From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Dresden was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

See archive1 for: Mention of Slaughterhouse Five Needed - Neo-Nazis - Richer and Deeper - Devastators? - Article wording and language improved! - Numbers regarding dead people and destroyed houses, flats. - News - Poor Caption - Photos

Polish name[edit]

In accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources and the Talk:Gdansk/Vote I hereby provide the rationale behind adding the Polish name to the header:

  1. [1]
  2. Dresden used to be the Polish capital, most notably during the reign of Augustus II of Poland, who financed much of the baroque reconstruction of the city with the Polis treasury. Also, the city was taken by Polish and Soviet troops in 1945. Halibutt 17:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. First of all, using the English-language Google only produces 3500 hits, many of which appear to be mirrors of a hotel service. Secondly, Augustus II was the Elector of Saxony who was then elected King of Poland–he's not Polish, and neither was Dresden. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(added after edit conflict)
Regarding the second point: during the reign of Augustus II of Poland, there was a personal union between Saxony and Poland, as Augustus was also elector of Saxony. This perhaps meant that Poland was reigned from Dresden, but that does not make Dresden the capital of Poland, just as the capital of Canada is not London because the Queen of Canada lives there.
About the Polish troops in Dresden: do you really want every mention of Gdansk, Warsaw, or any other Polish city to be followed by the Russian name of the city as well? Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Poland, it was ruled directly from Dresden... Augustus first wanted to enhance his power by seizing the port of Riga. The Saxonian forces were repelled and the Swedish retaliation was against Poland. Then, after the War of Polish Succession, king Augustus III of Poland was ruling from Dresden exclusively. During roughly 30 years of his rule he came to Warsaw three times. His governor in Poland, Heinrich Bruechl, was mostly occupied with earning more money for the baroque palaces and paintings in Dresden, which resulted in a complete decline of the Polish capital. Even minting of the Polish coin was moved to Dresden, which proved to be vital in breaking the Polish economy. After the city was seized by Prussia during the Seven Years War, the Prussians started to produce huge ammounts of Polish currency, which led to hiperinflation in Poland, even if Poland was not directly a part of the conflict. Halibutt 18:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "his governor in Poland"? If Dresden was Polish, surely August wouldn't have needed a governor there?
But thanks for the history lesson; what you are saying is that the Swedish name should also be given at each reference to a Polish city? (And let's not forget Napoleon...) Eugene van der Pijll 18:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dresden was never part of Poland, any more than London was part of Scotland from 1603 to 1707. Saxony was in personal union with Poland from 1697 to 1763, just as England was in personal union with Scotland. James VI after 1603, and Charles I and II, and James VII, and William and Mary, and Anne, all ruled Scotland from London. There were some governmental institutions in Edinburgh, including the Scottish parliament (the Sejm didn't meet in Dresden, did it?), but the most important business was conducted in London. I've never yet heard anybody say London was the capital of Scotland in this period. The same deal with Dresden, which was and is part of Saxony, which has never been considered to be part of Poland. john k 18:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dresden was not part of Poland - and it doesn't have to be. The talk:Gdansk vote mentions a shared history, not shared borders.
Unfortunately for Poland, it was ruled directly from Dresden... Augustus first wanted to enhance his power by seizing the port of Riga. The Saxonian forces were repelled and the Swedish retaliation was against Poland. Then, after the War of Polish Succession, king Augustus III of Poland was ruling from Dresden exclusively. During roughly 30 years of his rule he came to Warsaw three times. His governor in Poland, Heinrich Bruechl, was mostly occupied with earning more money for the baroque palaces and paintings in Dresden, which resulted in a complete decline of the Polish capital. Even minting of the Polish coin was moved to Dresden, which proved to be vital in breaking the Polish economy. After the city was seized by Prussia during the Seven Years War, the Prussians started to produce huge ammounts of Polish currency, which led to hiperinflation in Poland, even if Poland was not directly a part of the conflict.
Which, hopefully, ends this dispute. Halibutt 07:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you want to interpret "shared history" to mean that, I suppose we can't stop you, but considering that it is very clear to everybody else here that this is a tortured interpretation, perhaps you would stop it. The cities specifically mentioned as having a "shared history" are cities which were part of both Germany and Poland - Poznan, Szczecin, Gdansk, Wroclaw, and so forth. Not only were these cities very clearly at different times parts of both Germany and Poland, but they were parts of Germany as recently as 1918 or 1945. I don't think anybody (certainly I do not) particularly supports doing the same for cities which were part of Prussia from 1793 or 1795 to 1807, and never again. Dresden is clearly in a completely different class from these various cities. Poznan was always a Polish city, obviously, but it was actually part of the German Empire. Poznan sent representatives to the Reichstag between 1871 and 1918. It was an ethnically Polish city in Germany. Dresden, on the other hand was, as noted, never part of Poland, and it was never an ethnically-Polish city. The comparison is false, and you are simply continuing to make it to prove a point. Yeah, it's terribly unfair that Berlin and Hamburg were never part of Poland so that you can make reciprocity arguments. But the facts of Central European history mean that this is going to be an uneven exchange - many Polish cities are also known by German names, no German cities are known by Polish names. Again, I'm happy to work on changing the rules to make issues more clear, but what you are doing is still deeply silly. john k 16:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me add (perhaps repeating myself a bit), that your definition of a "shared history" is completely unworkable. Every city in the world can be found to have some "shared history" with a country of which it is not a part. Paris surely had a larger Polish expatriot population than any German city. Poland was ruled from Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg after 1795. There is a large Polish-American population in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and so forth. To interpret "shared history" in such a manner as to include all these is to make it absurd. Clearly, the intended meaning of shared history when we were doing the voting was not what you are making it out to be. It is fairly easy to figure out what places are effected by this ruling - just overlay the 1914 Germany map onto the modern Polish map, and include the places where they overlap. I don't think any other idea was envisioned, and I, for one, wouldn't support giving the German names for Galician cities, even, except in cases where the German names were once in common use in English, as with Lviv/Lemberg. But I certainly wouldn't support including "Lemberg" in parentheses next to every reference to Lviv, because these areas were never considered to be "German," even though they were ruled from Vienna, a "German" city (at least before 1866). Anyway, don't you think it suggests something that you are being repeatedly reverted by different people on this? john k 16:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the example of Bialystok clearly shows, the prevalent interpretation is the same I am using. As I mentioned on your talk page, as a sign of good will I'm going to stop adding the Polish name to articles on German cities other than the ones mentioning Dresden and the cities in the Ruhr Valley.
However, the case of Dresden very clearly falls under the current cross-naming rule, which doesn't mention shared borders or same state but shared history. Both Saxony and Dresden in particular shared the Polish history for roughly a century, that is approximately as long as the majority of pages affected by the rules. If we add the German name to the Polish city of Poznan, which shared the German history for roughly 50 years, then why not add the Polish name here? Especially that it falls perfectly under the shared history criterion. Also, the rules do not mention the ethnicity of the inhabitants or actual ownership of the land. Germany never owned Bialystok or Lemberg (except for WWII period, but this occupation was similar to the Polish and Soviet WWII occupation of Dresden, at least as far as international law is concerned), yet the German name is added there in accordance with the Talk:Gdansk vote. I do not contest that, but I request equal treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.
Also, you're still assuming that I'm trying to prove some point or that the true reason behind my recent actions is my alleged nationalism, which is not the case. I don't have to prove any point since it has already been proven by the community consensus. We might like it or not, but the results of the voting are what they are. Also, it is notable that so many people engaged in a revert war, yet none of them posted any counter-arguments, neither here nor in the edit history. Don't you think it suggests something, John? Also, I don't give a darn whether Berlin was part of Poland or not and I do not think reciprocity is needed, especially that it would be both against common sense and the voting results. I know history is unfair, but this has nothing to do with this dispute. Also, as far as I'm concerned, I would not oppose to adding German names to cities in Galicia, as long as Polish and Latin names are added as well (these were the three official languages there).
Anyway, I tried to reach some other interpretation on the talk pages of both the voting and the template, but to no effect. As long as the current rule is in place, I will continue to use it. That's exactly what it was for, after all and that's exactly what the community wanted. If you have other interpretation of the voting results - you might want to use the respective talk page to convince all the others.
As long as the pages on Amber, Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, Bialystok, Law and Justice, Szczecin-osiedle Sloneczne or Lechia Gdansk need the German name, the articles on Phidias, Vladimir Putin or Friedrich Schiller require the Polish name of the city that used to be the Polish capital. As simple as that. Or perhaps you have some other, more constructive proposal both me and the other side (you, User:Chris 73, User:Boothy443, User:Juntung, User:Curps and others) could accept? Halibutt 17:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at Bialystok? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't include the German name anymore. I removed it three weeks ago, and nobody has put it back. As to counter-arguments, there are already plenty on this page. Presumably, all these people agree with the arguments put forward by Mackensen, Eugene, and me, rather than those you have put forward. At any rate, as to "shared history" - as I said before, you are abusing the meaning of the phrase to make a point. "Dresden" is never known in English by its Polish name, and it was never part of Poland. Poznan clearly "shared German history" by your definition for more than a century - the Prussian-ruled Grand Duchy is very much more a German entity than Saxony ever was a Polish one. Furthermore, there's the basic fact of usage - one is likely to come across English references that call Poznan "Posen," one will never come across ones that call Dresden "Drezno." I notice that you always shy away completely and utterly from any arguments that have to do with actual English usage, rather than abstract principles. Let's enumerate, then, differences between Poznan/Posen and Dresden/Drezno:

  1. Posen - used in English; Drezno - never used in English
  2. Poznan - was part of Prussia/Germany from 1863 to 1918, and before that in personal union with the German state of Prussia, and ruled from Berlin; Dresden - was never part of Poland, was for a while in personal union with Poland in a state ruled from Dresden
  3. Poznan - the province, at least, and possibly the city (I'm not too clear on this) had at least a decent-sized German minority during the nineteenth century; Dresden - neither Dresden nor Saxony has ever had any kind of substantial Polish population

The basic fact is that these two instances are only superficially comparable. And your idea for Dresden provides the example that we must provide the Spanish names for Brussels and Naples - and not only that, but the French, Flemish, and Italian names for Madrid. We would have to give the Greek name for Venice (after all, Venice ruled over many Greek lands for some time), and the Greek, Maltese, Spanish, Hindi, Chinese, and Swahili names for London (Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, India, Hong Kong, and Tanzania having been British colonies); we would have to provide the Arabic name for Paris (after all, Algeria was actually part of France); and so on and so forth. It is an absurd interpretation. BTW, I assume your argument would also suggest that we should give the German name for every city in the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, since all those cities were ruled from the German city of Dresden? john k 17:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second all that john has said. Why are you doing this Halibutt you have always seemed such a resonable person to me before this. Philip Baird Shearer 19:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin 06:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) As I understand it, Halibutt is enforcing this rule: For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises. [2] Halibutt, you asked whether anyone had anything to prove that Dresden does not fall into the category mentioned in this rule. The comments above all make perfect sense to me, but clearly they don't address this rule directly. In fact, however, I believe that it is Halibutt who still has to provide proof that Dresden does fall into this category:

