Extension Essay Plan: Dresden Debate Project.
1. Intro
Was it a war crime?
2. Was it a One Off Attack?
3.Was it a legitimate target?
Misconceptions of these lead to myths in popular
4.Was Dresden bombed legitimately? culture and history.
5. Why are the casualty figures important?
6. Conclusion
2. - Irving - what did he say? - how did he influence debate?
- McKee - same as above? Why does he stress the pain of the raid?
- Frederick Taylor + others - how do they counter this argument? - the other bombing raids? why are the significant?
- What does this mean for history? - Peter Geyl? biasm with Irving for his ideological views? Experiences of war for McKee? CONTEXT!!! Put the Allies into disreput?
3. - Irving - "The Virgin Target" - descriptive language to emphasize horror of the raid, therefore to evoke sympathy.
- McKee -aim is to show the terrible nature - .why does he do this?
- Frederick Taylor - 127 factories - "Industrial Dresden"
- Hew Strachan - significance of WW1 blockade to Dresden?
- Communication Hub + context of the war? - Yalta, Battle of the Bulge?
4. - Was Dresden bombed legitimately?
- Irving - higher number of incendiaries. - P-51 Mustangs strafed civilians during post raid.
- Taylor + other historians - British records show it was a regular amount compared to other raids - Taylor provides evidence to show the Mustang reports are unsubstantial - problems of memory as history.
5. - Irving claims over 100,000, why does he ? what evidence does he use? ---> is it viable? Why doesn't he accept lower casualty figures?
- McKee - what is his evidence? Assumes 70, 000 people died, not very Rankean - example of Irving's influnce, purpose +aim is flawed.
- Taylor - Bombing campaign judged by guilty foot soldiers. What sources does he have that Irving didn't?
- links to Irving to Neo-Nazism + holocaust + Atomic bombings, why does he try to make the connection - what hint of his methodology do we get?
- Revising casualty figures - corrections of the past histories - Peter Geyl.
6. - make definitive, conclusive answers to the question - did Irving's influence all or at least most of the debate? - what does the debate show about history?
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Frederick Taylor and Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945 as a response to Irving
Taylor's book is a distinguishable response to the claims made by David Irving, Alexander McKee and Kurt Vonnegut. This is quite obvious when one considers that his introduction - or in simpler terms a section for an historians aims - specifically mentions these same figures and scornfully cuts down Vonnegut's "account" of the raids as "a figment of the imagination nonetheless." The judgement of Irving and McKee are saved for the 2nd of the 3 Appendices of his book. The 2nd deals with the 'countless' dead in Dresden and offer his opinion on the casualties he does. McKee is dismissed soundly, describing his casualty guesses so, "McKee simply decided to double the number because he didn't think it sound like enough.", a statement considering that if McKee to stated that twice as many died due to the refugee problem. In this he would have to assume that the numbers of refugee equalled or exceeded the original population (3 quarters of a million). This means that the administration would be on it's knees trying to accommodate this improbable influx of bodies, an unlikely situation considering the lack of evidence suggesting this. Taylor's dealing's with Irving involve two myths propagated by Irving, that of the strafing of civilians after the attack{footnote} and of the casualty estimates of the attack that have, rather erroneously, been put forward by Irving. Taylor readily describes Irving as, "a university dropout", Taylor goes on to comment on those of Irving's calibre saying, "Those - still including Irving - who insist in the face of the documentary evidence that the deaths went into six figures."
F. Taylor, Dresden Tuesday 13 February
1945, Bloomsbury , 2005, pp.
219, 490-95, 504-5, 507
Essay update
David
Irving's book, The Destruction of Dresden,
is the quite easily the most influential piece of literature on what
is now the most controversial topic of the Second World War. Every
piece of historiography in relation to the subject of the Dresden
raids after his book is either a reaction to his book or misguidedly
furthering his claims.
