Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 8

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page

Request for references

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7#Request for references

It is not only quotes that should be sourced

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7#Request for references

Things missing from the article

Overall, the purpose of the article is apparently to make the point that the bombing of Dresden was certainly a war crime. Other points of view are either buried in long passages or simply deleted out of hand. This makes for an unbalanced article.

It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing - with or without misgivings. And that he only AFTERWARD started to call it bad. (Unless of course he didn't actually approve it at first - in which case this should be documented.)
The section originally entitled "Was it ... a crime?" (later, it became "Controversy") should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. When a question is used to introduce a section, all relevant answers should be given, not merely the SINGLE POV which a particular group of advocates is pushing.

I think I've been pretty patient so far. But I'm considering going to the next step in conflict resolution: creating an RFS. I'd rather discuss the issue here, but I'm not getting much of a response. You're leaving me little choice, Philip. Consider this my last attempt. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed I like you wording but along with the Taylor comment in the opening section I would like to go back to the original wording in the initial paragraph as was agreed in a straw poll 2 months ago. Because exactly what happend before that is happening again the first section is getting bloated with POV. I would like to move both additions into the Controversy section. If you look through the archive you will see that it was throughtly debated at the time Philip Baird Shearer 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. If nothing else, sir, you are indeed prompt! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The straw poll is no longer relevant because the editors who are working on the page are not the same. Philip, please stop trying to control this article. The intro is not bloated with POV. It is straightforward and short, yet it manages to explain why the issue is controversial by using a quote from a British historian, a quote which does not say the bombing was right or wrong, but which simply states why the controversy exists. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

More reversions

For the record, Philip has once again reverted my edits. I have restored them. Sigh. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for your edits. You've improved the structure of the article and the NPOV, and it's more readable now. My edits yesterday to the Controversy section, now Points of View, were reverted again by Philip. I have done my best to restore them without deleting any of your changes. If anything is missing, I apologize and assure you it was not intentional. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not revert you edits (how could I and leave the new sections in place. I have in the previous sections given you detailed reasons why I have put back the text which you removed. A conversation on the talk pages involves people talking to each other and addressing the points raised. Instead of doing me the courtesy of addressing the points I spent a considreable time writing to address the issues you raised, you have just reverted the text wich no explanation which is not the first time you have done that. Please address each point and explain to me why you have deleted all the text again. That you edit or change some of it after a debate is one thing but just to delete it with no more explanation is not reasonable. Uncle Ed made some comments as well which you seem to have ignored completely. Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip, you must apply the same rules to yourself. I have asked you questions which you haven't addressed, yet you still go back and revert my edits. For example, I have asked three times why you keep repeating almost identical wording from two Churchill telegrams. You don't answer, but just keep inserting the second one. I feel it makes Wikipedia look silly, or as though the article has been badly edited and no one has noticed the repetition. You also deleted my attribution for the 300,000 refugee claim, though that provides the reader with more information than you did, and you have not explained why you did that. You also keep on inserting your personal commentary about what the claims of Grass and Simon Jenkins implied, though you have no way of knowing that; you do not quote anyone or attribute the view to anyone; you are not a historian, an international law professor or a logician — but even if you were all of these things, you would still have to attribute that statement to someone because it is an opinion.

Please leave Ed's edits and my edits alone. They are improvements to the text. If you feel that any of them are factually incorrect or badly written, by all means bring that discussion here. Please allow us to work with you, not against you. SlimVirgin 02:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than discuss in general terms, or mutliple examples at the same time, I suggest we concentrate on one example at a time. Regarding the number of refugees:

Here is my version:

Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe, and an unknown number of refugees had fled there to escape the fighting in the east. According to British historian Anthony Beevor, there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city at the time of the raids (Beevor, 2002, p.83 ). (7)

You keep deleting this and restoring your version, which is:

Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe. At the time of the raids the population had been increased by up to 300,000 refugees from the fighting in the east (7 p 83).

Now, tell me: why do you consider your version to be so superior that you're prepared to engage in an edit war, when mine gives more information and says where the 300,000 number comes from? You just give the number (7). This means the reader has to scroll down, find your number 7 even though it's not obvious where it should be found because you have a References section and a separate footnote section, and even if they do this, they still aren't told who Anthony Beever is. My version attributes the figure 300,000 in the text, which makes it easier for the reader, and it also says that Beever is a British historian (i.e. he can probably be trusted). SlimVirgin 02:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I see you haven't addressed this yet. May I suggest that we go through our disagreements one by one, discuss them separately, and resolve them before moving on to the next? If you agree with this, could you address the above first, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Ed, I have tweaked your intro a little; no content change, but I changed the structure slightly by moving the dates and RAF/USAAF higher to the top. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin 07:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

We need help

There's no doubt about it any more. SlimVirgin and Philip Baird Shearer disagree sharply even on such mundane matters as whether one has reverted the other's edits. This is simply unacceptable. We can't discuss a change to the article, if we can't even agree on whether the change did occur.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, cooperative project. The software lets us see WHO made a change and WHAT that change was. I am getting tired of checking the page history to decide whether Slim or Philip is right, every time they disagree over who made (or reverted) a change. In fact, I'm getting downright impatient.