  • To use the vague language of the rule, Dresden does "share a history" with Poland (in the same way that Londres shares a history with France for example), so according to the logic of the rule Halibutt is perfectly right there.
  • Halibutt has provided a list of links on Google to English language sources using "Drezno". Here is a modified version. However, the links mostly appear to lead to this site, which does not primarily use "Drezno", but uses it only once in this list: "Dresden, Dresden, Dresden, Dresde, Dresda, Dresden, Drezno" (at the bottom of the page). Halibutt, please provide not a list of Google links, but an actual English-language source written by native speakers of English, using "Drezno" consistently. I did look but have not been able to find one: [3]. Saintswithin 06:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At last someone is trying to counter my arguments and not my alleged behaviour or attitude or nationalism or any other bizarre idea. Thanks, Saintswithin.
  1. Dresden indeed shares history with Poland, which clearly makes the Vote:Gdansk rule applicable here. I've been told that the rules of that voting are about to change, but so far I have a full right to request the Polish name to be added here - and I will continue to add it until the rule is changed or until someone points me to a Wiki rule that would ban it.
  2. As to the links: if Google is not enough, then I can provide a number of other links. Tell me if that's enough (according to the Talk:Gdansk there has to be at least one link, so I guess the following would make it more than apparent. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]...
Halibutt 02:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Halibutt, unfortunately all those links are to things written by Polish people with differing levels of English, except possibly the last one where an anonymous writer comments "Does it mean Germany is ready to return all Slavonic lands it grabbed including Drezno (Dresden), Lipsk (Leipzig), Branebur (Brandenburg) and others ???". If you are serious about this I suppose you'll agree that "an English language reference" does not mean one written by a learner of English. Saintswithin 07:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Saintswithin. As to English language, it stays the same whether you speak it as your native language or a foreign one. Of course various people can speak better English than the others, but the actual usage of various terms in the language is not decided by native speakers only, but simply by those who use it, regardless of their background. So, in other words, an English source remains an English source, even if written by an American who can barely speak it or by Japanese scientist who speaks it fluently.
As to the sources I mentioned, the first one (number 4) was written by a Brit, born and raised in London (see [11]). The second one (number 5) was written by an American person of Polish extraction, which also makes me think that the guy should have at least elementary knowledge of the English language. The third one was apparently written by a Czech person (though he could be a Pole as well), the fourth link (though I admit it's not exactly a full source nor a long text) is an account description of someone apparently living in Germany. Next goes a testimony by a holocaust survivor. If you wish I can contact the webmaster of that page ( and ask whether the testimony was written in English or is it a translation from some other language. The next link (number 6), the description of one of German artists of Polish descent) was apparently written by the webmaster of the page, which is run from Frankfurt am Main, Germany (see the contact link on that page). Finally, the last one might indeed be a comment by a Pole, I can't say for sure. Halibutt 10:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Huh, looks like you got me :-S - I thought the first one must be Polish as he had a Polish name. The first two do have OK English, but obviously neither of them have ever taken a course in translating! The first one also fails to anglicise "Wladyslaw" (should be Vladislav); the second one is a translation of a Polish text and capitalises nouns in a creative way. I wonder if they actually know that Drezno is Dresden? Neither is a reliable source, but they both just about fit into the vague language of the rule you're enforcing. In my opinion the rule should say a non-Internet, paper source should be provided, to make sure it really is reliable. Perhaps it should actually make a list of allowable sources, such as the OED etc. Did you say the rule was being changed? Saintswithin 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin, the "arguments above" address the fact that Halibutt is interpreting the phrase "share a history between Germany and Poland" in a way which is technically defensible on a very narrow basis, but which is, in fact, completely absurd, and clearly against the spirit of the rule. This kind of nonsensical legalistic analysis, which Halibutt has made clear that he himself doesn't actually believe in, should be ignored for the tripe it is. The fact that something can be found to fit within a very literal interpretation of a rule should not be decisive here. john k 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John, and who exactly gave you the right to decide which interpretation is applicable and which is not? Are you the ArbCom? Or perhaps you're Jimbo's puppet? I don't think so. IMHO your right to interprete the voting results is the same as mine. And that is why you should try to discuss with my arguments, or even try to prove me I'm wrong on this case. But so far your arguments were mostly aimed against me myself and not against my interpretation, which hardly supports any point. Or perhaps calling me childish or telling me to "stop it, stop it, stop it" was an argument but I simply missed it? Halibutt 03:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is not just me. It is me and everybody else except for you. If everybody disagrees with your interpretation of the vote, that leads to the suspicion that your interpretation is wrong. I have also repeatedly explained why I think your interpretation is wrong. I will add that I've made numerous, numerous substantive arguments. If you choose to ignore them, that is your business, but you can't ignore them and then claim that I haven't made any substantive arguments. john k 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

