Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
27 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An eye-opening account of a great human tragedy,
By Dimitrios (Greece) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Apolocalypse 1945 - The Destruction of Dresden (Hardcover)
The first part of this book (around 60 pages) is about the general stage of the war in the air during World War II, explaining the way that RAF Bomber Command introduced the doctrine of "area bombing". There is a comprehensive description of previous terrible raids like those of Hamburg, Wuppertal and others before Irving moves into the main theme. No aspect of that great raid is left out of his analysis and the text balances finely between the human drama and the operational analysis. I found very interesting Irving's explanations for Lufwtaffe's inaction during the destruction of Dresden, as well as the heroism of common people and the terrific organisational skills of the German state regarding the firefighting methods and the care of the victims.
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Extremely Informative But Somewhat Dry Reading,
This review is from: Apolocalypse 1945 - The Destruction of Dresden (Hardcover)
There are several interesting bits of irony concerning David Irving's "The Destruction of Dresden" (1963). It was written well before the topic became mainstream, thanks largely to Irving's recent libel suit against a woman, who accused him of being a Holocaust denier and introduced the alleged inaccuracies in this book as part of her defense. Since then both Marshall De Bruhl and Frederick Taylor have published their own books on the subject; and ironically it is Irving's account of the February 1945 bombing raids that provides the most objective treatment.
De Bruhl and Taylor mostly seek to justify the bombings and introduce all sorts of irrelevancy that they think might support their position. Back in 1963 Irving showed little of his current pro-3rd Reich and anti-British bias. So "The Destruction of Dresden" is mostly confined to essential points about the raids. The single most important point being that Dresden's anti-aircraft batteries had been withdrawn from the city in 1944. It was a cultural/historical center and still a virgin target (the Allies had never considered it important enough militarily to bomb). And these weapons were needed to provide air defense to their industrial cities and as anti-tank weapons on the Eastern Front. Indeed both the target marking crews and bomber crews were amazed at the unprecedented ease of their bomb runs as they encountered neither flak nor enemy fighters while over the city. The lack of defenses would foster the myth that Dresden had been declared an "open city". Irving makes the case that the raids resulted from the British desire to placate the Russians, who were only 80 miles from the city at the time while also impressing them with the damage inflicting potential of tangling with British and US airpower. Although Dresden did have some ancillary war industry, its only real significance to the German war effort was as a communications center and a marshalling area for the railroads. Most of these activities were on the outskirts of the city, while the raids were concentrated on the City Center, an area full of refugees. Despite the extensive damage and loss of life, the railroads and the industries themselves were relatively undamaged and soon back in operation. And the raids did little to aid the Russians who did not occupy the city until the day Germany actually surrendered. British and US air commanders were soon running for political cover as both Churchill and Hap Arnold were subsequently critical of the concept of the raids (civilian population terror bombing) and the choice of Dresden as a target. As this was Irving's first book it lacks the readability of his subsequent stuff. Definitely dry reading unless you are really into the subject. At the libel trial a lot was made of Irving's deceptive speculation about the casualty totals from the raids. Yet in the 1989 printing (although probably not in the original run) Irving includes a disclaimer about his estimate of 135,000; calling it higher than the generally accepted 35,000 and lower than Goebbel's claim of over 200,000. The accusations of bias at the trial seem to apply more to his recent public statements that to the content of this particular book. While people have latched onto the denial accusation, Irving's actual denial (at least until he began pandering to fringe groups) has been about the degree of Hitler's knowledge of the extermination camps. Although I think this wishful thinking on his part, it hardly amounts to a denial that the Holocaust actually occurred. The other area that fits into the denial framework is Irving's assertion that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp but rather the most brutal of Himmler's slave-labor camps and the one with the highest mortality rate. Again, while this is unlikely it hardly amounts to a denial of the Holocaust. It simply challenges the accepted classification for Auschwitz; contending that it was more like Dachau than like Chelmno or Treblinka. In fact on page 79 of this Dresden book he writes about the city's recent influx of refugees: "An exodus of five million Germans from Eastern Germany had begun, an exodus voluntary as yet, but destined with the end of the war to yield to the most brutally enforced mass expulsion in the history of Europe, though dwarfed by the Nazis' genocidal treatment of the Jews".
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
