 'greater good' however I would disagree- killing civilians is never acceptable. Also whats the point in saying sorry? what is going to change? and also leads to the next question how far back in history do we have to go and keep apologising? are we going to apologise to the descendants of slaves? what about the crusades?

saying sorry wont achieve anything and is pointless


Not only is it atrocious, it's such a joke that they teach us that the justified powers dropped 2 nuclear bombs and Holocausted the whole city of Dresden, the same moral powers that are always at war, killed millions of Iraquis under false pretended, orchestrated 9/11, killed civilians in Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, have staged Coup Etats around the world from Iran to South America and run a lie corporate media to make it all sound good. Its hard to believe.

Dumb down the host populations so that they accept anything.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SpikeyTeeth
Not only is it atrocious, it's such a joke that they teach us that the justified powers dropped 2 nuclear bombs and Holocausted the whole city of Dresden, the same moral powers that are always at war, killed millions of Iraquis under false pretended, orchestrated 9/11, killed civilians in Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, have staged Coup Etats around the world from Iran to South America and run a lie corporate media to make it all sound good. Its hard to believe.

Dumb down the host populations so that they accept anything.


You're the only one that's been dumbed down from the sounds of it.

The nuclear bombs were dropped at the end of the most bloody war in human history, and they are what ended it. They were a crime in my opinion but it is not the equivalent of terrorism. It would be terrorism if they were dropped on Japan in 1940. Same with Dresden; the motives behind it were to destroy the German war effort, not to kill German civilians. Clearly the interests of German civilians were in the hearts of the British and Americans because they helped rebuild the country after the war, and prosecute Nazi officials for crimes against humanity.

The same powers that are always at war with tyrannies, yes. When was the last time the democratic allies went to war with a democratic nation? Don't mention coup d'etats because practically all the coup d'etats I can think of, including the one you mention in Iran and the ones in South America, were done as part of the war effort against the USSR (a very powerful tyranny) (you have to understand that the cold war world was full of uncertainties and so political alliances were worth a lot; such is the nature of a large part of the world being ruled by the brute force of tyranny). So the argument is over whether or not they were necessary for the war effort (as with the carpet bombing of Dresden), not over what the true ideals are of the democratic allies.

The US/Britain/Poland/rest of the coalition did not kill "millions of Iraqis". Thousands were killed, and continue to be killed, by the Islamist movements there. They are the enemy, not the free world.

Oh... you're a truther. That explains it. :rolleyes:
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by felamaslen
In some cases maybe, but in most cases there wasn't a country to destroy. For example, there was no entity known as Australia previously, or Canada or the United States, and even India consisted of several different civilisations which were in no way unified under any sort of republic or anything (there was the mughal empire of course, but that followed on from many, many different empires over a period lasting many centuries).


True, I was thinking more of South Asia and Africa. Even in America many of the colonies were founded by other european powers.

Sure the British Empire is the primary reason India exists as a nation state today, but you can hardly say that makes up for 300 years of colonisation. The average indian would rather have had the 300 years of economic and political development
Original post by James222
True, I was thinking more of South Asia and Africa. Even in America many of the colonies were founded by other european powers.

Sure the British Empire is the primary reason India exists as a nation state today, but you can hardly say that makes up for 300 years of colonisation. The average indian would rather have had the 300 years of economic and political development


No, don't take what I said as some sort of apologia for the crimes committed during the colonial period, I was just saying that "destroying countries" isn't a very adequate or true description of what happened. Although unlike most people I do recognise that there were some good aspects to Western colonialism, as well as bad.
Original post by felamaslen
In some cases maybe, but in most cases there wasn't a country to destroy. For example, there was no entity known as Australia previously, or Canada or the United States, and even India consisted of several different civilisations which were in no way unified under any sort of republic or anything (there was the mughal empire of course, but that followed on from many, many different empires over a period lasting many centuries).