actually, from what i can see, the 'everyone else' is but one other person who actually sits on the fence, if a little more towards the against than the for. The arguement, as much as i can make out bearing in mind it is such an involved issue that i have tripped over, seems to be whether Dresden can be referred to as Drezno, the arguement for being that it has a historical connection with Poland, and against that it isn't actually Polish ground. Well, it seems that the former has more weight on its own, no less with this Vote:whatever rule to back it up. If it was signicantly referred to by the Polish name, and i believe it was, then it should stand. That said, this is a pretty petty argument and handled in a pretty unseemly manner - like mine really. Similarly, it seems like an overrule for the sake of flexing the power, and that, as something i have issues with, concerns me greatly.--Genesis 14:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
But what does the number of those who oppose me have to do with the voting results? Just take a look at the number of people listed on 3RR or vandalism in progress. Does it give you the right to join them and vandalize wikipedia as well? Also, the points about the terms used in the voting being too broad and prone to different interpretations were raised before the voting even started. Yet, noone decided to change them, so IMO it is fair to assume that people who took part in the voting knew that. And they agreed, forming yet another holy grail of the wiki: the community consensus.
As to your arguments, I've read them all, so I'll try to list them here:
  1. Dresden was never part of Poland - which is not a requirement mentioned by the voting rules
    This has been the interpretation of "shared history" which everybody has used up until you started this game. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    To be precise: which almost everybody used until the voting started. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    No, it is ALSO the definition which everyone has used for the four months since the vote. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dresden, which was and is part of Saxony, which has never been considered to be part of Poland - see above
    Ditto. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. it is very clear to everybody else here that this is a tortured interpretation - in other words it is clear to many that their interpretation is better than mine. So..?
    It is clear to everybody except you. You cannot force your views onto articles against a consensus. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    But I can force the voting decisions to be applied over the consensus. Or try to reach a consensus on the talk page - and that's exactly what I'm trying to do - and what I'm being bashed for. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I will repeat this very slowly - IF PEOPLE DISAGREE ON WHAT THE VOTE MEANS, YOU ARE NOT ENFORCING THE VOTE. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. The cities specifically mentioned as having a "shared history" are cities which were part of both Germany and Poland - wrong, read the voting results again.
    The cities specifically mentioned are Szczecin and Gdansk, which were part Germany and Poland. I should perhaps have said "the cities given as examples of having a 'shared history.'" john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Indeed, the two were given as examples only. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Dresden is clearly in a completely different class from these various cities - You have a right to have such POV, but don't try to force others to accept it
    Everybody else already agrees with you. You are the one trying to force everybody else to accept your idiosyncratic POV. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No I'm not. I'm trying to force people to stick to their own decisions not only in situations they find plausible, but also in situations they find it hard to accept. The law might be harsh, but it's still a law. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Dresden, on the other hand was, as noted, never part of Poland - see No. 1
    See my response. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. it was never an ethnically-Polish city - so..? Perhaps your interpretation of the voting results mentions the ethnicity of the inhabitants, but fortunately such an argument was not included, since it would lead to even more revert wars (just imagine the number of quarrels on who lived there and when). See also No. 1
    Having been an ethnically Polish city would qualify it to have "shared a history between Poland and Germany." This is not the case. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yup, it would be one of such casesHalibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  8. The comparison is false - POV again
    Huh? Discussion on talk pages can't be POV. I gave an explanation why I thought your comparison of was not a proper one. How else am I supposed to argue with you? john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No need to get offended, it was what I call a mental shortcut. What I wanted to say is that it is your point of view, which you are fully entitled to. However, your own point of view (even if supported by numerous admins) is still just that. Not yet a rule, especially when it enters conflict with the wikipedia rules. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Firstly, the vote on a naming convention is not a "rule." It is not even a policy. It is a convention. If there is a consensus that the convention is absurd, then it needs to be changed, not enforced against a consensus that it is a stupid rule. Even so, most people apparently believe that what you are doing goes far beyond the convention established by the vote, so you are NOT enforcing the vote, just your own interpretation of it. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. you are simply continuing to make it to prove a point - unproved accusation, that could be treated as a personal remark (no offence taken, I'm sure you meant no harm)
    You have yourself virtually admitted that you are disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I beg your pardon? I've been accused of trying to prove a point (which is not the case) for quite some time, yet nobody seemed to be kind enough as to provide any proofs for their accusations. You included. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Halibutt, how hard is this to grasp? You are purposefully spending huge amounts of energy here to enforce a particularly strict reading of a rule which you don't agree with in the first place, in order to show how absurd the rule is, so that it will be changed. That is the very definition of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. it's terribly unfair that Berlin and Hamburg were never part of Poland - POV
    This wasn't an argument as to why these cities shouldn't have the Polish name - I was simply saying that history isn't fair. However much one may want to say the situations are equivalent, they are not. My argument was that the situation is simply not equal - lots of Polish cities were under German control, no German cities were under Polish control. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Indeed, the situation is not equal nor was history fair. But what does it have to do with - very precise - rules set by the voting? Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    The rules set by the voting are NOT PRECISE AT ALL. What "shared history" means is NOT AT ALL CLEAR. It can only be determined by interpretation. A fairly narrow interpretation has been applied up until you came along. Now you are insisting on an absurdly broad interpretation that nobody else agrees with. What you are doing is not enforcing "very precise rules" - you are trying to interpret a vague rule in as broad and literal a manner as you possibly can, in order to show that the rule is ridiculous. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. what you are doing is still deeply silly - again, not a serious argument, I suppose; see No. 9
    No, this is not a serious argument. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. your definition of a "shared history" is completely unworkable - POV. Also, I can work with it quite well, I wonder why so many people can't even try
    I explained why it is unworkable, and the absurd consequences that would attain from expanding its application beyond the issue of Polish/German city-names. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Fortunately, the voting should be applied only to Polish-German history. What-if scenarios of applying the rules to other, unrelated articles might be fun, but have little to do with the voting itself. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    A rule which creates completely different standards for the Polish names of German cities from any other cities in the world is a priori invalid. I don't believe that the vote actually did that, but even if it did, it would be absurd to apply rules in such a selective manner. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Every city in the world can be found to have some "shared history" with a country of which it is not a part - perhaps. That's why I believe that the voting, although done in good faith, resulted in damage done to wikipedia. But if that was the decision of the community, I'm not the one who should unilaterally change that. And neither are you, I believe.
    Halibutt, in the first place, a number of us have said that we think we should have a new vote to try to come up with a more workable standard. In the second place nobody but you interprets the results in this way. As such, you should perhaps defer to everybody else, instead of trying to force your POV through against massive opposition. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently the nobody but me group includes also other contributors. Check my arguments above Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    What other contributors? Who agrees with you? I cannot think of anybody who agrees with you. Even Witkacy has been essentially silent about this nonsense. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Paris surely had a larger Polish expatriot population than any German city - unrelated. Also, there were ca. 1 million Poles in the Rhine valley and the Ruhr in early 20th century. Nowadays it is estimated that in the vicinity of Berlin there are some 100.000 to 150.000 Poles living there. Much more than in Paris - ever.
    Alright, whatever. There were surely more Poles in Paris than in Aachen or Mainz. The whole Rhine Valley and the Ruhr cannot be compared to Paris, also.
  15. To interpret "shared history" in such a manner as to include all these is to make it absurd - fortunately, the voting is related only to Polish-German history and not to Polish-American, Franco-Polish or any other.
    That is true, but a voting result which results in such absurd inequality in treatment of precisely comparable issues would be invalid, anyway. It makes sense to have special rules for Gdansk or Wroclaw - it doesn't make any sense to treat the Polish diaspora in Berlin any differently from the Polish diaspora in Chicago. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    So, the voting is invali because there can't be no equal treatment of articles on Polish and German cities? Hmmm... if you can convince the others to accept that view, it would make sense to me. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    The voting isn't invalid. Your interpretation of the voting is invalid. I will submit that if the voting said what you claim it does, it would be invalid. But it is not invalid, because it doesn't actual require what you say it does. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Clearly, the intended meaning of shared history when we were doing the voting was not what you are making it out to be - again, you have a right to such views, but the result of the voting is as it is. The rest is our interpretation and I believe yours is no better than mine. At least our rights here at WP are equal. Or am I wrong?
    My interpretation has the benefit of having everybody else agreeing with it. Your has the disadvantage that nobody agrees with it except you. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Except me, User:Chris 73, User:Calton, User:Boothy443 and majny others. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Please provide citations of these people agreeing that the Polish name of Aachen should be listed at the top of the page. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. It is fairly easy to figure out what places are effected by this ruling - just overlay the 1914 Germany map onto the modern Polish map - then why wasn't such map attached to the voting? It's part of your interpretation, not of the voting itself
    No, but it is how everybody has interpreted the voting up until now, with the exception of a few examples of silliness like with Bialystok. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm? What is the referent here? john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. I don't think any other idea was envisioned - POV again. You don't think so, I do.
    Can you point to anybody at the time of the vote suggesting such a thing? Even you yourself didn't suggest it - you didn't even vote against the proposal. In their votes against the proposal, not a single person suggested it might mean that German cities would get Polish names. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    And can you point to anybody suggesting anything to the contrary? Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    The fact that nobody added Polish names to German cities until you started to do so would suggest that nobody anticipated this as a consequence of the vote. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. I, for one, wouldn't support giving the German names for Galician cities, even, except in cases where the German names were once in common use in English - since Austria and then Austria-Hungary was clearly a German state, the voting results apply also there. You don't have to support it now (although you did when you voted, AFAIR), but you should stick to the voting results
    Austria-Hungary was a multinational state, and Galicia was outside the Germanic Confederation. it has never been considered to be part of "Germany." Certainly Hungarians would beat you to death if you suggested that Hungary was part of Germany because it was ruled by the Habsburgs. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    But still, German was one of three official languages of Galicia (the others being Polish and Latin) and until its creation the only language there was German. Also, until 1866 the area was ruled from Vienna directly, so it was a German state, or at least an area under German control and rule. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Unlike Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy never saw itself as entirely a "German" state. Its Polish and Hungarian lands, in particular, were clearly never seen as German, even if German was sometimes the language of administration. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. But I certainly wouldn't support including "Lemberg" in parentheses next to every reference to Lviv - neither would I. Unfortunately, the voting results require that.
    No, they only do by your tendentious reading of them. Everybody else disagrees. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, everybody... Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Again, you have yet to point to any evidence that anybody actually supports your interpretation. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. don't you think it suggests something that you are being repeatedly reverted by different people on this - again, just take a look at the number of people listed on 3RR or vandalism in progress.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here. when a large number of logged in editors and administrators are reverting a single person, it suggests there is a consensus against that person's edit. Whatever the results of the Gdansk vote, wikipedia runs on consensus, and everybody - whether they agree with that vote or not, agrees that what you are doing here is wrong, and is based on an incorrect interpretation of the vote. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No, to me it suggests only that there is a number of contributors who ispute the voting results, though ar not sure how to do that and, instead of starting a new vote, they engage in silly revert wars. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    So you are enlisting vandals as supporters in your cause? I think that speaks for itself. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Have you looked at Bialystok? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't include the German name anymore. I removed it three weeks ago - indeed, now it does not because Chris 73 did not want to revert your edits. However, it should have the "German" name mentioned as well.
    There is no German name - it is just the Polish name without the line through the "l". At any rate, you were arguing that because German nationalist jerks were adding shit to Bialystok, you were forced to retaliate. This is clearly nonsense, since nothing had been in Bialystok for weeks. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No, it was not a retaliation. For over a month I was trying to reach some compromise on the issue - yet to no effect. Since nobody was interested in finding a solution acceptable to all, I simply waited a month longer than the fellow contributors in applying the rules to where they belong. But it was not a retaliation, just like inserting the German name in a plethora of articles was not an attack but simply following the rules set by the voting. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Keep telling yourself that. Again, why not spend your energies trying to get a vote for amendment. As I said, I would certainly support such a vote. I don't see as I have any particular responsibility to propose a new vote myself, but if you propose it, I will certainly help. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. As to counter-arguments, there are already plenty on this page - hmmm... really?
  24. Presumably, all these people agree with the arguments put forward by Mackensen, Eugene, and me, rather than those you have put forward - and why not the other way around?
    Huh? People are reverting you. That suggests that they do not agree with you. Presumably, they agree with Eugene and Mackensen and I because they find our arguments convincing. If they found your arguments convincing, they wouldn't be reverting you. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Nope, see my argument aboveHalibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  25. as I said before, you are abusing the meaning of the phrase to make a point - see points No. 9. Also, if I take it literally and you're trying to create some sophisticated interpretation, then who is abusing it?
    Well, you, because everyone else thinks your interpretation is absurd. Plus, you don't even like the rule. Why go to all this trouble to enforce a rule which you think is ridiculous? Don't you have other things to do on wikipedia? john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Dura lex sed lex, as the Romans used to say... Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Conventions on wikipedia are not laws. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. "Dresden" is never known in English by its Polish name - see No. 1
  27. and it was never part of Poland - see No. 1
  28. Grand Duchy is very much more a German entity than Saxony ever was a Polish one - see No. 1
  29. there's the basic fact of usage - one is likely to come across English references that call Poznan "Posen," one will never come across ones that call Dresden "Drezno." - see No.1. Also see the internet sources I provided
    You were trying to claim that the cases of Poznan and Dresden were equivalent, I was simply arguing why they were not. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)~
    Nope, it was you who brought the whole Poznan-Dresden comparison. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I initially brought it up as an example of a distinction. You then suggested that the cases were comparable. I then argued why they weren't comparable. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. I notice that you always shy away completely and utterly from any arguments that have to do with actual English usage - see No. 1
    Actual English usage is the general wikipedia naming policy. Before we had Talk:Gdansk/Vote, people tried to make arguments based on usage, which was the then operative policy, which you ignored. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Nope, I didn't ignore the rule. All who voted on Talk:Gdansk did. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    You ignored the rule for months before that by insisting that all arguments about what to call Gdansk/Danzig be based around the question of who had political control, not what the place is actually called in English language sources. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Drezno - never used in English - wrong. See No. 29
    Can you find a single English-language book that even so much as mentions the name Drezno? If you can, I will withdraw the accusation. A couple of random ass internet sites don't count. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    If I have time perhaps I will. However, so far the links I provided should suffice. The "random ass links" are more than enough, even one should be enough. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    One link is not enough, and never has been. And none of the links provided by the google search are of any quality. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Dresden - was never part of Poland - See No. 1
  33. (Dresden) was for a while in personal union with Poland in a state ruled from Dresden - which proves my point here
  34. neither Dresden nor Saxony has ever had any kind of substantial Polish population - except for 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, but this is OT here: see No.1
    "Substantial" does not mean "small diaspora population." john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)~
    AAMoF the Polish generic word for "working abroad" is saksy, which comes from the name of Saxonia. It comes from 18th and 19th centuries, when thousands of thousands of Poles migrated there. I don't know the exact numbers, but I guess these could be found somewhere. But it's quite OT here. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    So you yourself are admitting that they were not permanent settlers, but temporary migratory workers. I suppose I will admit to being partially wrong, here. But nevertheless, it is not the same thing as those parts of Poland which had significant German settlement (majority or minority). john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  35. And your idea for Dresden provides the example that we must provide the Spanish names for Brussels and Naples - and not only that, but the French, Flemish, and Italian names for Madrid - no, it's not my idea. See No. 15
    It is your idea, unless you can point to somebody else who agrees with your interpretation of the vote. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    See above. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  36. We would have to give the Greek name for Venice (after all, Venice ruled over many Greek lands for some time), and the Greek, Maltese, Spanish, Hindi, Chinese, and Swahili names for London (Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, India, Hong Kong, and Tanzania having been British colonies); we would have to provide the Arabic name for Paris (after all, Algeria was actually part of France); and so on and so forth - see No. 15
  37. BTW, I assume your argument would also suggest that we should give the German name for every city in the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, since all those cities were ruled from the German city of Dresden - yup.
    Then why aren't you spending your time adding those in? I'm sure the Lithuanians would be happy if you added "Wilna" to the names for Vilnius. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Because so far I'm busy here. However, if there comes up some contributor who would like to add the German name there, I would see no problem with that. Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  38. the "arguments above" address the fact that Halibutt is interpreting the phrase "share a history between Germany and Poland" in a way which is technically defensible on a very narrow basis, but which is, in fact, completely absurd - POV. What makes it absurd any more than your views?
    I've explained why I think it is absurd. And, again, my views seem to be accepted by everyone except you. Yours are yours alone. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    And again, it's not a valid argument, especially that it's not true (see above)
  39. and clearly against the spirit of the rule - so, your interpretation of the spirit of the rule is right while the rule itself is wrong? Strangeargument
    Oh, fuck it. Why don't you sit back for a while and think about the whole mess, and come back in a week and we can work on a new vote to make the damned rule tighter. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've been trying to reach some solution for over a month now. Isn't that enough? Halibutt 06:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    How, exactly? As I recall, most of your energy was devoted to specious arguments about counting the votes on how to call Gdansk between 1466 and 1793 and demanding a revote on that question. Your time might be better spent actually proposing a vote on this question, which seems to have widespread support and not necessarily any specific opposition. john k 07:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. This kind of nonsensical legalistic analysis, which Halibutt has made clear that he himself doesn't actually believe in, should be ignored for the tripe it is - and why so? See No.s. 3 and 39
  41. The fact that something can be found to fit within a very literal interpretation of a rule should not be decisive here - and why not? If we cannot agree for common interpretation, then we should stick with the letter of the rule.
  42. It is not just me. It is me and everybody else except for you - No. 21
  43. If everybody disagrees with your interpretation of the vote, that leads to the suspicion that your interpretation is wrong - See No. 21. Also take note that I'm not trying to interprete the voting results at all. I simply take it for what it is and apply it as it is.
  44. I have also repeatedly explained why I think your interpretation is wrong - see Nos. 1 to 43
  45. I will add that I've made numerous, numerous substantive arguments - See No. 44
  46. If you choose to ignore them, that is your business - I did not.
  47. but you can't ignore them and then claim that I haven't made any substantive arguments - indeed, se No. 45
Finally: John, please tell me. Do you really believe that Wikipedia could benefit from lack of the Polish name here? Also, do you seriously believe that the WP can benefit from the quarrels over what was decided by the community? And, last but not least, could WP really benefit from the revert wars against the version supported by the voting? I doubt it. Halibutt 05:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello-but, stop your performance here. The beautiful German city Dresden (Baroque pearl) "was" "polish" same as Koenigsberg (polish falsificators wrote in this article that Koenigsberg belonged to poland (!)). And always think, why Lithuanians didn't want an "union" with such country like poland. Zivinbudas 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You, sir, are not helping. john k 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm probably going to get flamed alive for this, but.... For an ENGLISH edition of ANY encyclopedia I've never seen more than the English name, and the native name in an article. Cologne, for example, has an article by that name on Encarta and Britannica, with a note of the native German name, Köln. Neither article mentions the original name of the Roman settlement, Colonia Agrippina. But let's take another example. I would expect to find an English article on the Italian city of Milano under "Milan", the English name for the city. I would NOT expect to find Mailand in the article, except under the list of language links (in this case, de:Mailand), although, low and behold, it's there in the history of the city. While I support the ideal that multiple views of history should be taken into account, I should think that a note in the historical foundation of the city and then its later history should suffice (as with both cities I've given examples of, and I can think of others: London/Londinium, Bonn/Bonna, Tyrol/Tirol), and place the appropriate links to articles in other languages. --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polish stupidity[edit]

You all could see stupid nationalistic games of drunk pole Hello-but here. The same he and few his friends (an "administrator" Piotrus, Witkacy, Balcer and Lysy) do on Lithuanian articles.

