David Irving and the Bombing of Dresden

by S. S.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - fall 2002)

The memory of the Hitler’s Holocaust burns in the mind of all who lived it. The amount of needless deaths is mind-boggling. What is even more mind-boggling is how anyone could deny that the Holocaust or certain elements of it actually occurred. Yet, among us live groups of people who deny that the Holocaust occurred, and they have been growing in number over the past couple decades. One of the prominent member of the “Holocaust” denial movement in the past couple decades has been David Irving. In his book The Destruction of Dresden, Irving reviews the Allied bombing of the German city Dresden. Irving argues that the triple bombing of the city was not necessary by 1945, the last year of the war, and the British and American deliberately bombed civilians to bring down moral. When considering the aspects of total war, as World War Two was, and the innocent Jews that were dying in the concentration camps, Irving’s argument that the bombing were efforts by the British and Americans to seek some sort of a revenge does not hold up.

The importance of the bombing of Dresden does not only involve importance it had to the city, but what importance the bombing had on the overall effects on wining the war in Europe. Also, the importance is very much related to David Irving and his concentration on the negative effects of the bombing of Dresden, forgetting the horrific atrocities committed by the Third Reich all over Europe during World War Two. The bombing of Dresden is a topic that must be researched in response to Holocaust Deniers, who often will use a single isolated event to build an entire, usually ridiculous, theory refuting that certain parts of Hitler’s war actually occurred.

In this report, an effort will be made to analyze Irving’s book and apply its relevance and justification to World War Two overall. Some of the issues that will be covered will be the Jewish deaths in the concentration camps compared to the deaths in Dresden, and Irving’s use of emotional appeal to gain his audiences support. An exploration will be made into how Irving can ignore the fact that innocent Jews were dying in the camps, yet argue that the West is not justified in attacking a city that actually had significance in wining the war. World War Two was total war, a war that was started by the actions of the Nazis and then aggravated further by them, and to defeat the Nazis the Americans and British would have to use extraordinary measures, measures that might not normally be used in conventional war. Irving also talks about Dresden as a heavily populated city in which the British and Americans were sure there would be great loss of civilian life. This report will explore the true reasons the bombings took place in Dresden and the effects it would have on the war.

David Irving’s arguments don’t seem to make sense when compared to what the Nazi did during the war. David Irving’s paradoxical character is every openly discussed in author Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman’s book Denying History. “He aspires to the respect and recognition of the scholarly historical community, while occasionally scorning then for their inability to see in his work the value he perceives there. He accuses academic historians of pomposity and verbosity, but his own comments at times reflect these traits” (48). Pomposity and verbosity are two traits that can be easily found in the book, and one who reviews the work would find it funny that Irving himself would scorn others for showing such traits in their work.

The arguments made by David Irving in The Destruction of Dresden mainly focus around the pointless bombings of the City of Dresden. Early in the book, Irving points out the directive of the British soldiers in relation to an attack on German soil, “I am directed to inform you that a comprehensive review of the enemies present political, economic and military situation discloses that the weakest points in his armour lie in the morale of the civil population and in his inland transportation system” (15-16). The following words are provided by Irving as belonging to Air Vice-Marshall Sir Norman Bottomley, the deputy Chief of the Air Staff to the commander-in-chief of Bomber Command, Marshal Sir Richard Peirse. The above directive was very clear about the areas that require bombing, and would guide the Allied efforts in Germany for the remainder of the war.

Irving then looks at Dresden and the prospects of it being a possible target for an air attack. Dresden is a beautiful city which as long been the beauty of German history. The city‘s transportation system, despite claims by the Americans of its importance to the German war effort, were not according to Irving of any real danger to the Allied forces. As presented by Irving:

There was no mention of Dresden on the target list drawn up on November 6, 1944 by the Combined Strategic Targets Committee (C.S.T.C). The city did figure however as eighth on a list ofeleven cities east of ten degree, which the committee described on November 22 as being suitable for area attack; seven of the eleven citieswere incidentally identified as ‘transportation targets’-but these did not include Dresden.(73)

If the city of Dresden did not event meet the standards of being a transportation target, then why attack the city considering the order passes down by the Vice Air-Marshall earlier that year.

As Irving goes on to explain, the answer is simply to bring down the moral of the German people by showing them “hopelessness of their plight”(99). To accomplish their goal, the American and British fighter planes would bomb several cities in which the influx of refugees from the east was high. This would create great chaos among the people. As one of Eisenhower’s deputies noted, “the secondary priority of the Allied strategic air forced should be the ‘attack of Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden and associated cities where heavy attack will cause great confusion in civilian evacuation from the east and hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts’” (99).It was clear from the attack plans that American had no real concern for German life. The Americans had run a propend campaign for the attacking of Dresden as a transportation center, when in actuality it had not even ranked as an important site.