Upon
the release of his infamous book, The Destruction of
Dresden, the historical and
wider community readily gorged themselves on a banquet of facts
guided by an ideology that many had seen its apparent death in 1945.
The evidence Irving presented formed their arguments whilst they
failed to look into Irving's background and see the importance of
delving deeper his sources. Kurt Vonnegut gladly quoted the Air
Marshall Saundby's introduction of the 1963 edition of Irving's book
to draw further comparisons between the dreadful demise of Dresden
and the great air campaign of the Vietnam war.1
Irving's influence is far reaching and spreads into even the Cold War
through Vonnegut's work.
David Irving's
resounding success was unraveled abruptly by himself upon his venture
to sue Penguin Publishing in the Lipstadt trial. This final bombing
of his legitimacy as an historian was as grand as the city he
portrayed in his book. Once the metaphoric dust had settled new
writers, eager to replace the fallen giants place, collected their
sources and a new theory has prevailed. It can be quickly surmised as
'Industrial Dresden' quite easily. Frederick Taylor's book Dresden
Tuesday 13 February 1945 sets out to destroy the myths created by
Irving of the raid in more than contemptuous manner.2
Taylor not only provides clear responses to Irving's work but also
presents figures of the industrial might of Dresden.
Kurt Vonnegut's
novel was quite obviously affected by The Destruction of Dresden
considering that it goes as far as to quite Irving's book.3
Vonnegut was an American survivor of the bombing and his adoption of
Irving's clearly emphasizes the power of history and more importantly
the need for an outside perspective to make judgments on historical
concerns. Vonnegut's experiences as a POW during the bombing of
Dresden, although a valuable insight into the bombing, made him more
likely to accept Irving's findings. This should stress the need for
distance for an historian from the event they are studying. One must
still consider the reception of The Destruction of Dresden at
the time of publishing as overwhelmingly favorably.
Perhaps the
greatest proponent of Irving's success and greatest influences is his
casualty estimations. These led to a wave of anti-British and
anti-RAF sentiment throughout the academic and political world. This
was fueled further by opposition to the Vietnam War and carpet
bombing of Hanoi and the North Vietnam.4
Irving makes this statement in his 1999 edition of his book:
“The
Germans were still making propaganda capital out of the raids on
Dresden, although they were still under-estimating the death troll.
The figure
current in Berlin government circles was over three hundred thousand,
and the Berlin authority responsible for welfare in blitzed cities
was conservatively preparing for a final toll of 120,000
to
half a million; although the numbers bulldozed into mass graves in
Dresden exceeded thirty thousand already, as late as March 1945
a
German official propaganda leaflet dropped on Italy still spoke only
of the ‘ten thousand refugee children’ who had been killed.”5
Here
is a prime example of firstly Irving's ideology overshadowing his
methodology and the lack of sources available in the DDR in the
1960's. The political situation of Central Europe would have been to
condescending of the west – and would be for next four decades –
during Irving's time as a researcher in East Germany. The Cold War
fear of capitalism prompted the East to hide it's vast archival
secrets and in some cases misinform western interlopers, David Irving
on of them. Any chance for Dresden's communist overlords to highlight
the danger of the capitalist west was seized upon. The most
interesting part of this quote is that Irving describes the
propaganda ministry as, “under-estimating the death toll.”, which
would seem to suggest that Nazi propaganda ministry has failed in
it's sole duty: propaganda.
The
surprising and if not scary part of this is this edition was
published after the Lipstadt trial. This book does however represent
a turning point in the debate of Dresden. Past this point no
successful publication has advanced the argument David Irving
presented in 1963. Approaches to Dresden in the past decade have
swung thanks primary to the fail of the USSR. The bounty of evidence
buried in East German archives for well over half a century is
staggering. It is now known that in all at least 127 factories
existed in Dresden.6
These factories produced munitions, weapons and equipment for a punch
drunk Wehrmacht. Manufacturers such as the Zeiss-Ikon AG had
factories producing not just cameras and lenses but also bomb sights
and time-delay fuses for Unter-Reichsmarine.7
In
tune with the current thinking towards Dresden the bomber crews are
finally beginning to get the respect they have deserved for such a
long time. The unveiling of the statue of Sir Arthur Harris,
Commander-in-chief of the RAF, is assuredly the beginning of this.8
Though criticism for the Queen was apparent for dedicating this
statue the overwhelming sense of duty to defend the brave men who
flew over German cities in the war. Anti-British ideas may have
delayed the respect given to these men but they no longer impede a
proud minister in the House of Commons or a politically timid monarch
in the British Isles.
