One of the questions from the readings on Dresden was to think of another historical event that had two competing versions to it. After thinking for a little bit, the French and Indian war popped into my head, probably because we just wrote a DBQ about it in AP U.S. last week.
For those of you who don’t know what the war was about, it was fought in the mid-18th Century between Britain with its colonies and France. There isn’t much debate over what really happened in the battles, but there was a major difference between Britain and the colonies after they had beaten France. The British believed the war had been fought to protect the colonies and they therefore should help pay for some of the war. The colonies believed the war had been fought over the British gaining control of beaver trading in the Ohio River valley. They didn’t think they should pay for the war because Britain was going to make money off of it. Britain began to tax the colonies, and eventually the difference in opinion led to the colonies separating from Britain.
I know that Dresden and the French and Indian war happened 200 years apart and involved some other countries and places, but I did see some similarities between the two. Rebecca Grant and John Black argued about the intentions of Britain in bombing Dresden. Rebecca said Britain had bombed Dresden to disrupt communication and help Russian forces in the West. Black said Britain bombed Dresden to show their power and get more in the post-war treaty. He stated that they even made sure not to destroy the oil tanks that they owned in Dresden. Britain trying to make money is what made me think how the different versions of Dresden and the French and Indian war can relate to each other.