What further makes the bombing of the city complicated is the attack in itself was conducted. When the Allies forces left the ground for their attacks on Dresden, they were told at what parts of the city to attack. If the purpose of the attack, as told to the public, was to destroy the transportation system, then why was the most heavy bombing done on the most densely populated area of civilian life. Irving accounts Hitler’s reaction to the attacks the morning after, “They flatten the Dresden opera house and wipe out refugees, but Stettin harbor, jam-packed with troop transports, they leave alone!” Even Hitler was astonished by the Allied bombings. To help prove that the American bombings were meant to kill innocent civilian, Irving provides several different maps and diagrams. The pictures, each presenting stages of the attack, show clearly that the targets of the bombs were on civilian buildings. Numerous bodies lie dead on the ground as rescue workers hopelessly watched. The diagrams help to orient the reader to the severity in which the city was attacked, highlighting the key areas of the city which were targeted.

So vicious were the attacks by the Allied forces, that German official Hanns Viogt described at as follows, “Never would I have thought that death could come to people in so many different ways. Never had I expected to see people buried in that state: burnt, cremated, torn, and crushed to death. Sometimes the victims looked like ordinary people apparently peacefully sleeping; the faces of others were racked with pain, the bodies stripped almost naked by the tornado” (212). As descriptions such as these came from the bombed cite, the American and British public were getting the reports of great success in the bombing campaign. The American news reported how the transportation system had been greatly crippled and the road to victory was near.

Another boggling question presented by Irving was the timing of the attacks. He writes of how by 1945 victory was almost certain for the Allies. Then why attack a city that has little or no real relevance to wining the war? Possible answers could revenge on the German civilians for earlier bombings of cities like London. The campaign on London had caused lot of British death, and when the opportunity came, the British took it to take revenge. The people of Dresden had not even expected an attack by the Allied considering its irrelevance to the German war effort. They had taken no real precautions as other cities had. Irving goes on to show talk about how British soldiers help captive in Dresden were quit content with their conditions considering what they could face. He also talks about how meticulous the Germans in Dresden were about each life, and how they even counted their life stock cause they found it important as human lives.

As Shermer and Grobman write in their book, David Irving has been known to show sympathy for Hitler and the Nazi cause. This sentiment is ever present in The Destruction of Dresden. The bombing of Dresden has to be viewed in terms of relevance to other aspects of the war to be understood. The first issue that must be tackled is how the war began. In 1939, when German invaded Poland, it had ignited the flames of war by breaking an international treaty, not the Americans or the British. It was the Germans who had aggressively invaded other countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and trying to implement their dominance as a superior race there. All actions taken by the Allied force after that were in response to a war which was started by the Germans, and would have to be ended by Allies.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue that must dealt with in Irving’s argument is the loss of innocent lives. The perplexity seems to arise out of Irving’s confusion itself. “ In a 1994 interview he [Irving] estimated that 600,000 Jews were killed in World War II, but on a July 27, 1995, Australian radio show, Irving admitted that perhaps as many as four million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis…” (Shermer and Grobman 50). Irving goes on the justify his colossal range in numbers by comparing himself to a scientist who has to “give you a range of numbers” (50). The point of the statements, whatever the numbers, is that Irving admits that there were a great number of innocent Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazis in World War II. If Irving realizes that the Jews were being killed for no real plausible reason, then how can he make an argument in which he condemns the British and Americans for attacking a city in which there was some real reason for the death to lives.

The Jews were not of any real danger to the Germans. As many sources will prove, many Jews were actually willing to cooperate with the Nazis in return for their and their families lives. Then why kill them is the question. Could a group of people who had lived in seclusion and oppression for thousands of years actually brought down the whole world. It seems highly unrealistic and almost fanatical and ideological. Yet, when reviewing the bombings of cities like Dresden, one can find real purpose. As discussed earlier, the attacks on Dresden did have a dual purpose. The first, which was the crippling of the transportation system was of real importance.

The war had raged on for several years. The allies had to make sure that they had covered an possible problems for the Allied victory. The transportation system of Dresden, which presented a threat despite its size, had to be destroyed. The resilience of the Germans was impressive, so the Allies had to take every measure to be safe. The second purpose, an attack on the German moral, was of the most essential to win the war. Hitler had build an army of followers who were brainwashed and had to up most beileif that they were superior race and no one could ever defeat them. This belief had become imprinted on the minds of most Germans. How do you fight an enemy that believes it cant be defeated. Their moral has to be attacked. In the Germans’ case an attack on moral would involve the bombing of the cities, causing great pandemonium and bringing fear to the hearts of the people. The purpose was to break the spirit of the people so that a military attack could be made easier.