British heavy bomber crews who flew over Germany have waited 72 years
to receive any official medal for they're bravery was due to, in
Kevin Wilson's view, “post-war cynicism crept in to peer
suspiciously round the corner of a hard-wrested peace.”9
However maybe the political influence of Iving's book isn't so bad.
The western world, perhaps through guilt caused by the book, has
contributed significantly to the restoration of Dresden’s
monuments. Irving's ideological goal of restoring German pride may
have succeeded in part. The Dresden monuments instead of representing
British guilt have come to represent symbols of new European Unity.10
1K.
Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5,
Vintage, 2000, pp. 154-155 (originally published 1969, New York)
2F.
Taylor, Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945, Bloomsbury
, 2005, pp. 219, 490-95, 504-5, 507
3Ibid.
4Vonnegut,
Slaughterhouse 5, p.138
5D.
Irving, Apocalypse 1945 The Destruction of Dresden,
Focal Point, 1999, p. 312 (internet edition)
6Taylor,
op. Cit, p.148
7Ibid.,
page 156
9K.
Wilson, Men of Air The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command,,
Phoenix, 2008, p. 398
10N.
Lambourne, the Reconstruction of the City's Historic Monuments in P
Addison and JA Crang (ed.), Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden,
1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 160
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Essay Question
As my project has progressed the style and type of question I have set myself has changed.
My original focus, and scribbled notes will confirm this, was on the moral aspects of the bombing. I was foolish enough to philosophically ask the question of should it have happened, which is not an historians job. Further research led me to discover the many angles of debate over the Dresden saga.This led to my first official question as seen in my original proposal: Evaluate different perspectives on the Bombing of Dresden?
Even further reading has led me to one interesting theory that has as of this date been substantiated by all evidence put before me. The theory is thus, All books written about Dresden, at the very least in the English speaking world, are influenced by The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving. This has led to my current and final question which can be seen in the last post.
My original focus, and scribbled notes will confirm this, was on the moral aspects of the bombing. I was foolish enough to philosophically ask the question of should it have happened, which is not an historians job. Further research led me to discover the many angles of debate over the Dresden saga.This led to my first official question as seen in my original proposal: Evaluate different perspectives on the Bombing of Dresden?
Even further reading has led me to one interesting theory that has as of this date been substantiated by all evidence put before me. The theory is thus, All books written about Dresden, at the very least in the English speaking world, are influenced by The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving. This has led to my current and final question which can be seen in the last post.
Further Developments
This is my project so far, it lacks a full, in depth look into some books if at all. I now commence the glorious 5 day plan.
Assess
the IMPACT of David Irving's book and the reaction of historians and
the community to it.
David
Irving's book, The Destruction of Dresden,
is the quite easily the most influential piece of literature on what
is now the most controversial topic of the Second World War. Every
piece of historiography in relation to the subject of the Dresden
raids after his book is either a reaction to his book or misguidedly
furthering his claims. To say he is not an important figure in the
Dresden debate is a gross understatement of the magnitude of Irving's
relevancy.
Upon
the release of his infamous book, The Destruction of
Dresden, the historical and
wider community readily gorged themselves on a banquet of facts
guided by an ideology that many had seen its apparent death in 1945.