We Lithuanians fully support our German friends. We have to stop drunk polish rampage together. Best wishes from Vilnius, Lithuania. (Zivinbudas) 07:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a Mazovian speaker, I suffered a lot from and I do dislike many elements of the Polish nationalism (still common in Europe, however), however I would not go to that low and actually use racial slurs. I think my personal value is too high for it. After all, using the Polish name among others makes sense for me as an interpreter. This has to deal with the fact that many cities have their names in various languages that are different from the 'native' name. That means that the sentence 'London - the capital city of the UK' will be translated as 'Londonas – Jungtinės Karalystės sostinė'. Also, few kings elected in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were from Dresden: Friedrich August II and August II der Starke. Therefore, links between Poland, Lithuania and Saxony were very strong. --Rejedef (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What a[edit]

funny discussion above about the name. You should do neither. Dresden is the name, Dreszdany is an older name. Dresden was never the capital of Poland or the Sorbian. Brühlsche Terrase is not exactly the same as Brühls Terrasse, what would be in english Brühl's Terrace. But I guess that is another discussion.... Grüße aus Dresden. --Brutus Brummfuß 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was the capital of Poland-Lithuania since the monarch resided there. Also, the construction of the city centre was mostly financed by Brühl - who in turn got rich because of his economical exploitation of Warsaw... Halibutt 23:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Was London, then, the capital of Scotland from 1603 to 1707, or of Hanover from 1714 to 1837? Was Madrid the capital of the Kingdom of Naples from 1556 to 1713, or of Portugal from 1580 to 1640? Was Vienna the capital of Bohemia and Hungary? In situations where a monarchy is in personal union with another monarchy, the fact that the monarch resides in a city in one kingdom does not make that city the capital of the other kingdom. john k 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It depends on whether the other state is ruled directly or through a governor/palatine/whoever. We could say that at that time Warsaw was a traditional or economical capital of the PLC, but the political centre of power (capital!) was elsewhere. Halibutt 06:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
No it does not, if it is a personal union, both states remain separate legal entities under a common head of state. Snapdragonfly

No actually it doesn't matter.Drezno shares Polish history and such falls under Gdansk vote. --Molobo 17:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Molobo has a point here. The Talk:Gdańsk vote did not specify what the shared history is and this is quite a clear case where a German city has a shared history with Poland. According to the vote it did not have to be a part of Poland to fall under that category, just like Danzig was not a part of Germany for most of its existence, yet it shares some of its history with that state and falls under the vote. BTW, I appreciate Olessi's attempt at a compromise and I must say that I like his reasonable proposal. Yet, this does not change the fact that the rules of Talk:Gdańsk are still applied only to Polish cities and not to German ones, even if many of them fit the same categories. It's simply unfair and it would have to be changed eventually. Halibutt 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly.We need all articles having Saxony without Saksonia, Königsberg without Królewiec and other places that shared Polish-German history to be edited in order to comply with the vote until there is some change.--Molobo 18:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I support a reopening of the discussion to allow greater clarification of "shared history" as well. I hope that contributors would not drastically change things until the results of that discussion are known, however. Olessi 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

I'm going to reword "Others see it as a military necessary action taken to support the Red Army." to "necessary military" but if the intent was "militarily necessary" please correct as you see fit.--Bruce Couper 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end of the day, as Bomber Harris said, they sowed the wind, they reaped the whirlwind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Killing civilians is OK if they are German right? You sick fuck. I wonder what the USA is going to reap in the future. Hopefully: Justice. What's coming to them. And THAT will be worse than any war in history. You redneck hillbillies will pay for what you have done to the world. PAY.


I don't get the reason why the Sorbian name for Dresden is there in the first line. It would only be understandable if there was a German version for the name that was different from the English one.

Jlpspinto 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The original name of the city was taken from oldsorbian and formed into Old High German as "Dresdene". The English Name of the city is the same as the german one. I improved the etymology at that place. Geo-Loge 16:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
And if we speak about further etymology of Dresden's name, it is cognate to Old Prussian trezde , Latvian strazds, strazde, Slavic drozd 'throstle, starling, blackbird'. So the first name of city most possibly was *Trazde or *Trezde. cf. Latvian district name Strazde. Roberts7 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talkcontribs)

Contribution by User:PeterOliver100[edit]

I've just removed this large section by PeterOliver100: Some think that the bombing of Dresden was a tragic occurrence that Nazi Germany brought upon itself. This view is based on the assumption that it would be justice to punish a whole people for their government's decisions, be it war or genocide. This assumption neglects the fact, that "Nazi Germany" neither equals "Germans" as a people, nor their personal views. Taking a look at the number of Germans who had voted for the NSDAP (Nazi party) clearly shows that the large majority of Germans were not in favour of the Nazi Party (last free democratic Votes at the Reichstagswahlen of Nov. 1933 with less than 38 percent for the NSDAP).

If we judge a whole people from our democratic point of view, we tend to forget that in Nazi Germany a simple public remark against the government - which seems normal to us nowadays - could mean the immediate death sentence. The same applies for listening to British or Russian radio stations. As every Newspaper, every Radio Station and every Newsreel was controlled by the Nazis, many Germans were listening to the Allied radio stations secretely, and many got caught and killed for that. They knew that their own German governement as well as their media at the time were lying to them; but finding out the truth was a deadly endeavour.

It would therefore be wrong to assume that the non-expression of a view equals agreement. In East Germany, for example, people were silent for decades unter Soviet Occupation; this does not mean they agreed to it. It took East Germans almost four decades to shake off their Communist Dictatorship, but this was only possible as the Soviet power had already started to crumble and decay in the 1980ies. Dictatorships always know well how to oppress free speech, be it Nazi or Communist. As for the Nazis, the fact that only few voices were heard loud and clear against Hitler does not mean people agreed to their government's policies.

The Allies claim still nowadays that the Attack on Dresden and other German Civilian Targets was a necessary military action taken to support the Red Army. This view can not be maintained by facts, as RAF Documents clearly show the targeting area, which consists of housing areas, opera houses, art galleries, artefacts, theaters, hospitals, orphan's homes, far away from major military targets; the big Military Site in Dresden in the district of the Albertstadt survived the war nearly untouched. Also, Major Harris who carried out the Attack remarked that the aim to attack the undefended city full of refugees was

" show the Russians what Bomber Command can do" (Quote Arthur Harris).

Thus, according to official British Military Sources, the Dresden Attack served as a deterrant to the Soviets rather then supporting them.

Fortunately, much of the city's beauty has been restored, however most of Dresden is lost forever. The destruction of Dresden is not a just a tragedy, but a multiple tragedy: apart from the fact that thousands of innocent people had been killed and the fact that many remain traumatized and maimed up to this present day, there lies a second tragedy within: Even though the war is now long time ago, today's young generation starts to realize what they have lost, too: The destruction of Dresden means the loss of one of the World's greatest Treasures of Culture, Art and Beauty.

Some fragments of the old town have been restored, thanks to the zeal of the populace in recreating the architecture of ‘old Dresden'. Today Dresden has a strong partnership with the English city Coventry, which was heavily damaged by German air attacks. The camaraderie is deeply supported by the populace in both cities.

Many people in Dresden nowadays support the view that wars should be renounced and banned in general, as innocent people always suffer on both sides - regardless of who is to blame "officially". Dropping bombs on innocent people under the pretext "they deserve it, as their government is bad" makes no sense - neither in Dresden then, nor in Iraq nowadays.

Sorry to remove your hard work, Peter, but this article is on Dresden in general; perhaps you could try adding some more to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Saint|swithin 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What a nonsense is this? The Nazi party came to power because the majority of Germans voted for it. The Nazi party had a 100% support of the German population during the entire duration of the war; a poll conducted by the Americans directly after the war indicated that if they organized elections immediately, the Nazi party would be in power again. The Allies never intended to punish the Germans for the "mistakes of their government". The Nazi party and the German nation were one and the same. The intended purpose of the bombings was to break the alliance - this never work however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should study German history more carefully, especially what happened in 1933. As for the morale bombing, today there is no doubt that it was an act of war crime. It was justified by weakening the morale of the German population though it should be very clear to everyone that you cannot get someone on your side by bombing away his home. The massive bombing of civilians made them just more sticking on the government. If they already destroy my home, they will kill me right away when they conquer this place, many people thought. But this whole war was pure madness. -- (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I sincerely doubt that poll you mention and the intent of your addition to this discussion. Show us some sources for a poll that said the nazis would be re-elected after the war that cost millions of innocent people their lives. Seriously, how can you believe that? -- (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Nazi party had a 100% support of the German population during the entire duration of the war Even German Jews ????? (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually the Nazi Party only gained power because the then Democratically-inexperienced centre-parties failed to recognise the danger from the extremist left- and right-wing parties and refused to band together, thereby splitting the vote, effectively leaving the German electorate the choice between the Communists, and the Nazis.
Having come very close to revolution and civil war in the preceding years, the Germans chose what many believed was the lesser of two evils, and unfortunately, were wrong. The average German was by no means a Nazi, but had the probably unwise tendency to obey 'legal' orders when given from above, no matter how bad the orders were. Hitler then made his troops swear an oath of allegiance to him personally (an oath that had previously been made towards the State), which many German's took very seriously, and that resulted in the Germans being torn between obeying 'legal' orders, or doing what they knew was morally right. Unfortunately, Hitler's Government made disobeying orders and doing what was morally right punishable by death, so, understandably, most Germans chose to remain alive.
It's all very well criticising the German people for not doing more against Hitler, but when you have seen someone taken outside and summarily shot in the head, which was a not uncommon event in those times, that has a very disconcerting effect on a person. Hitler then halted all further elections so that it then became impossible to 'legally' get rid of him or his government.
The result of this, and him needing to be removed from power by other means, is seen in the ruinous state of Germany in 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture and Architecture[edit]

Culture and Architecture:Theatre:Paragraph 1, sentence 5. "The performances of the opera are often sold out for month." That's ungrammatical, and ambiguous to boot so I don't know which way to repair it. Is that "for a month" or "for months"? plz2fix.