Another consideration that has to be made is that Second World War was total war. This meant that all means and methods that could possibly help to bring victory would have to be exercised or at least considered. Irving seems to forget that the war began by the aggressions of the Germans. It was the Germans who broke international code, invade Poland, and had caused the world to plunge into war. The actions that were taken by the Allied forces were purely for the sake of defense of their own country, and the lives of the innocent people that were being attacked by the tyrannical Nazis. Irving seem to make a point to focus on the isolated bombing of Dresden, pointing out in great detail the loss of life that took place. One major factor that he seems to overlook is the reason that the attack had to take place. As mentioned, the Germans initiated the war. The began by mercilessly attacking the Polish people as the peacefully slept at night with their families. In the morning, they had lost their land, their families, and above all their dignity. These deaths and destructions were not necessary. The Polish people had done nothing to the Germans. They were a peaceful people who one day found themselves in the middle of a horrific war.

Thus, when comparing such attacks by the Germans to attacks like the one on Dresden proves that the Germans were actually provoking such an attack. By plunging the entire world into war, the country must have been prepared for some sort of disasters. Yet, as Irving presents it, the people of Dresden were actually taken by almost surprise. Irving argues that the people of Dresden were not even fully prepared for any type of attack for they saw not reason to attack their city. Well, considering the stage that the war was in, and the fact that there was a substantial transportation system in the city, including an industrial part, there was bound to be an attack on the city. Why so late in the war? The Germans had a throughout the war shown an ability to move forward despite great loss. The Allies had come so far in the war, that by 1945 they were not going to rest the possibility of an final major attack by the Germans simply because they were bound to win.

The world was tired of war. Many soldiers and civilians had lost their lives in the war. No possibility for a German attack could be left, for the war needed to end. These attacks were also to bring the moral of Germans, their strongest ally in the war, to pieces. Irving also argues that bombings on Dresden were revenge for the bombings on London conducted early in the war. Yet, if the British and the Americans were knew they were going to win the war, and they were going to occupy German after the war had ended, then why would they destroy buildings they would have to spend their own money on rebuilding. It doesn’t seem to make complete sense.

Perhaps one of the most difficult arguments made by Irving to believe is about the German care for all life. Hitler had gripped the mines of most of Germany and made them fell that they were the superior race, one that was better than any other group of people alive. This mentality was one of the reasons that they German soldiers were able to justify their presence in the war. Yet, Irving argues that the prisoners that were being held in Dresden were actually quit happy with their situations considering what it could be like. It is hard to believe that the Germans would actually show compassion for the people who were not only killing their German brothers, but were members of the inferior race. Look at the situation of Jews again. They were being treated worse than most people would even consider treating their animals. The Jews were crammed into barracks, worked to the point of death, and fed only enough to stay alive, and that was if they could still work. Yet, Irving would have us believe that the British soldiers who were in Dresden were allowed to freely roam the streets and were having a good time at their stay. Again, when viewing the situation in relevance to the concentration camps, Irving’s argument seems hardly plausible.

Irving goes on to even mention that the Germans in Dresden had such a strong care for all life, that they kept written records of all their life stock, so if that something were to happen to them, they would know which animal is missing. The reader will probably find no greatly sympathizer for the Nazis than David Irving. How bias are his views. He seems to completely ignore the fact that Germans actually had anything to do with the war. From someone who did not know about World War II history, apon reading this book would think that it was actually the allied forces that initiated the war, and were out to destroy the loving German people. The arguments made by Irving don’t seem to have consideration of mentioning opposing viewpoints. The arguments are seem to come out of the mind of Irving. The most ironic part of that is that Irving has no real training in history. “Irving has no professional training in history, and although he disclaims any official affiliation with the IHR, he often speaks at IHR conventions and lectures to denier groups around the world-actively at least suggesting that he is an apologist for the Holocaust deniers, if not for Hitler and the Nazis” (Shermer and Grobman 49).

The Holocaust is complex issue in which over the past several decades many different interpretations have what actually occurred have been produced. Historians will disagree on certain interpretations, and that process of research and reporting are productive ways in which history can be preserved. Recently, a movement had emerged in which a group of people, some historians some not, have alleged that certain parts of history are did not actually occur or are greatly exasperated. Called “Holocaust Deniers,” this group usually refutes that the Holocaust, or certain elements of it, as not occurring. David Irving, in his book The Destruction of Dresden, does not actually deny that a certain event took place during World War II, but rather glorifies it by distorting the facts.