I like to work with people I can trust. And so far, I trust Slim much more than I trust Philip. I'm on the verge of refusing to work any further with Philip, but that's a line a hesitate to cross. People deserve respect, and I don't want to write Philip off like a bad debt.

I call on others to help us sort this out now. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Imbalance of trust

Uncle Ed I am sorry to read that you trust SlimVirgin more that you trust me. You wrote on this talk page under #Things missing from the article:

"It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing" yet when I reinserted that with explanations on this talk page where the information can be sourced SlimVirgin removed it again.
The section [now called] The bombing was a war crime should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. SlimVirgin removed these two sentences:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Every time I re-insert them she deletes them despite the fact that she does not disagree that they are factualy accurate. She says they are original research which is like saying that if someone writes that the river Thames runs through London they have to reference an article otherwise it is original research.

To placate her, and to make it simple for other to follow the dispute, I am going to do as she suggests and insert each item separately and then discuss it with anyone who wants to join in. To help with this process I have placed an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about it, Slim? Do you agree that the, er, "deleted statements" are true? If so, aren't they relevant? (I seem to recall reading almost the same, word for word, in another article in the bombing series.)

See below for my reply. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If it's that historians point of view that the Dresden bombing was a war crime -- even if no one was charged! -- then I think it should go in. But only if (a) the historian (or novelist?) really said it and (b) we make it clear that it's his POV, and/or that HE is using it to make some sort of argument.

The article should do nothing to take sides for or against ANYONE's point of view. That is, we should not (1) restate someone's claim + (2) list AS FACT all the reasons their claim is true. Because this smacks of making their argument for them. It's better to outline their ENTIRE ARGUMENT, and attribute the WHOLE THING to them. Bo Zeau says they were blatantly guilty (or, clearly innocent). He lists the following in support of this view, blah blah blah. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY. We should not state anyone's argument for them. They either said it, or they didn't. It's not for us to add: "And this is what they meant." And that's what Philip is doing. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

War crimes trials for area bombing

The disputed text is shown here in strikeout:

Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, and Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times, have both referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime. [1] [2] This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Now, could we please discuss why this text is or is not relevant to the bombing of Dresden? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

As I have already written in this discussion page above in #Request for references

As only Axis personnel were tried Nuremberg, victors justice and all that, then it is significant that no Axis personnel were tried for bombing enemy territory because Karl Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted warfare despite the US doing the same in the Pacific. At the Nuremberg Trials in accordance with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: "The charter also stated that official position was no valid defence against War crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so requires", so it follows that if any war crime was committed then all those involved were guilty.

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your last talk page edit. The only part I really "get" was changing the heading (a few sections above) to More reversions. It actually improves the flow of the discussion. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay removed for sixth time

I have once again removed Philip's opinion about the implications of what Grass and Jenkins said. They called Dresden a "war crime." I do not know what the implications of that are, as I am not an expert on military law. Even if I were, I would still have to quote someone else if I wanted to discuss the implications. Philip will not do this. He just keeps inserting his own views. I am therefore bringing this section to the Talk page and I am requesting a reference, and I will keep on removing it until a reference is supplied:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Philip might like to note that his opinion piece contradicts itself. Just as there is no legal precedent to indicate whether Dresden constituted a war crime, there is similarly no legal precedent to indicate that calling it such necessarily implies that the pilots, navigators, and bombers be tried. SlimVirgin 21:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note this: if Philip's claim is as obviously correct as saying "the Thames flows through London" (which he argues above), then it will be easy to find an authoritative source for it, which is all I'm asking for. SlimVirgin 22:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like original research to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did Churchill approve or distance himself from the bombing

Ed, you asked my views on the above. My understanding is that Churchill had qualms about area bombing both before and after Dresden, but he did support it, yes, or else it wouldn't have happened, as he was prime minister. What I dispute about Philip's edits is the wording, and the claim that Churchill changed his mind about Dresden in response to public pressure. But I have no problem whatsoever with that claim if a credible published source is cited. That is the position with all my objections here. I don't mind if we say Churchill believed the moon was made of cheese, so long as that belief is relevant to the article and we cite a credible published source. SlimVirgin 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, Philip redirected this page to the archive, made some changes, then deleted the redirect. I'd appreciate knowing why he did that. SlimVirgin 23:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page. Nothing is lost the text and the edit history are in archive 7 (which along with the other archives are listed at the top of this page). It was necessary because this page had grown to 96K, 3 times the recomneded size. Initally I was going to copy back "Request for references" on down but that put the size of the new page over 32K before any new edits were added so I have put in links for those two headings for ease of access Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)