Putin welcomed as the murder of Politkovskaya in Dresden[edit]

Today (October 10), 2000 demonstrators shouted angrily "Murder, murder!" at Putin when he arrived in Dresden:,1518,441835,00.html

Some were holding a sign: "Murder, you are no longer welcome." Millions of Germans are outraged because of the murder of this brave woman. - Free Europe.

Sad to see Germanys education and media backsliding.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


"Both newspapers were established in the former East Germany. While the Sächsische Zeitung with a circulation of up to 500,000 examples was a medium of the Socialist Party, the Dresdner Neuste Nachrichten were published by the right and liberal parties. The contents of both newspaper were controlled by the censorship."

The DNN was around in the early 1900s, I know, then closed down (I don't know when it was founded or when it closed down). (See [12] It re-started in the early 1990s (1993?). The SZ first came out in 1946 and is still printed today. The above info makes it sound as if it was only a Socialist newspaper and no longer exists. Perhaps someone could do some research here and write the section again. Saint|swithin 08:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Die „Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten“ datieren zurück bis 1893, als eine Zeitung mit diesem Namen in Dresden gegründet wurde (sie wurde 1943 von den Nazis verboten). Sie wurde 1991 wieder ins Leben gerufen als eine Fusion von drei Zeitungen, eine von ihnen war „Die Union“, die Zeitung der Christlich-Demokratischen Unionspartei zu Zeiten der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (1949-1989). Heute ist die DNN eine der zwei Tageszeitungen in Dresden. Die Auflage beträgt etwa 34.000 Exemplare (Angaben von 2004); die meisten Leser und Leserinnen leben in Dresden und Umgebung. Eine Besonderheit der DNN ist eine wöchentliche Sonderseite für kirchliche und religiöse Themen." [13] Saint|swithin 08:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The Dresdner Neuste Nachrichten were created by a fusion of a couple of newspapers in 1990. Geo-Loge 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It was called the DNN before that, though, in 1893; see above article and this photo of the front cover in 1941. I've added some more - see this article from the DNN on its 110-year anniversary; hope I've not mangled the facts! Saint|swithin 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

The article is now 46 KB long including all template and image commands. I don't think that there is any reserve now. The article has been shortened extremely in the last month. Please note: It is not acceptable that important information are missing or not reachable (like there were main chapters dumped, which should make a main article reachable, in some article to fulfill the size goal!). Therefore I think, that the a lenght of less than 40 KB is unrealistic without of quality loss. Geo-Loge 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

As of [14], the article during my review, I failed this article for Good Article status. Per WP:WIAGA,

  1. The article is undercited. There are a lot of unsourced sections.
  2. There is a {{cleanup}} template since 1 December 2006.
  3. Too many unnecessary external links, per WP:EL.
  4. Too many images; they are cluttering the article. Some images do not relate with the current paragraph and its captions are not well informative. I didn't look all of those images, but found Image:Dresd 4.jpg has no fair use rationale and Image:Dresdenschool.jpg has an obsolete license tag.

When all of those issues are resolved, this article can be renominated back. As always, if you feel disagree with my reviews, you may ask for re-reviews. — Indon (reply) — 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Indon might have also pointed out that the article needs some drastic copy-editing and there are some factual errors and elisions. Eusebeus 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German Location[edit]

Please introduce the Infobox German Location. It provides a coherent look among German cities. Lear 21 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Czech and Sorbian names, Altendresden[edit]

I fail to see how the Czech and Sorbian names are relevant except in re. to etymology.

Drezdany was, as stated in the article, located at the southern (=left) side of the river, in the area now known Altstadt. Altendresden was situated on the northern (right) banks, i.e. where today is Neustadt. The more important part was always on the left bank. Yaan 07:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The city on the southern banks was founded as Dresdene by german settlers inspired by the sorbian settlement on the other river side (called Drezdany). Later Drezdany was called Altendresden and since 1732 Neue Königliche Stadt (new royal city) which is now Neustadt. Geo-Loge 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
source? Mine is Fritz Loeffler. While his book is quite bulky, he concentrates on Architecture rather than history. But he clearly says that Drezdany, Dresdene, Dresden were all on the left bank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaan (talkcontribs) 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
btw., German Wikipedia says the same: de:Geschichte Dresdens, Der Name Dresden ist slawischen Ursprungs und geht auf eine linkselbische westslawische Siedlung zurück, die die Einwohner Drežďany nannten .Yaan 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The place of the inner city marks a ford throw the Elbe river. There was most likely a settlement on both river banks, due to the higher position of the Altstadt. But the fact, that the settlement on the right side was called Antiqua Dressdin implies, that this settlement was the more important centre of the slawic settlement and origin of the name. In the early years of eastward expansion german settlers build up their settlement in neighbourhood of the slawic ones. The slawic settlement on the right left bank was called later "Dorf um die Kirche Zu Unsrer Lieben Frauen" (Settlement around the Church of our Ladies) and was incorporated in 1530. Geo-Loge 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there were settlements on both sides. But given that old and new part of the town have changed sides at least once, I don't agree that the name Altendresden implies much. Maybe we need to look up some sources over the weekend or next week? I promise I'll do. See you Yaan 07:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Folke's Stadtlexikon Dresden A-Z says that since the Dresden area was populated from Bohemia, the southern part should be older than the northern part. But it also says that in the older literature, things tended to be seen just the other way 'round. (in entry Altendresden IIRC)
Blaschke's Geschichte der Stadt Dresden almost ignores the northern part of town in vol.1, but declares on p.97 that while the area around the castle was known as Neuendresden for some time, the area around the Toepfergasse (now between Frauenkirche and Fuerstenzug) also was called Altendresden at some point. His explanation is that only the castle and the trade town were called Neuendresden and the rest, no matter on which bank of the river, were called Altendresden. Yaan 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Neumarkt square arround the Frauenkirche was, for many years, supposed to be the core of a slawic settlement (and therefore seen in strong relationship to the settlement at the northern banks). Many of that theories were disproved by the archaeological analysis in recent years. The area was populated since the 12th century (as like as the "Altmarkt Dresden"). I think that there are some new findings that are going to be published in the next months. The reason for the division of the today's Altstadt into two (german) settlements (separated by the city wall for some decades) is at the moment unexplained (due to the falsification of the slawic origin).
See: About the excavation at Neumarkt square (in German) Geo-Loge 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That pdf you linked to (was it the right one?) says that the excavators found (probably) slavic graves from the 11th century at the Neumarkt, and that they suppose there was a church nearby, doesn't it? So - unless the bodies were brought from somewhere else - there should have been a (slavic) settlement nearby, shouldn't it? Yaan 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have another source naming the village on the right river banks as the slawic settlement: [15]
There can be no doubt that the settlement on the right side is Drežďany. The town at the left side never was called Drežďany: It was Dresdene in the first reference and it was a german foundation even if there was a slawic-christian church. Names changed in the Ostsiedlung when germans brought their administration and executive organs. Drežďany is a reconstruction of the old sorbian name using the early german names (Dresdene, Dresdin) and the current names of Dresden in other slawic languages. You will not find it in any historic document. Geo-Loge 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the settlement on the right was ever called Drezdany. For the left bank, I guess it may or may not be possible to find names like Drezdany or Drazdany in non-German historical documents. Anyway, absence of proof is not proof of absence. We have archeologic proof that slavs had settled on the left bank long (one or two centuries) before the town was first mentioned in documents, and we have a name that can be traced to a slavic root (I hope we are at least in agreement here). You seem to imply that there was no settlement (none which might have gone by a name like Drezdany, anyway) on the left bank before German traders founded theirs, which to me seems not supported by sources. More important (to avoid OR policy problems) is that we have (secondary) sources that call the settlement on the left part of town the older part and insist that Drezdany was indeed the name of the settlement on the left bank.

Your second pdf calls the settlement on the right bank only a slavic settlement. I never contested that. Yaan 07:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the sorbian name of Dresden is relevant due to the sorbian origin of the city's name as well as the due to Dresden is the capital of Saxony (where the sorbs live in with their language which contains Drježdźany as their capital!), there is no relevance of giving the czech, polish or slovak name of the city. Dresden was never a czech city. There is even more relevance of the polish name because some polish kings ruled Saxony in their leisure.. Geo-Loge (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sorbs live in Lusatia - there are no Sorbian street signs or anything in Dresden. It's a bit like saying that you need to put the name London in Welsh because Wales is in the UK and London is the capital of the UK.
When you say "Polish kings" do you mean Augustus II the Strong? Saint|swithin 11:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean August II and Augustus III of Poland, yes. (However Dresden was never capital of Poland de jure.) It is better to compare Dresden with Cardiff than with a national capital. There is a minority in Saxony that has a term for Dresden as their capital as well as for Saxony itself. The sorbs are an equitable part of the Saxon nation (article 6 of the saxon constitution) where ever they live (in Saxony). The term Drježdźany is used in official language, documents, laws etc. and therefore relevant. Geo-Loge (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I made the comparison with London, as just as London is not in Wales, Dresden is not in Lusatia. Section 6, clause 2 of the Saxon constitution says that the German-Sorbian nature of the areas where the Sorbian people are settled must be preserved. That's not Dresden - see this detailed map on German wikipedia. There is also no mention in the constitution of Sorbian being an official language (no official language is mentioned).
To be honest, I couldn't care less, myself, if anyone wants to put foreign names for a German town on English wikipedia, just wanted to respond to your argument. The two Augusts, by the way, were Saxon-born kings of Poland, not Polish-born kings of Saxony. Does that mean the article on Poland should have the name in German? :-) Saint|swithin 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument is not that sorbian language is used in Dresden. The argument is that Dresden is the capital of Swobodny Stat Sakska and therefore the Sorbian translation of the capital city's name can be given. There is no need to give the Sorbian translation in the articles on Leipzig, Chemnitz etc.
The Sorbian language is an official language according to §9 SächsSorbG. Constitutions are in general more abstract.. ;)
I think foreign names should be carefully set if there is a historic background. Anyhow the Sorbian name is not a foreign name.
We discussed the usage of coofficial languages in the de.wikipedia: The article on Poland should additionally have the German name due to German is a coofficial minority language in Poland and not because August senior and August junior ruled Poland some hundred years ago ;) But this proposal would be a real venturesome I guess.. Geo-Loge (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Saxon triangle[edit]

Should the Saxon triangle really be mentioned in the intro? The Saxon triangle is an advertising concept with a practical relevance of little to none whatsoever. As someone living in Dresden I can assure you that no one here cares about being part of the Saxon triangle (after all, almost all of Saxony plus parts of the neignbouring states belong to it). Malc82 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The bridge[edit]

The article states "The United Nations cultural organization UNESCO declared the Dresden Elbe Valley to be a World Heritage Site in 2004. After being placed on the list of endangered World Heritage Sites in 2006, the city is most likely going to lose the title in July 2007 due to the construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke. UNESCO stated in 2006 that the bridge will destroy the cultural landscape. The city council's legal moves to prevent the bridge being built failed."

Did it lose it's status UNESCO? Kingjeff 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Start of construction was on 19. November 2007, the ruling of the UNESCO is estimated in mid 2008.


what is tagesschau?: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Military history[edit]

Please do not build up annother detailed depiction of the firebombings. There is Bombing of Dresden in World War II and there are some undetailed phrases in the article. The article was reduced to it's about 50kb lenght.