The investigation conducted to refute the arguments by Irving was not very difficult. Upon reading the The Destruction of Dresden, any person who has a general knowledge of World War II will find flaws in the argument. I think that the greatest knowledge that can be gained from my investigation is that there are those who will see the same thing you did, but will have a completely different interpretation than you. Some interpretations will be completely bogus, while other will reflect your own personal feelings on the event and its effects. When applying this philosophy to the Holocaust, one has to remember that there will always be those who will have a difficultly believing of admitting that man race is possible of committing such atrocities against other human beings. This causes them to deny that what history and so much evidence and investigation has proven to be true, as not being actually true. Yet, unfortunately it is not only the disbelief of the deniers that drives them make such observed claims as they do. In the case of Irving, it seems to be a matter of income.

David Irving has no real profession other than revising the Holocaust. It is the way that he makes his living. “To our minds, one defining factor in Irving’s on-again/off-again flirtation with denial is that he earns his living by lecturing and selling books (a difficult challenge for any author). Seemingly, the more he revises the Holocaust, the more books he sells and the more lecture invitations he receives from deniers and right-wing groups” (Shermer and Grobman 53). For a man who relies on his denial of the Holocaust as a mean of living, the need to constantly find new ways to “revive” history is very important. Yet, in his own words, Irving describes himself as, “I have no politics, and I am certainly not an extremist. I am not Fascist. I belonged to no other political group or organization than the Young Conservatives, briefly, at Imperial College. My views are independent and sometimes unorthodox, but never anti-democratic. I am not anti-Semitic (my publishers, Weidenfeld; my solicitors, Rubinstein; my garage-landlord, Littlestone; my sub-tenants, Woolfson; and my many others associated with me are Jews)” (Irving).

Some other issues that need to be addressed when studying Irving is if he claims to be anti-Semitic, then how can he deny that the Holocaust occurred. The evidence is so clear. There are uncountable eye witnesses and actually survivors, willing to tell their tragic story. Yet, because he finds some manipulative way to turn facts to prove what he wants so he can make a living, seem to show the true feelings of David Irving. I find it impossible to believe that Irving is not an anti-Semitic if he will let the true history of the poor people who survived the Holocaust to be ripped from the heats and memories. Just because you are surrounded by Jews does not mean that you are not an anti-Semitic.

In this research paper, we have come tackled some very important issues. Irving seems to present a good argument against the bombing of Dresden, yet when critically analyzed, one can find many loops and flaws. World War II was a war initiated by Hitler and the third Reich. There is not refuting that fact. German soldiers, uninvited, entered city after city, killing person after person, in order show the superiority of the German people. The Americans and British, the only forces strong enough to defend the European countries, were undeniably dragged into the war to defend man kind and the existence of good. How can a group of people who had initiated war not expect to be hit back with the strongest of force. David Irving seems to forget the fact that it was total war. There were no rules for say. What ever need to be done to save the world from Hitler’s tyranny had to be done. No possible road for Germans to use for victory could be left standing. That is how Dresden became the target of a bombing campaign.

The Allied forces saw Dresden as an essential part of Germany’s war efforts. The transportation systems in Dresden were sending supplies and other equipment to German soldiers in order to fight the war. This posed a threat to the war effort, thus an attack had to be made to stop the transpiration. The bombings would also help to destroy Germany’s greatest ally, their moral. Jews were dying ever second that the Americans wasted on bringing an end to the war. If the German population was not going to do anything about the Jews extermination, then the Allied forces had to act, and that meant that the moral of the Germans had to shattered. Shattering the moral meant bombing important cities where the effects of German civilian mind would be the greatest.

I have learned through my research that the historian has a very crucial task in our society. The historian is responsible for not only preserving our history of politics, culture, and race, but also research that history to enhance its understanding. Research and interpretation are of great importance to a historian. Historians seem to assume the role of an educator of the past who reminds us of the mistakes we have made and the great achievements we have made also. I believe in recent years the most difficult job of a historian has been dealing with Holocaust Denial. The members of such denier organizations as the IHR seem to undermind what historical research is all about. They distort the facts and many times don’t present the whole truth. They are a thorn that exist among the historical community. Yet, they do force the historian to keep on his toes, and boost his desire to present the real truth to the people.

I hope that my reader will take from this paper a more complete understanding of why the bombing of Dresden occurred. Irving would make the reader believe it was out of pure malice and revenge, traits that would actually seem more fitting of the Nazis. I hope that the reader will understand that World War II was completely different from any other war. Victory could mean the end to earth as we knew it. Hitler’s victory would have ensured the reign of tyranny. The reader should be able to understand that all the bombings conducted by the Allies during the war served a purpose, the ultimate victory of good.

Works Cited

Irving, David. Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden. London: Focal Point, 1995

Irving, David. “Information for Counsel on My Background.” 22 January 1970.

Grobman, Alex and Shermer, Michael. Denying History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.