The evidence Irving presented formed their arguments whilst they
failed to look into Irving's background and see the importance of
delving deeper his sources. Kurt Vonnegut gladly quoted the Air
Marshall Saundby's introduction of the 1963 edition of Irving's book
to draw further comparisons between the dreadful demise of Dresden
and the great air campaign of the Vietnam war.1
Irving's influence is far reaching and spreads into even the Cold War
through Vonnegut's work.
Kurt Vonnegut's
novel was quite obviously affected by The Destruction of Dresden
considering that it goes as far as to quite Irvings book.2
Vonnegut was an American survivor of the bombing and his adoption of
Irving's clearly emphasizes the power of history and more importantly
the need for an outside perspective to make judgments on historical
concerns. Vonnegut's experiences as a POW during the bombing of
Dresden, although a valuable insight into the bombing, made him more
likely to accept Irving's findings. This should stress the need for
distance for an historian from the event they are studying. One must
still consider the reception of The Destruction of Dresden at
the time of publishing as overwhelmingly optimistic.
David Irving's
resounding success was unraveled abruptly by himself upon his venture
to sue Penguin Publishing in the Lipstadt trial. This final bombing
of his legitimacy as an historian was as grand as the city he
portrayed in his book. Once the metaphoric dust had settled new
writers, eager to replace the fallen giants place, collected their
sources and a new theory has prevailed. It can be quickly surmised as
'Industrial Dresden' quite easily. Frederick Taylor's book Dresden
Tuesday 13 February 1945 sets out to destroy the myths created by
Irving of the raid in more than contemptuous manner.3
Taylor not only provides clear responses to Irving's work but also
presents figures of the industrial might of Dresden.
Perhaps the
greatest proponent of Irving's success and greatest influences is his
casualty estimations. These led to a wave of anti-British and
anti-RAF sentiment throughout the academic and political world. This
was fueled further by opposition to the Vietnam War and carpet
bombing of Hanoi and the North Vietnam.4
Irving makes this statement in his 1999 edition of his book:
“The
Germans were still making propaganda capital out of the raids on
Dresden, although they were still under-estimating the death troll.
The figure
current in Berlin government circles was over three hundred thousand,
and the Berlin authority responsible for welfare in blitzed cities
was conservatively preparing for a final toll of 120,000
to
half a million; although the numbers bulldozed into mass graves in
Dresden exceeded thirty thousand already, as late as March 1945
a
German official propaganda leaflet dropped on Italy still spoke only
of the ‘ten thousand refugee children’ who had been killed.”5
The
surpising and if not scary part of this is this edition was published
after the Lipstadt trial. This book does however represent a turning
point in the debate of Dresden. Past this point no successful
publication has advanced the argument David Irving presented in 1963.
Approaches to Dresden in the past decade have swung thanks primary to
the fail of the USSR. The bounty of evidence buried in East German
archives for well over half a century is staggering. It is now known
that in all at least 127 factories existed in Dresden.6
These factories produced munitions, weapons and equipment for a punch
drunk Wehrmacht. Manufacturers such as the Zeiss-Ikon AG had
factories producing not just cameras and lenses but also bomb sights
and time-delay fuses for Unter-Reichsmarine.7
In
tune with the current thinking towards Dresden the bomber crews are
finally beginning to get the respect they have deserved for such a
long time. The unveiling of the statue of Sir Arthur Harris,
Commander-in-chief of the RAF, is assuredly the beginning of this.8
Though criticism for the Queen was apparent for dedicating this
statue the overwhelming sense of duty to defend the brave men who
flew over German cities in the war. Anti-British ideas may have
delayed the respect given to these men but they no longer impede a
proud minister in the House of Commons or a politically timid monarch
in the British Isles.
British heavy bomber crews who flew over Germany have waited 72 years
to receive any official medal for they're bravery was due to, in
Kevin Wilson's view, “post-war cynicism crept in to peer
suspiciously round the corner of a hard-wrested peace.”9
However maybe the political influence of Iving's book isn't so bad.
