The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. It target civilians.

But the goal was to set the city on fire, and most of the victims died of smoke inhalation. Then they laid there while the heat cooked off all the soft tissue and fluids. They were not consume by fire, they were slow baked.

@Whitefire13:

Have you ever read "Slaughterhouse-Five"? It's based on Kurt Vonnegut's experiences as POW in Dresden during and after the bombing. It describes the way people in underground shelters were suffocated and cooked during the firestorm.

Dresden was one of the worst atrocities people ever inflicted on other people. The Tokyo air raid in March 1945 was equally horrible, but I think Dresden was condemned more because the victims were European Christians.

Whitefire …..

Algebe has it right ….

My understanding is that Dresden and to a lesser extent Hamburg were deliberate acts , not random or accidental.... the idea being to build a fire storm.... which becomes so powerful it creates its own system of winds at ground level ,so power full that the fire becomes self sustaining (sucking in fresh fuel from its immediate surroundings) turning the very air into a weapon.

The allies used a constant bomber stream over the targets thus continually adding to the fire until the fire became self sustaining.
A very specific mix of bomb types was required to effect this …..
"The use of incendiaries alone does not generally start uncontrollable fires where the targets are roofed with nonflammable materials such as tiles or slates. The use of a mixture of bombers carrying high explosive bombs, such as the British blockbuster bombs, which blew out windows and roofs and exposed the interior of buildings to the incendiary bombs, is much more effective. Alternatively, a preliminary bombing with conventional bombs can be followed by subsequent attacks by incendiary carrying bombers. "

and a vary specific set of circumstances...….
"based on World War II experience with mass fires resulting from air raids on Germany and Japan, the minimum requirements for a firestorm to develop are considered by some authorities to be the following: (1) at least 8 pounds of combustibles per square foot of fire area (40 kg per square meter), (2) at least half of the structures in the area on fire simultaneously, (3) a wind of less than 8 miles per hour at the time, and (4) a minimum burning area of about half a square mile."

Apparently many casualties were suffocated as the fire consumed the oxygen …( an effect seen also in the use of flame throwers on troops in pill boxes and other fortifications) .

There are accounts of people being caught up by the up draughts and pulled into the flames also horses and some light vehicles.

The controversy around the use of this tactic came about because of the somewhat doubtful military value of Dresden.
Dresden was not a great industrial centre ,it had no docks like Hamburg and only a small railway connection plus at the time of the raid it was crammed with refugees fleeing before the advancing Soviet armies.

According to my father (who was in bomber command during the war although not in Europe ..) the consensus at the time was this raid was intended not primarily to hit the Germans but to leave a marker on the ground for the advancing Russians to see as their armies were advancing and many would pass through this devastation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm#Firebombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing

@cranky47: the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bomb

Yes. Everyone remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but March 1945 in Tokyo is being forgotten as the older generation of Japanese shuffles off. A mostly wooden city was carpet bombed with incendiaries. There wasn't much underground space, so people fled to parks and river banks, but the firestorm generated fire tornadoes that swept over them. Bomber crews near the end of the raid reported an overwhelming smell of burning human flesh.

Public opinion at the time was that the Japanese deserved it for what they did in Nanking. There were also strategic reasons, because the Japanese had distributed a lot of their military production capacity to the suburbs. There's also the justification that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a million deaths. I don't understand people who can make that kind of calculation.

Yet most of the civilians killed had little or no say in the deeds of their government and armed forces. A sizable percentage weren't even born at the time of Nanking.

It's easy to sit in judgment 75 years on. But the real lesson of Nanking, Dresden, Coventry, Tokyo, and Hiroshima is that war only proves might, not morality.

@Algebe

"Public opinion at the time was that the Japanese deserved it for what they did in Nanking."

Yair. The moral bankruptcy of tit for tat comes in really handy during war.

Simply reinforces my view that there is rarely any morality in war once the shooting starts---at the very best it is highly selective, .

The bombing of Dresden was in retaliation for the German bombing of Coventry and Churchill made no bones about it.

It's been often said that in war, truth is the firsts casualty. Part of that response to demonise the enemy . All army chiefs are aware how hard it is to train a man to kill another man. It's a bit easier if the trainee can be convinced the enemy is a monster, sub-human . Another is to brutalise the soldier and train him i to OBEY INSTINCTIVELY. That is why I have always thought "I was only following orders "can be a valid defence, especially for grunts and NCO's.

I was conscripted during the Vietnam war. (but mercifully was not sent there ) During basic and corp training, we were taught a few things relating to the Viet Cong: cunning and evil, less than human . That "'The Australian army DOES NOT TAKE PRISONERS unless specifically ordered". And a platoon sergeant actually said to in training (how could I ever forget?). 'Your first kill is like having two Sunday dinners"

I have often wondered how much PTSD is caused by the guilt from having killed another human being? There is no doubt in my mind that such guilt would have destroyed me.

In WW2 between 15- 25% of soldiers ever fired their weapon. Tactics changed in Vietnam. During a firefight , that figure rose to around 100%.