Talk:Bombing of Dresden

Section about German Village

In 1943 the UK and US government constructed a site known as "German Village" in Dugway Utah at a US Army base. The US Americans contracted Standard Oil to construct houses that resemble worker-class residential housing, which was used to optimize the incendiary bombs later used on the Bombing of Dresden.

I think this information (that the US and UK government actively invested over half a million dollars in engineering better ways to destroy residential housing) demonstrates an intent to commit war crimes that should be added to this article.

There are several references for this available in the External Links section of the following article:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Village_(Dugway_Proving_Ground)#External_links

Would someone be interested in adding a section about the "German Village" to this article?

Maltfield (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I presume that you are aware of Bombing of Hamburg in World War II#Background where there is, with references, an explanation of why civilian homes were targeted and the research that was carried out on maximising the effect of incendiaries. That research even included interviewing refugee German architects (who had fled the Nazis) to learn the constructional details of the houses in Hamburg and other German cities (that did not make it into the article, though there is mention of this in Walter Gropius).

Whether or not this all amounted to a war crime – for Hamburg or for other German cities is another matter. Any such discussion in the article needs to be well referenced and should carefully comply with WP:BALANCE. Looking at the source for the section linked above might be a start in reaching that balance. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Numbers of people killed

The number of persons killed in the bombing of Dresden in World War II is a frequent topic on this talk page. If you wish to raise this subject again, before doing so please:
(A) Familiarise yourself with previous discussions in the talk page archive;
(B) Take into consideration the findings of the Historical Commission on the Air Raids on Dresden between February 13 and 15, 1945 (Historikerkommission zu den Luftangriffen auf Dresden zwischen dem 13. und 15. Februar 1945) which was set up by the Lord Mayor of Dresden in January 2007 and reported on 17 March 2010. You can find the full report of the commission at [1] (use Google translate if you don't speak German), in which you will find:
"Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse Im Ergebnis der von der Kommission vorgenommenen Untersuchungen wird festgestellt: Bei den Luftangriffen auf Dresden vom 13. bis 15. Februar 1945 wurden bis zu 25.000 Menschen getötet."
This translates (electronically) as "summary of results As a result of the investigations carried out by the Commission, it is found: During the air strikes on Dresden from February 13th to 15th, 1945 up to 25,000 people were killed."
(C) Take into account work written by historians after the date that the commission published its findings. (For instance, Overy, Richard (26 September 2013). The Bombing War: Europe, 1939–1945. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-14-192782-4.);
(D) Remember that, as per WP:NOTFORUM, the talk page is to discuss content of the article and is not for general discussion of the subject.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment that does not comply with this request (particularly talk page archive content)

The 'up to' is of course nonsense. It was merely a very, very conservative estimate. There was also pressure on the historians commission to minimize the number of people killed. The hole affair was intellectually dishonest from the beginning. In other words: This isn't a reliable source for knowledge on the number of people killed in Dresden. The former GDR-government gave far higher figures than that when ask. Apparently based on demographic statistics of the town. I think they counted 200.000 missing, but the city was also full of refugees, whose dead wouldn't be counted as residents. 105.12.2.94 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved.(non-admin closure) Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Bombing of Dresden in World War II → Bombing of Dresden – Unnecessary disambiguation; proposed move target already redirects here. As TheForgottenKing earlier noted, comparable articles like Bombing of Tokyo and Attack on Pearl Harbor lack the qualifier. rblv (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I still think this is the correct move. If there had been another major bombing of Dresden it might be necessary, but from what I can tell no such event exists. For anyone joining the conversation just now, my previous comment 9 months ago was as follows:

I think this article should just be titled Bombing of Dresden". Normally, battles and such are not titled <event> in <war>, but just <event>, especially if there's only one event. Other examples: Bombing of Tokyo, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of Iwo Jima, etc. None of these are titled "<event> in World War II". Just a thought.