And please do not add contributions such as "UNPROVEN AND APOLOGIST STATEMENT:

"The usefulness of targeting the Alberstadt was limited by attacks on the railway network in the last month of the war." "

The text was: "It was not directly attacked in the bombings of Dresden but its usefulness was limited by attacks on the railway network in the last month of the war." Please start reading and please start reading this if there is unclarity! Discussions and POV spam in articles gets my goat. Geo-Loge (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and Intro issues[edit]

I have identified two problems in the intro and infobox to the article which are likely interrelated. Please discuss solutions and/or offer your opinion. Malc82 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Saxon triangle[edit]

I’m a geographer from Dresden, so I am aware of the term’s origin. The fact however remains that the vast majority of inhabitants of the Saxon triangle have never even heard the term and it is not commonly used to describe any of the locations that are part of it, so it definitely doesn’t belong in the introduction. It’s rightful place would be in an article about Raumordnung (regional planning) in Saxony. Malc82 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

3.5 million inhabitants?[edit]

The number of inhabitants for “Metro Dresden” is both not supported by the reference given and oddly out of procedure for WP-articles about cities. The entire state of Saxony only has 4,2 million!

I can only assume that the number is based on the Saxon triangle, which (despite being a so-called Metropolregion in the German Raumordnung bureaucracy) doesn’t fit the definition of a metropolitan area as a functionally tight-knit urban/suburban area.

Such a lofty definition of metropolitan area is not employed in other WP-articles, including those about other cities in the Saxon triangle (see Leipzig or Chemnitz), let alone internationally, where by this standard the metropolitan area of anywhere from Boston to Washington would have upwards of 44 million inhabitants.

The same largely applies to the "Urban" number. No source is given and the number is more than ¾ the number of total inhabitants of the Regierungsbezirk Dresden, which stretches well beyond the agglomeration. Malc82 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, terms (as well as entities likewisely!) of regional planning have a dozen definitions. If you see Metropolitan area as a closely cropped area than the Metropolitan area of Dresden has a population of about 1 million [16]. "Greater Dresden" (Region Dresden) which is a political co-operation has 1.3 million inhabitans ([17]).
One can have different opinions about the large Metropolitan areas in Germany, which are more defined by functional coherence than by compact land use. However the Metropolitan area Saxon triangle (Metropolregion Sachsendreieck) has a population of 3.5 to 3.8 million [18] and Dresden is one of the three cores of this "triangle". Geo-Loge (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way: BosWash is not a metropolitan area, it is a group of them also termed Metroplex or Megalopolis. The entire Rhine valley from Randstad to Basel is a comparable hypothetical region in central europe (or take the more broken Blue Banana as a analogue). But dont compare apples and trees.. Geo-Loge (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the Saxon triangle doesn’t constitute a metropolitan area, just like a megalopolis doesn’t. One problem with planning regions is that they’re goal-oriented, not descriptive. The Saxon triangle is not a statistical area, doesn’t have metropolitan authorities, media or institutions, it’s borders seem arbitrary and it is largely comprised of relatively rural areas between the cornerstones. One simple test would be the inhabitants perception. Citizens of the Bay Area or Greater Santiago identify with this metropolitan area, citizens of North Jersey realize they are part of Metro New York City. Most citizens of Halle, however, surely would be surprised to hear their city is more functionally connected to Dresden and Zwickau than to Magdeburg or Berlin.
The result of this is an oddly out-of-procedure number that may not be intended as showing-off, but definitely looks that way. WP standards for basic data should be comparable, and since no other city article I’ve ever come across follows such a broad definition, this one looks like a one-and-a-quarter million inhabitant agglomeration (itself by the broadest common definition) that tries to convince readers its metropolitan area would be greater than that of Warsaw. Malc82 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well your right to claim that this region is specified political. But it is not practicable to ask for local mindset though: Inhabitants of Halle also would (partly) decline that Halle is very strong related to Leipzig although it is without any doubt. Or let's take Rhine-Ruhr which includes Cologne and Düsseldorf.
I am not sure that Wikipedia has to follow an everything-must-be-comparable-by-standardisation-ideal in every aspect: It would be acceptable to describe what is meant with the metropolitan area (however it is defined) rather than guessing which region would fullfill the current wikipedia definition of a metropolitan area.
In fact the term Saxon triangle exists as the largest geographic boundary of regional planning Dresden is part of. Metropolitan areas in Germany are normatively defined. You may search and include cricism of this term and the way Metropolitan areas are defined in Germany.
Your benchmark is a region that is not normative and which has institutions of an own judical identity but that is antagonism. And we also can waste our time by searching for Metropolitan Stastical Areas of the US Census Bureau outside the United States.. reality does not fit shapes in every case. A price is non-information without currency. Giving the measure is the way different defintions of areas should be handled with. Geo-Loge (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As a Dresden local, I'd like to second that population numbers for "Urban" and "Metro" are ridiculously high. The whole "Regierungsbezirk Dresden" (next administrative level below state government, there a 2 others in Saxony) has only 1.65m (end of 2006) people, and I'd rather question that the areas with large swathes agricultural land east of Dresden constitute an "Urban area". The Saxon triangle (the presumable origin of the Metro numbers) constitutes the greater part of Saxony and is certainly not a Metro area in any conventional sense (as anyone driving between Dresden, Leipzig and Chemnitz at night should be quickly ready to conclude), but rather a term invented by the state government officials to promote inward investment. A term with which most of the inhabitants of Saxony are unlikely to

be familiar with, I might add.

If the "greater Dresden" numbers should be based on any kind of verifable and generally accepted fact, why not use the numbers for

the "agglomeration" from (World city stats, Dresden ~700k) which are taken from the official numbers produces by Germany's national statistics office. At least those are comparable between different cities, even if only inside Germany. The 700k number can also be easily verified by summing up the population of Dresden proper and the populations of all the surrounding municipalities which "flow" into Dresden. Dresden thrives thru quality, not thru quantity ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Term of metropolitan area[edit]

To avoid disaccord about definition. The Saxon Triangle is a "large population center consisting of a large metropolis and its adjacent zone of influence, or of more than one closely adjoining neighboring central cities and their zone of influence". The three cores of the triangle have intersected areas of influence and intersected commuter belts although they are not neighbored. However an "thight-knit (sub)urban area" is not a metropolitan area; it's part of it beeing the thight belt arround the metropolis rather. A metropolitan area includes a peripheral zone.

The coherency of the region is not due to Halle having a strong influence on the eastern most parts but due to an intersection of peripheral zones (towns as there are Riesa, Altenburg and Freiberg) that are influenced by more than one metropolis. And at last: Influences between the three cores and combined functionallity. Geo-Loge (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries[edit]

I have tried several times to correct the article on Dresden. People who try to falsify history and to belittle Allied atroticies keep on changing it and to delete the truth. I will first try to solve this problem here; if not, i will keep on deleting myself the fraudulent versions.

Main problem: The article about WW II starts with the words

Second World War: Being the capital of a state, it had garrisons and military industry for centuries

As we all know, Dresden is known for one of the biggest actroticies in WW II as for bombing civilians. It is proven, that the aim was to bomb civilians and "break their will", a dubious strategy which is regarded not only as highly unethical (does Iraq have the right to target London Hospitals and children's homes, for retalition of an anglo-american war of aggression? I would say no), but which is also proven to have not worked. The aim of moral bombing was to create uprisings, revolutions or rebellions. None of those ever happened. I do not accept you Allied people lying about your own history any longer. It is proven, that the aim was NOT to target any military sites, and i can prove that not only by Aerial views dating 13th February 1945 made by the RAF, but i can prove that by the legal situation in England at the time. On 14th Februay 1942 a Directive had been issued by the British Ministry of Defense that cleary demanded to target civilians , and no military sites.

The very first words you chose in the beginning of your fraudulent entry indicate that Dresden was a military target. It was not. Neither were there any military sites in the city center (some lay at the far edge of the city, far outside the targeted area), nor were they intented to be targeted at all. And yet your heinous fraudulent article tries to belie those facts, by referring to the character of Dresden as a "garrison and military" city. The primary function that Dresden traditionally had, was being a city of Culture, of Art, of Classical Music, of science; military industrie did not exist, during the war most of other industries had been changed to war-related purposes, this is true, but most of it had been outsourced undergroud. The only military relevant sites were the Airport Klotzsche, bridges, the Huge Military complex of the Albertstadt and the railway system. A tiny part of the railway system lay at the far edge of the marked area, and the rest was far outside and survived the war, like e.g. the huge casernes complex of the Albertstadt, almost untouched.

The deliberate murder of a city full of mothers and children, with an additionally 500 000 refugees (mainly women and children, too), with no military purpose was one of the greatest tragedies of this war. The majority of scientists today agree that targeting children and mothers did not break the morals, but reached the opposiste effect and welded even those closer to the government that had not been pro-nazi before.

So I ask you urgently, to stop spitting on the graves of those who were murdered, and stop your fraudulent ways of depicting a one-sided and highly biased "allies good/ germans bad" - history. Germans have accepted this popular and highly immoral and untrue formula for over 60 years, and they do not accept this any more.

So i ask you again, to cancel your fraudulent words. You Allied people do not have a single clue about the city, i have been many times to Dresden and have read a lot about it. You insult the memory of altogether 3 Million German civilians, mainly mothers and children, who were not guilty of this war and who are still labbeled as "guilty" and "justified" by the filtered Allied history. Stop insulting the dead, please. Your fraudulent ways are very irritating, and if you clueless people will not stop telling lies about Dresden - Dresden was a city of Art, not of military, like some british warcrime-apologsts try to make believe - i will start deleting, just like you did, without your consent. Because YOU dont have my consent either, and i know a whole lot more about Dreden than all of you together. I am member of the association who tries to reconstruct the old city center, which was vandalized by Churchill's "Terror" - yes, it was Churchill's own words.

At the moment i am still willing to solve the problem by talking, however i will accept no longer you Allied people spitting on the graves of Millions of victims of war and mock, belie or belittle mothers and children who died a gruesome death.

Dresden's main industry was: Mouthwash, cigarette filters, china shepherdesses. Also photographic industry, this can of course be regarded as war-related, however the few production sites that had not been outsourced underground were FAR outside the targeted area. Please meet me in personal real life, and i can draw you a map by heart, and you can verify if by GOOGLE maps or whatever your source

I do have a lot of verifiable information, most of you do not seem to have that. What some of you wrote about Dresden is a clear LIE and it is verifiable. If you will not change the article back to all the detailled and truthful information i had given (they are all verifiable, yours aren't), then i will have to resort to deleting without asking like YOU do it. I dont accept all of you Allied people lying about your atroticies and trying toi whitewash them. If you compare the way that Germany deals with her history, and compare it to the fraudulent way that Allied nations hide their genocides and mass-murders like the HOLODOMOR or British Rule in India, you will hardly be able to accuse Germany of "whitewashing" anything, however i do accuse YOU of attempting to whitewash Allied atrocities.

