Things left out of the Proposal Part 1 - Intentions

Due to word constraints quite a lot of research and other things have not been included in the Proposal.


Intentions:
Further Research into David Irving:
My dealings into the man himself are quite one-sided, be it for valid reasons. In order to gain an objective view for myself I believe I should ask the most well known Irving supporter, David Irving. I want to ask him his methods for acquiring the information presently in his book.

Alexander Mckee:
 Mckee was a prominent figure in British history in the last century because of his discovery of the Mary Rose. His book of Dresden supports the claims of Dresden the tragedy. However since I have not read it I cannot know his source work and would like to see where his evidence comes from, possibly Irving?

A.C Grayling:
Grayling comes from a philosophical background and as a humanist wrote about the bombing of Dresden in a different manner, he is for all intent and purposes not a historian. His views on Dresden will offer a change because it focuses more so on ethics.

Kurt Vonnegut:
Slaughterhouse Five is to say simply, interesting. Vonnegut is a supremely disturbed individual caused by his experiences both personal and those of the war. I want to focus on the biographical side of his novel, he stops at various points to give his experiences of war and the bombing, the narrative side of time travelling, abducting aliens isn't going to necessarily be the focal point of my studies.

Frederick Taylor:
now considered the foremost expert on the bombings, he overturned the idea of Dresden the innocent victim, establishing the premise that Dresden, like most other German cities during the war, was contributing to the war effort via production. Taylor uses newly uncovered primary sources from East Germany to prove that Dresden was industrially active throughout the war, seemingly reacting to the downfall of Irving and his writings.

Michael Burleigh:
Moral Combat is an overview of World War II and the contentious issues in it, featuring the bombing of Dresden. To say that I have little knowledge on the book is an understatement.

Paul Addison and Jeremy A. Crang:
Firestorm is a great book due to it's multi-perspective view. It contains 10 different perspectives of the bombing, including German. Sonke Neitzal in it is heavily influenced by Frederick Taylor's Dresden, Tuesday February 13 1945, citing the book as his sources in the majority of his end notes. Hew Strachan likens bombing civilians to the naval blockade in WW1, after 9 different views of the bombing it is summed up by Paul Addison in the chapter, Retrospect. A further analyse of the book will give me greater insight into to debate and the more moderate side of the debate.

Why David Irving's book isn't complete rubbish

Before anyone reads past the title I have not been heavily influenced by the man and his views. Irving's book did not become well renowned because of his views and opinions on the war, rather his ability to search through German records at a time when it was almost impossible to do so. Irving's research is flawed because he refused to let his sources do one key aspect of history, speak for themselves. His methodology is not frowned upon because of his research, rather his inability to place his theories second to tangible and proven facts.

To summarise Irving is a good researcher, but not historian.

Proposal Draft

Panic aside this is my proposal draft:

  To study the bombing of Dresden and the Historians that have studied it, especially David Irving.

1. At the present moment I have read, Irving's Apocalypse 1945: The Bombing of Dresden and Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 As well as researched the topic on numerous websites to compliment my knowledge. ¹²

David Irving's Apocalypse 1945: The Bombing of Dresden is the main source of the debate surrounding the bombing of Dresden. Irving's research into the bombing was highly praised due to his analysis of German documents but his interpretation of them were not. He lacks the objectivity needed to write history, especially in his book due to the nature of the subject he is writing about. Irving's work was at one time regarded as a classic second world war history but his political views, content of later books and his now exposed less then credible sources has brought the book into light for what it really is, a historical writing loosely based on fact. His book does give details on reasons for the success of the raid³ and claiming between 50,000 and 250,000 people died during the raids.⁴

Paul Addison and Jeremy A. Crang's Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 offers differing view points of the bombing of Dresden. It intends to “discuss the causes, the conduct and the consequences of the bombing.”⁵ The book offers the views of 10 different historians, who each deliver their assessment of the bombing. Richard Overy argues that Dresden is singled out due to the large proportion of women, children and refugees.⁶ Hew Strachan puts the bombings into a perspective that is equivalent to the naval blockade in WW1 which brought Germany to it's knees, and so was a tool the British used to bring about the same result.

I have researched the topic to a large degree on the internet using a variety of sources. I do not as such plan to rely heavily on them but rather to compliment my knowledge. The reason for this is the unreliability of websites and the authors apparent disregard for historical facts.⁷

The debate of Dresden is not black and white. It is a kaleidoscope of different people examining certain aspects of the bombing. Some Historians go as far as to state that bombing Dresden was a war crime whilst others describe it has a harsh but necessary operation, Hew Strachan defined Strategic bombing thus, “Killing civilians was still a means to an end, not an end in itself. This was not genocide. It was about winning the war, not about racial cleansing.”⁸

2. My first interest into the bombing campaigns of the Second World War began in 2009, whilst reading Kevin Wilson's, Men of Air: The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command⁹, which mentioned the use of area bombing in war and outcry of the Papacy when their cathedrals were unfortunately bombed because of the Axis soldiers inside. My initial research, prompted by my history extension teacher, Mr Wright, was an inquiry into the bombing raids of Tokyo. However, insufficient sources were available to me and the sources I had were limited. I then decided to change the event of my research whilst keeping ethics the core focus of my work and so the bombing of Dresden instead. It was also briefly mentioned in Kevin Wilson's aforementioned book.¹⁰ Even from the beginning the debate concerning the bombing of Dresden was apparent, stretching back as long as Churchill's loss in faith for strategic bombing.¹¹ After several discussions with my teacher this is now the question I intend to put to myself:

Evaluate different perspectives on the Bombing of Dresden?