The western world, perhaps through guilt caused by the book, has
contributed significantly to the restoration of Dresden’s
monuments. Irving's ideological goal of restoring German pride may
have succeeded in part. The Dresden monuments instead of representing
British guilt have come to represent symbolsof new European Unity.10
1K.
Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5,
Vintage, 2000, pp. 154-155 (originally published 1969, New York)
2Ibid.
3F.
Taylor, Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945, Bloomsbury
, 2005, pp. 219, 490-95, 504-5, 507
4Vonnegut,
Slaughterhouse 5, p.138
5D.
Irving, Apocalypse 1945 The Destruction of Dresden,
Focal Point, 1999, p. 312 (internet edition)
6Taylor,
op. Cit, p.148
7Ibid.,
page 156
9K.
Wilson, Men of Air The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command,,
Phoenix, 2008, p. 398
10N.
Lambourne, the Reconstruction of the City's Historic Monuments in P
Addison and JA Crang (ed.), Firestorm: The bombing of Dresden,
1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 160
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Essay Beginning?
David
Irving's book, The Destruction of Dresden,
is the quite easily the most influential piece of literature on what
is now the most controversial topic of the Second World War. Every
piece of historiography in relation to the subject of the Dresden
raids after his book is either a reaction to his book or misguidedly
furthering his claims. To say he is not an important figure in the
Dresden debate is either a mistake or wrong.
Upon
the release of his infamous book, The Destruction of
Dresden, the historical and
wider community readily gorged themselves on a banquet of facts
guided by An ideology that many had seen its apparent death in 1945.
This fruit was eaten by many literature-men, letting the evidence
Irving presented form their arguments by failing to look into
Irving's background and saw it as unimportant to delve deeper into
important facts and sources. Kurt Vonnegut gladly quoted the Air
Marshall Saundby's introduction of the 1963 edition of Irving's book
to draw further comparisons between the dreadful demise of Dresden
and the great air campaign of the Vietnam war.1
Irving's influence is far reaching and spreads into even the Cold War
through Vonnegut's work, quite seamless considering both are great
pieces of fiction.
1K.
Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five,
Vintage, 2000, p. 154-155
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Assessment of how all Things Fare.
It has come to my attention that in order to succeed further in my blogging ambitions I must now turn my attention to assessing how I am faring in this endeavour, rather than simply passing judgement on the various sources I have ascertained.
So how am I going?
Well, my usually inflated historic ego aside one would not say swimmingly in a number of manners. Books lie unread or not bought, a tribute to the ineptitude of the Blue Mountains City Council Library System and my lack of Australian finances to fund expeditions I will soon find myself left with only David Irving's 1995 edition of his book, something that I find unavoidable unless I can grab hold of his 1963 edition. I have decided to do another 2 chapters of firestorm, the exact nature of which will have to wait.
The next issue to raise is my mannerisms and indeed my objectivity. One would be blind to not notice my outward contempt for David Irving and is something I am dreading when it comes to writing about his book. So the best that any historian can do is to present as much useful evidence as possible to portray the evidence in the correct light. To reassure anyone who might be reading this I will not be wantonly attacking Irving and his book rather attempting to analyse it and offer his argument in the correct objective light.
So how am I going?
Well, my usually inflated historic ego aside one would not say swimmingly in a number of manners. Books lie unread or not bought, a tribute to the ineptitude of the Blue Mountains City Council Library System and my lack of Australian finances to fund expeditions I will soon find myself left with only David Irving's 1995 edition of his book, something that I find unavoidable unless I can grab hold of his 1963 edition. I have decided to do another 2 chapters of firestorm, the exact nature of which will have to wait.
The next issue to raise is my mannerisms and indeed my objectivity. One would be blind to not notice my outward contempt for David Irving and is something I am dreading when it comes to writing about his book. So the best that any historian can do is to present as much useful evidence as possible to portray the evidence in the correct light. To reassure anyone who might be reading this I will not be wantonly attacking Irving and his book rather attempting to analyse it and offer his argument in the correct objective light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)