Again: This sentence

Being the capital of a state, it had garrisons and military industry for centuries, and World War II was no exception. Dresden was attacked seven times between 1944 and 1945

suggests that Dresden was a city like any other, which is not the case. Coventry was centre of the English war production, Dresden was none of that, neither before, nor during the war. The traditional Dresden industry was mainly non-military, and during the war most of what had been war-related had been outsourced underground; the few remaining industries in the city were far outside the targeted area. So trying to depict Dresden as "military target" is utter nonsense, and simply a heinous LIE. And again: i ask you to stop lying and to stop insulting the dead. Your way of falsifying history are most irritating and unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBln (talkcontribs) 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I expect the Article to be changed back with the next days.

yours sincerely


Peter, I have observed that many of your edits on this article do have reliable sources cited to them. Good work. You have adhered to WP:RS in many cases. However, as I have elaborated on your talk page, many of your edits on this article do not adhere to WP:NPOV. You must post neutral phrases, as opposed to using "practically wiped out", and "infamous". You may think those quoted words are correct, but they do not meet WP:NPOV guidelines. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia.
"I will first try to solve this problem here; if not, i will keep on deleting myself the fraudulent versions." If you insert non-neutral information that is not cited to a reliable source, you will be reprimanded for breaking WP:NPOV. This is because you have been warned enough times about breaking it.
You have been very uncivil throughout your statement in this sub-section. Comments like accusing us of "spitting on the graves of those who were murdered", and "insult the memory of altogether 3 Million German civilians, mainly mothers and children" breaks WP:CIVIL. If you make another comment that breaks WP:CIVIL, you will be reprimanded.
As I suggested to you on your talk page, you can talk about the controversy of the bombing of Dresden, if you post verifiable and neutral statements. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is all your opinion and personal view. I reverted much of the edits due to POV policy and article size concerns.

Dresden had a garison with a capacity of more than 20,000 soldiers (Albertstadt), it was able to set up divisions until 1945! Any other city in Germany had such a large complex of military facilities. The article states that this facilities never were targeted without of guessing about reasons for that (it was in fact not easy to hit by strategic bombing: Image:Dresden-Garnisions-pan.jpg). Every German city was a military target since Germany declared itself to be in total war. Dresden is not a city like any other however it was a German city; declared to take part in total war more radical than "imaginable". It was a crime to declare German cities and citizens to be part in total war and to reject their rights of mercy and protection ("daß,[..], gleiche Rechte und gleiche Pflichten vorherrschen"). It is piteous to equate German victim with the victims of peoples how not declared their rejection of their rights. Dresden had military industries:

  • Waffenfabrik Lehmann
  • Optical industries of Zeiss-Icon (sighting mechanisms, telescopic sights)
  • Radio engineering

and so on.. Dresden was one of Germany's earliest centres of industrialisation and almost every branch of industry had military relevance.. moreover Dresden's industry was prepared for war production since 1935 when entreprises of the Industriegebiet more and more began to supply the Wehrmacht. So what is the argument: The dismantlement of the Dresden industry began in 1933 not in 1945? It is a legende that Dresden was a target without any military relevance but nothing more than the beauty of baroque.. Dresden was a logistical hub towards Bohemia. The US Air Force stated that it targeted the marshalling yards several times. These yards were hit and completely out of order since april 1945. So it's impossible to just describe the attacks targeting the city centre. The current version describes all aspects of Dresden in Second World War. Is does not conceal the controverse Februar bombings and the nontargeting of relevant targets; nor the military target of Dresden. Please not, that the breadth of the article is limited due to Wikipedias article size guideline (Dresden is much more than these two days in Februar 1945). Details of the bombings and backgrounds of the attack are better placed (and discused) in the associated article. Geo-Loge (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to "does Iraq have the right to target London Hospitals and children's homes, for retalition of an anglo-american war of aggression?" How would that scenario differ from the horrifically inaccurate results of the German V-1 and V-2 rockets on London. Let us also not forget that WWII was without doubt a "German war of aggression" on Europe. Be careful when using examples in which the political situations differ so drastically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More like attempts to whitewash history by Germanophiles![edit]

From the German wiki page (which ironically seems much more balanced):

  1. Dresden was the third largest railway hub in the empire.
  2. had at least 110 factories and companies engaged in warwork.
  3. had 50,000 people engaged solely in military-related industry, including the manufacture of aircraft.
  4. the Niedersedlitz (Chemical works) was making poison gas.
  5. Lehmann Waffenfabrik (literally "Arms Manufacturers") was making AA artillery, anti-tank guns and other weapons.
  6. Zeiss Ikon was making gunsights and bombsights.
  7. Plus tertiary industries of assistance to the war effort.
  8. ...And many industries in Dresden relied on slave labour, and several camps were nearby but largely outside the firestorm.

From other sources: in 1939 Dresden was the 7th largest city in Germany and was only skipped because it was too far from UK bases - it wasn't until the heavies could fly from France they could even reach Dresden. Had it remained intact, those defenseless women and the children old enough were to be given anti-tank rockets and rifles to use against the Russians (as per German plans), and the city was already heavily ringed with anti-tank and anti-personnel defences so only its utter destruction would have prevented it from become a graveyard for a very large number of (justifiably irate) Russian soldiers. That's a lot of very good reasons for Dresden to be a target. Not because of it supposedly being in retaliation for a raid most Brits had long since forgotten. Add on to that the loss of live that would have occured had it not been destroyed - likely German fatalities would have still have been more than the 25,000 the Germans government estimated the losses to be, and the Russians would have lost quite a few more. Add to that, had Dresden not been destroyed, the war would have taken longer to conclude, with still more possibilities for people to die. Simply put - rather than being a war crime, it saved lives.

The statement about deliberately not targetting the barracks holding 20,000 troops displays a lack of knowledge of Allied bombing capabilities that is astounding. Simply put neither the RAF nor the USAAF was capable of bombing any target with that level of accuracy and the leaders knew it - 617 squadron aside and they were limited to special targets. The RAF sent in master bombers - the best of the best of the RAF's bomb aimers, in the case of Dresden, flying several Mosquitos, who would drop a bundle of flares where they thought should be the center of destruction. During the course of the raid additional flares would be added as smoke obscured the first ones, and the flares burned out. The Lancasters would then stream in individually, and attempt to aim for the flares. British accuracy was actually higher than for the US system but bombs would still fall more than 5 miles from the flares. In a typical city they aimed for the center (in this case a stadium) because they didn't want to waste bombs on the surrounding countryside, and German cities are unusually compact compared to British or American cities so they knew that there was a good chance that anything within the city limits would get hit - barracks included. The USAAF flew as a dense swarm and in this case with a single bomber aimer choosing the release point for the swarm, using radar. Given that the 527 aircraft swarm covered many square miles, this meant that even if he was accurate (a rarity) a swath several miles wide and many miles long would be bombed out, with large numbers of bombs as many as 10 miles from target not being unlikely. Again he would attempt to avoid bombing open countryside and while the aiming point may have been the railyards the very fact that the Americans dropped almost 300 tons of incendiaries indicates they were expecting to hit something other than just the railyards which would be minimally affected by incendiaries. So "was never targeted..." is complete BS.

It wasn't like the Germans were even innocent - they treated the Slavs as badly as they did the Jews (if a whole lot less advertised postwar), and many "refugees" had only recently been disposessing Slavs of their property and lives - innocant Slav women and children included. Makes for a whole different story than this lovely piece of POV.

I am not going to even bother to try and fix this article - there are too many 3rd Reich apologists for that job to ever end. (OTOH The atom bomb attacks were a different story but the crews were blameless.)NiD.29 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the actual destruction of Dresden isn't really the issue since it isn't as if anyone is downplaying any of it - the real issue was that it showed the Germans as less competant and less efficient at warfare than the British and that was a real blow to the national ego. None of the many air raids the Germans carried out (which killed civilians who were in fact innocent) was even remotely as effective as the Dresden attack quite obviously was.NiD.29 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotterdam sister city[edit]

In the sister city section is this phrase: "when Dresden twinned with the Dutch city of Rotterdam, the old city center of which was completely destroyed by German terror bombing in 1940." I have removed the term "terror" from it, as I regard this as a violation of NPOV and cannot see this judgment supported by the actual article at Rotterdam Blitz. User:B. Franken has reverted this for the second time, I think (i didn't count) and to avoid a violation of the three-revert-rule, i'd like to have a discussion of the issue that includes more than my and his/her opinion. Madcynic (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about opinions German. It's about facts. It's about willfully threatening to bomb civilians in order to force a country to capitulate, and subsequently carrying out said threats. That's terror bombing. It sickens me you try to hide your euphemistic pro German jabbering behind claims of "NPOV". B. Franken (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is about opinion! Some call it terror bombing others might call it horror bombing or bombing holocaust or what ever. And it's personal opinion and more over emotional subjectiveness, what else? But Wikipedia does not so! Wikipedia tries to reflect subjects in a distant, neutral and factual way.
Me and others are repeling the term terror bombing relating to the bombing of Dresden for month. That's why I say, that the term should not be used anywhere. Using terror bombing for attacks of the Luftwaffe legitimates the usage for bombings of the allies.
Whether I am from terror bombed Coventry, hellish sieged Saint Petersburg or from Dresden, I would always keep Wikipedia neutral and factual. Geo-Loge (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Shut your German trap. Terror bombing (if you had the braincells necessary to read my previous comment) is a legally defined crime, not an opinion.B. Franken (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please bring a reference where and by whom the term terror bombing is used! As Madcynic stated the article Rotterdam Blitz does not approve the term terror bombing. Wikipedia does not support arbitrary invention of terms.
If you continue your personal attack one more time, then I will propose steps of blocking both the article as well as your account. Wikipedia has rules you better should note! Geo-Loge (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't reference Wikipedia dimwit! Terror bombing is defined in the Hague Conventions, you uneducated German slob. Here are your requested referential!. Now stop removing 'terror' or I'll make some steps against you; Wikipedia doesn't like neonazis or war crime deniers like you.B. Franken (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I know International Law and Laws of war but the term terror bombing is not included in any document or legal norm. Please bring a clear reference. If you refer to another article of the Wikipedia then find out what its content is based on. Geo-Loge (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The terminology was discussed in the article Rotterdam Blitz in 2006[19]. The term terror bombardment was rejected that after [20]. Please discuss your request there but accept Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Geo-Loge (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope that I delivered a solution emphasising the aspects of disproportionality without to resort to unobjective terms like terror, horror or whatelse.. Geo-Loge (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It must be kept neutral. Churchill may call a bombing a terror raid and Harris a great show. These can be referenced to say "Harris said the bombing of city X was a great show". However we cannot say "the bombing of city X was a great show", as it is only one person's view, not a definition. Wallie (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Destruction of Dresden[edit]

The city was destroyed by bombs from allied planes during February 1945. How much prominence should this be given in this article? Wallie (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read memoirs of 8th Army Air Forces and even Chuck Yeager. Yeager and other fighter pilots were ORDERED to strafe REFUGEES. Many bomber pilots complained about bombing city centres. Read Harry Crosby's book "A wing and a prayer" He referenced a target as being a statue in a German Town. The pilots kicked a fuss asking why they should risk their lives destroying a statue! The allies were guilty of war crimes.