Subsidiary Questions:

• Why was Dresden selected by Allied air forces to be raided?
• How has David Irving and his book, The Destruction of Dresden (1963), influenced the debate over Dresden?
• Did the outcome of WW1 influence the decision of bombing Dresden?
• How have historians reacted to Irving's book, then and now?
• Are newer histories of Dresden a reaction against the loss of reputation of Irving and his book?

3. I have a lot of reading and research to do before I can begin to write my project. I still need to read two books including Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and A. C Grayling's Among the Dead Cities:The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan. I also want to look at Alexander Mckee's Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox, Mckee was a very influential British historian who discoved Henry VIII's flagship The Mary Rose and I believe his view of Dresden as a tragedy will lend weight to Irving's debate.

The Sources I have have been examined, but not to the degree with which I would confidently be in a position to write in exquisite detail about and David Irving's book is very difficult to analyze with strict objectivity.

4. I intend to make my project an analysis and evaluation of the historical debate surrounding the bombing of Dresden. My research methods will be to study a source, attempt to correlate it with other sources to determine it's reliability, then use the evidence to provide an objective view of of the various histories I'm studying.

1D. Irving, Apocalypse 1945: The Bombing of Dresden, Focal Point, 1999

2P. Addison and JA Crang (ed.), Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden, 1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 16

3D. Irving, op. Cit, p.95-98

4D. Irving, op. Cit, p.255-257

5P .Addison and JA Crang, Preface, op. cit p.IX

6R. Ovary, The Post-War Debate in P Addison and JA Crang (ed.), Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden, 1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 138

7http://www.revisionism.nl/Dresden/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm, date of viewing, 26/1/2012

8H. Strachan, Strategic Bombing and the Question of Civilian Casualties up to 1945 in P Addison and JA Crang (ed.), Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden, 1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 2

9K. Wilson, Men of Air: The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command, Pheonix (imprint of Orion publishing), 2008

10K.Wilson, Men of Air, op. Cit, p. 394

11H. Strachan, op. Cit, p. 16

Help!

Sir I have too much information for my own good! Even though I can only safely mention two books I can't fit it in under 880 words!

Because Mr Wright is Evil

Questions!!
 Ultimately that is what the proposal is about so I have done some thinking (some say lateral), and I have come up with this Main Question:
Evaluate the different perspectives of the Bombing of Dresden?
I want to look at David Irving's book because it is one of the more controversial looks on Dresden.
I intend to look at the works of about 5 authors (A.C Grayling, Kurt Vonnegut, P. Addison and JA Crang, D Irving and someone else.) too much or too little?

plus some subsidiary questions:
Do the rules of war change as the war changes?
How has David Irving and his book, The Destruction of Dresden (1963), influenced the debate over Dresden?
Did the outcome of WW1 influence the decision of bombing Dresden?


I'm also thinking of mentioning the blockade of Germany during WW1, would that be too broad or is it fair game. Keep in mind that this is a work in progress

Proposal

Here is what I have so far (just putting it here so I don't lose it):

My first interest into the bombing campaigns of Second World War began in 2006 whilst reading Kevin Wilson's, Men of Air: The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command. My initial research, prompted by my history extension teacher Mr Wright, was an inquiry into the bombing of Tokyo. However insufficient sources were available to me and the sources that I had obtained were limited. I then decided to change the event of my research whilst keeping ethics the core focus of my work and so the bombing of Dresden instead, recalling that Mr Wright had mentioned it during a lesson. It was also briefly mentioned in Kevin Wilson's aforementioned book.

My research into the subject has exposed a long running argument between those that believe Dresden was a tactically feasible objective and those who think that it was immoral to bomb a city so removed from the front line.

about 20% done!

The Historical Downfall of the Nazi Moon-Base Regime, Undertaken by Lincoln and Elvis on April 28th, 2457

now that attention has been brought.

I feel that in order to study ethics I should also look into the varying casualty numbers of the bombing. They range from not much to a lot. what do you think sir?

All my posts start with an "A"

The proud people of Hamburg did not ask for sympathy or pity. They accepted that there had been some reason for the Allies to try to level the city to the ground. But for Dresden, they said, there had been no excuse at all. - Alexander Mckee

This Mckee kid is one of the historians who argues that the bombing of Dresden was ethically unsound and even goes as far as to suggest it is a war crime (obviously not in this quote).

Personally I don't think bombing Dresden is a war crime. Although it certainly wasn't the most morally uplifting part of the war.

Book Order!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have ordered A.C Grayling's book,

Among The Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan

 and should arrive between Saturday and Christmas :). I can't wait to do notes on this soon to be addition to my ever going bibliography!

After thought

Sir I reckon suggesting that either,

a) Judging history should always be done contextually and with the ideals of the time kept in focus

or

b) Context can be in a sense placed aside in order to assess the event on today's moral fibre.

should  be involved in history of ethics as the ethics suggest an opinion on the validity of one's reasons for choices and hence a judgement.

I think......

Are Ethics History?

This post is not a plea to abandon Our morale codes, rather to discuss whether they belong in historiography.

well...... according to the father of history, Herodotus, history is:
 "... putting on record the astonishing achievements .... and more particularly, how they came into conflict."
So Herodotus believes that history isn't just what happened but how it happened. Ethics is all about context and as history is the most context driven science on the planet it surely the ethics of the time must be taken into context to even begin considering it a part of history. Why must ethics be kept in a contextual sense? Because the inventor of history Leopold von Ranke says:
"To history has been assigned the office of judging the past, ..... To such high offices this work does not aspire: It  wants only to show what actually happened."