TheForgottenKing (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur on this - Dresden hasn't been bombed before or since this event, so the "in World War II" disambiguation is not needed. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments. 296cherry (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. In the end 2010 RM it was stated that there were some other bombings in the 18th century. This is clearly the primary topic though, and an overdue move.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it works that way for descriptive titles. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• The phrase "bombardment of Dresden" is ambiguous. See siege of Dresden (1760) and possibly others. Insofar as "bombing of [city]" tends today to denote aerial bombardment, the proposal is not unreasonable. But it should be clear that this is not precedent for stripping "in World War II" from article titles just because we have no other one at the bare title. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. As there are no other major bombings of Dresden, the "World War II" in the title is unnecessary. DSOFOreverTYU ~ talk ~ Eurovision 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Dresden Holocaust"

This is not an invention (only) by "far right" people in Germany, but is mentioned in the anglophone literature, I don't know how often, soon after the war. This is told by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in the preface of his novel "Black Banners" in 1952. 88.77.80.245 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Provide sources if you may. No serious, impartial scholar would refer to it as a "holocaust" or "genocide" today. --SinoDevonian (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete citations

User:Elrondil, you've added the tag {{Full citations needed}}. Please would you specify exactly which citations you feel are incomplete? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Each citation needs to provide sufficient information for finding and reading the cited material. Hopefully redundant information, so that multiple paths to the cited material are provided. Put yourself in the shoes of someone wanting to verify that what you said in the article is actually supported by the citation that you provided in support, or of someone that wants to read more about it, or expand upon it, or repair the citation should it become broken over time (that is, link rot).

In general, citing of printed matter is good in this article, but citing of online material can definitely be improved. Citations such as "a:\dresden.HTM". www.faem.com. Retrieved 9 March 2021. are just not good enough, although the a:\ in the title made me laugh for so many reasons. Similarly, RA Magazine, Vol 78, Spring 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2005 needs additional information such as name of article and page or page-range. A first-year student would scoff!!!

However, to be more detailed, please consider the following:

1. Online citations (such as web and news, but really anything with a URL) need an access-date. Without this data you cannot rescue the citation reliably and easily using something like Wayback Machine, because I don’t know what version of that online material you accessed. You know it when creating or verifying the citation, so please just add it.
2. When authors and/or editors are stated in the material, cite them. Both for printed and online material. This helps me, the reader, verify I’m looking at the citation and version you looked at, and helps me decide quickly how reliable the cited material is. It’s also good manners.
3. When a date of publication is known, cite it. This helps me the reader verify I’m looking at the version you looked at, and how relevant it still is.
4. A citation to longer material (for example, paginated material longer than about a dozen pages) needs a location within that material, such as page or page range, or chapter name.
5. If cited material is in another language, say so by identifying the language in the citation. And ideally also provide a translation of the title.
6. If cited online material is restricted somehow, say so and say how, so I the reader can decide quickly whether or not to attempt to access it. Do I need to register, or even subscribe to get through some paywall?
7. For online material, don’t just give me, the reader, a URL of the website, but instead give me the name of the website or organisation so that if the URL changes I can still find the material at it’s new location. The name is also usually more concise and devoid of repetitive and uninformative trivia such as www and .com.
8. Citations of especially printed material need to include the year/date, publisher, and location, and ideally edition, ISBN and/or OCLC number, so I, the reader, know which version you the writer used. When you write it there might only be one version, but by the time I read it there may be many.

I would suggest a consistent usage of the citation templates (such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, and ideally {{cite Q}}) would inject the rigour currently lacking in this article, prompt for the missing data, clearly tag data within citations thus easing maintenance in future, and result in a more consistent and presentable formatting not just now but going forward. Additions tend not to be better than what is already there. Elrondil (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy answer. Now that you point out a few examples, I see where the problems are. My own contributions to the article use citation templates, which I find to be the easiest way to get a decent result – though even then it is possible to get things wrong.

I've not done a proper count of the number of inadequate refs (been a long day here outside Wikipedia), but if there are not too many problems, it is usually better to put in-line templates to tag the problems. That way there is little doubt what is wrong. Incidentally, I note that at least one of the bad cites is a dead link. For now, probably best to see if the originating editors spot this and fix the problems. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If there had been just a few, I would have tagged them directly. Alas, here we are. Elrondil (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)