You should sign your comments -
The bombing of Dresden did not occur in a vacuum - it can only be understood in the context of a long list of preceding German atrocities, which included bombing cities in other countries with far less military importance, the invasion of most of Europe, the genocides of Slavs, Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, gays, the handicapped and mentally challenged and anyone else they didn't see a place for in their sterilized world, etc etc. Somehow these aren't war crimes? Perhaps they should have been allowed to occur without response or reprisal? The Allies had limited options and used those they had. War is hell, and sometimes choices are made that don't make much sense to the people carrying them out - even well after the fact. Yeager was hardly in a position to know much about the decisions behind his orders.
The German refugees were in fact "settlers" who had been living on land stolen from people who had been murdered in very large numbers by the German SS specifically for their own benefit - hardly innocent victims of Allied "atrocities", not that they weren't legitimate military targets in the own right as troops were regularly disguised as refugees - by strafing them, the mobility of the German army was reduced and their morale was damaged. I doubt many bomber pilots made any such complaints either (not least as it would have been a career limiting move), especially as the accuracy was really poor, and even the best bomb aimers were lucky to even within a quarter mile of their aiming point.
Add to this the well known ability of those in authoritarian societies (or with a preference for the same) to disregard anything that contradicts their propaganda and the Allies needed a very strong message to the solders that could not be ignored that Germany was beaten - and flattening an entire city with impunity sent just such a message, especially with the majority of the German army on the Eastern front about to retreat through it. The consensus at the time was that it shortened the war by a good six months, and hence reduced the number of dead overall by more than the total number of deaths in the city. A good trade-off actually, especially for the Allied troops.
The statement about Churchill is likewise taken out of context - a third rate British MP (who is of no consequence otherwise) was attempting to score points in a debate about area bombing, using faulty numbers taken from Nazi propaganda against Churchill. The comment about the casualties being mostly women and children is similarly dishonest as the bulk of the troops found shelter at least partly through military discipline and planning, while refugees (which most of the women and children were) either didn't know where the shelters were or couldn't find them or didn't bother to look until it was too late, not knowing the danger they were in.NiD.29 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

History section to be remade or soundly expanded[edit]

This article cannot deserve any B-class rate as the history chapter is really made by feet, looking like a medium-school assignement; whatever the judgement, it's anyway too short considered the importance of the entry. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Dresden bombing section[edit]

I deleted the section about the Allied bombing of Dresden in WW2. It was politically charged and uses sources that are not unbiased. It was typical anti-American propaganda which is basically what all of wiki has become. Sad... I'm sure someone will put it back up, but I'll delete it again..and again... and again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiedowner (talkcontribs)

Debbie, that's a good way to get blocked. I would suggest that you find a way to rephrase the section to remove the bias you see, rather than just blanking the whole section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Your plan sounds like you feel you "own" the article. We edit by consensus, consistent with use of reliable sources, verifiability, neutral point of view and other policies and guidelines you can read about from the links in the welcome message on your user talk page. Do not remove large sections of text when there is no consensus here to do so. Please sign your posts, and always use explanatory edit summaries when deleting text from an article. Edison (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dresden Bombing[edit]

  • I was working on the napalm article and I came across an article I used for referencing that has some info that might be good for this page:

Allied bombers dropped an estimated 3.4 kilotons of incendiaries on the German city of Dresden.

The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs -- all aimed against the Dresden city area. Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs. The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established. Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about

30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February 1945.

bwmcmaste (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful figures[edit]

"The inner city of Dresden was largely destroyed by 800 RAF and USAAF bombers that dropped 650,000 incendiaries and 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) of high explosives and hundreds of 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) bombs[13] in three waves of attacks."

Now 8,000 pounds or 3,600 kg of HE would only be six 600 kg bombs, so this is figure must be doubted. A figure of around 2430 tons for the three days is generally accepted by historians. [[21]] (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

does the tonnage actually change the _number_ of bombs and their spread and "effectiveness" as incendiaries in any meaningful sense for a city ablaze?

There's no love lost between norwegians and Nazi-Germany, but try comparing the Norwegian page on the Dresden bombings in any translator page with the orwellian rewriting contest thats currently going on in the english speaking version of wikipedia. The number of sources and firsthand witnesses almost oytstrip the english version. So This is what they're serving UK/US youth as "facts". Orwell rolls... _spins_ more likely... (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are from a BBC site, hardly a reliable reference at the best of times, and an obvious error to boot. The most reliable looking numbers I have found (and the only one that lists both RAF and USAAF participation) have 722 RAF aircraft and 527 USAAF aircraft participating while the RAF dropped 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs (actual HE content is much lower), and 1181.6 tons of incendiaries. The USAAF was less efficient and droppped 953.3 tons of HE bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiaries. OTOH The book "Among the dead Cities" says 796 lancasters and 9 Mosquitos participated (which would seem to include target marking and aircraft that had to return to base prior to reaching the target), while losing 6 Lancs. No USAAF info is given. The book then lists the second day but with no aircraft information. I changed the page to reflect these figures as they seem reliable pending some really good source (like the RAF & USAAF official histories).NiD.29 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How many were killed in the bombing?[edit]

The article says: "Early reports estimated 150,000 to 250,000 deaths. The German Dresden Historians' Commission, in an official 2010 report published after five years of research, concluded there were up to 25,000 civilian casualties,[13] while right-wing groups claim that up to 500,000 people died.[citation needed]"

This doesn't really serve to provide accurate information. The German Dresden Historian's Commission is a reliable, respectable group. The "early reports" were from Nazi propaganda, which is notoriously unreliable. The "right-wing groups" makes it sound like it could be any right wing groups, when really it's neo-Nazis, who are also notoriously unreliable. It seems like this controversy could be dealt with in a manner that is more accurately a reflection of the sources. QuizzicalBee (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

the German Dresden Historian's Commission isnt reliable at all. They say there were no killings by fighter-airplanes during the raid despite there are thousands of survivers who can testyfy it, for example. The result of "only" 25.000 deaths is politically correct and had been determinend by politicians who assigned this commission. At the Heidefriedhof at least 20.000 victims are buried, but most victims seart to unrecognizability or have been burned after the raid to prevent danger of epidemic. Estimates with more than 200.000 deaths of course are exaggerated but 25.000 is to little. In Pforzheim, a city with only 60.000 inhabatants at that time, about 18.000 people died in a raid two weeks later, so it is unrealistic that in Dresden with the tenfold number of inhabitants plus an unknown number of refugees from silesia there werent many deaths more. Schaarschmidt estimates about 80.000 to 90.000 casualtys in Dresden, this seems to be a realitic number. (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there are differing opinions as to the casualties, and therefore the text reflects this. A single "true" value is probably impossible to determine.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Although this is an old post I think it needs an answer. The Nazis in an internal memo reported 20,000 dead, and there are several reasons why Dresden would have a lower death toll than Pforzheim, which is a bad example. There isn't likely to be another city that one could compare Dresden to - its combination of size, that it was previously untouched, the large number of troops, the close spacing of the attacks and the previous existence of military fortifications make comparisons difficult.
  1. Pforzheim would not have been regarded as a likely target until the bombers were nearly there, affording little time to find shelter. On the other hand, Dresden was a likely target at the extreme range of the bombers (hence why it wasn't bombed until then), and so the Luftwaffe determined earlier on that it was the target and were able to warn the inhabitants better, thus fewer people would have been exposed.
  2. Dresden's size protected outlying areas which remained largely unaffected by the bombing or the later firestorms - a protection that Pforzheim lacked. German cities are very compact and a city of 60,000 would be smaller than the expected scattering of bombs from a typical raid, whereas Dresden was much, much larger.
  3. Dresden, unlike Pforzheim, was a major transportation node, and as such would have had a large number of bomb proof shelters, and the troops, unlike civilians, would have been quick to make use of them - experience would have taught them to find cover quickly, and they would have been better prepared at knowing where to find them. The majority of casualties in the Dresden bombings were civilians, partly for this reason.
  4. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable - strafing attacks could never have accounted for more than a small number of casualties, especially as such attacks would have been suicidal during the raids themselves, and both dangerous and pointless around the firestorms afterwards, as any waterbomber/firebomber pilot can attest. Thousands of survivors saw this? Unlikely as most of the survivors were underground.
NiD.29 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Time period vanished: 1933-1945[edit]

Articles on other German cities contain information for the "history" of the city for th period 1933-45. This is conspicuously absent at this time for Dresden, but the period is mentioned in the article on the bombing of Dresden.

We have this one sentence:

Dresden was a centre of European modern art until 1933.

The article seems to suggest that the waar wrrived in Dresden from the air in the early winter of 1945, whch is not the case. The article's omission of 1933-39 is not excusable. Other articles of cities attracting tourists have also had this flaw in the past.

This is a remarkable contrast to the article in our sister site, Out article has the term Nazi occur in history AFTER 1945. Here is the German text from today's which mentions the Jewsof the city, the book-burnings and more.

" Zeit des Nationalsozialismus Die etwa 5000 jüdischen Dresdner, die noch 1933 Gemeindemitglieder waren, wurden vertrieben oder später in Konzentrationslager deportiert. Der Antisemitismus in Dresden ist vor allem durch die Tagebücher Victor Klemperers („Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten“) dokumentiert. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg lebten nur noch 41 Juden in der Stadt.

Bei den Bücherverbrennungen am 10. Mai 1933 sollte unter anderem das Werk des Dresdners Erich Kästner „symbolisch für immer ausgetilgt werden“. Das vor allem expressionistische Kulturleben Dresdens aus dem ersten Viertel des 20. Jahrhunderts endete 1933. Die Werke von Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Max Pechstein, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff oder Otto Dix dieser Zeit waren Teil der Ausstellung „Entartete Kunst“. 56 Werke der Galerie Neue Meister wurden beschlagnahmt. Dagegen erlebte die Staatsoper, geprägt von Werken von Richard Strauss, keine wesentliche Zäsur.

Zwischen 1939 und 1945 wurden auch KZ-Häftlinge, vor allem aus den Lagern in Auschwitz und Flossenbürg, in der Stadt in KZ-Außenlagern interniert.[10] Mehrere Hundert Frauen mussten Zwangsarbeit in der Rüstungsindustrie bei den Firmen Zeiss Ikon AG (im Goehle-Werk und in Dresden-Reick), und in der Universelle Maschinenfabrik leisten. Die noch erhaltenen Privatbanken im jüdischen Familienbesitz wurden unter Zwang der Dresdner Bank angeschlossen.

Dresden war seit Jahrhunderten ein militärisches Zentrum und diente bis 1945 zur Aufstellung militärischer Großverbände. Die Albertstadt nördlich des Stadtzentrums war als autarke Militärstadt angelegt und wurde in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus weiter ausgebaut. "

A Google translation of that German wikipedia article quote follows: " The Nazi period about 5,000 Jewish Dresdner, which in 1933 were community members have been expelled or deported to concentration camps later. Anti-Semitism in Dresden is mainly through the diaries of Victor Klemperer ('I will bear witness to the last ") documents. After the Second World War, only 41 Jews lived in the city.

In the book burning on 10 May 1933 "should be blotted out forever symbolically" including the work of Erich Kaestner Dresdners. The mainly expressionist culture of life in Dresden in the first quarter of the 20th Century ended 1933rd The works by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Max Pechstein, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff and Otto Dix that time were part of the exhibition "Degenerate Art". 56 Works of the Galerie Neue Meister were confiscated. On the other hand experienced the Staatsoper, dominated by works by Richard Strauss, no significant turning point.
Between 1939 and 1945 were also concentration camp prisoners, mainly from the camps at Auschwitz and prisoners from the city to concentration camps interned. [10] Several hundred women had to do forced labor in the armaments industry in the company Zeiss Ikon AG (Goehle-work and contribute in Dresden-Reick), and in the Universal machine Factory. The surviving private banks in the Jewish family have been connected under compulsion of the Dresdner Bank.
Dresden was a military center for centuries and was used until 1945 to set up large military formations. The Albert City north of the center was created as an autonomous military town and was built in the era of National Socialism


G. Robert Shiplett 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Info below is mentioned twice in row. Accidental duplication?[edit]

The Dresden Elbe Valley was an internationally recognised site of cultural significance by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for five years. After being placed on the list of endangered World Heritage Sites in 2006, the city had its status as world heritage site formally removed in June 2009, for the wilful breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, due to the construction of a highway bridge across the valley within 2 km of the historic centre. It thereby became the first location ever in Europe to lose this status, and the second ever in the world.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)