Really? Just because there was no entity recognised by these groups didn't mean they had no leaders. Your attempt at trying to say that the West brought 'civilisation' to these people is frankly barbaric, the West destroyed these people and their cultures for their own personal gain.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Mao Zedanke
Really? Just because there was no entity recognised by these groups didn't mean they had no leaders. Your attempt at trying to say that the West brought 'civilisation' to these people is frankly barbaric, the West destroyed these people and their cultures for their own personal gain.

I never said any such thing, did I?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
I never said any such thing, did I


Original post by felamaslen
By "took over", don't you mean "founded"?


err yes (cmon it's obvious what you meant, silly tribes the West were liberators who gave the stupid people a culture),
(edited 9 years ago)
I just don't get the point of apologising for things that none of us were responsible for. Anyone involved in the process of planning and carrying out those bombings is now dead and whilst we should obviously condemn the bombings, I don't see why an official apology is needed.
Original post by Mao Zedanke
err yes (cmon it's obvious what you meant, silly tribes the West were liberators who the stupid people a culture),


Founding a country is not the same as "bringing civilisation" (although the British did have a lot of good to bring to the subcontinent, as well as oppression). As I already said, civilisations have existed for millenia in the area now known as India. But the country of India was founded during the colonial period. Much like how Germany was founded in 1870, even though civilisations have existed in Europe for millenia too.

Edit to your edit: those are entirely your words, not mine. I do believe the West's ideas regarding how to run civilisation are better than most, but that isn't to the group's credit, it is to the credit of circumstance and certain individuals through history. I do not believe any group is naturally "stupid", but I do believe some cultures are worse than others and should be partially (or wholly) abandoned in favour of better ones.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DivideAndRule
I never knew so many died in the Dresden bombings and seeing all the pictures it's horrifying to think we did that to them. I've seen pictures of the holocaust too, but all I see is Allied soldiers pushing a few hundred dead Jewish bodies into a ditch, not millions of people. Some say they deserve it. How did they deserve it? they were German civilians, they were no threat in any way just as those murdered by the atomic bombings of Japan. Some say minimum of 100,000 and a maximum of 250,000 Germans were murdered in the Dresden bombings which is similar to the atomic bombings of Japan. I see ethnic German people and British as not being that different when we kill them it's like killing our own.If European people had better unity we should never have killed our brothers.


While i agree that that Germany and Britain today are brethren (arguably we should have closer ties than we already do) that is not reason to apologise for the Dresden bombings. If a country is at war then all actions are justified for victory is life and defeat is death. Just as Germany should not apologise for the Blitz, we should not apologise for taking actions required to win.

Original post by Joshale
whilst you're at it, Let's just apologies for all the countries the british empire took over then


Certainly not. The empire may not have been perfect but it is a part of our history and i consider it a great shame that it was allowed to collapse rather than evolve.
Original post by Rakas21
While i agree that that Germany and Britain today are brethren (arguably we should have closer ties than we already do) that is not reason to apologise for the Dresden bombings. If a country is at war then all actions are justified for victory is life and defeat is death. Just as Germany should not apologise for the Blitz, we should not apologise for taking actions required to win.



Certainly not. The empire may not have been perfect but it is a part of our history and i consider it a great shame that it was allowed to collapse rather than evolve.


The empire sucked if you were working class (I assume you would be back then if you're middle classish now), if you were black, if you were a minority of any sort, if you were poor, if you didn't want to work in a factory for 15 hours a day in poor conditions, if you were another country trying to defend itself, if you were another country just minding your own business.

the british empire was the biggest, most pathetic leech the world has ever seen.
Reply 18
Short answer: no.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Mao Zedanke
The empire sucked if you were working class (I assume you would be back then if you're middle classish now), if you were black, if you were a minority of any sort, if you were poor, if you didn't want to work in a factory for 15 hours a day in poor conditions, if you were another country trying to defend itself, if you were another country just minding your own business.

the british empire was the biggest, most pathetic leech the world has ever seen.


The fact that you can see nothing positive about spreading the industrial revolution, democratic systems of governance and law and everything else, just indicates to me that you are no less biased than gung-go racist imperialists. You're on the opposite side, but you're no more rational.

Quick Reply

Latest