This week's question for the masses:
Was the bombing of Dresden a warcrime?
In a word: no. In a total war of national survival, who are we to look back in retrospect and claim the moral high ground by labelling it a war crime? The truth is that at the time, the Allies believed there were legitimate targets in the city. That said, I don't exactly agree with 'Bomber' Harris' policy of 'de-housing' German civilians, but what could they do with the bombing technology of the time?
These days we can achieve the objectives through precision bombing - but don't forget, if we ever find ourselves in another total war - those nuclear weapons that some Western Democracies possess aren't going to descriminate between soldier or civilian.
In a word,YES.Allied intelligence new exactly what was in the city REFUGEES.......
I have always thought it to be a late war revenge attack,not so much survival more of a very large scale TERROR ATTACK.
No; as well as a transport hub, attack designed to encourage the Germans to surrender quicker than they might have done so shortening the war in Europe.
Anyway, they started it!
It was indeed a transport hub, but the Brits and Americans did not even bomb the railway yards, preferring to dehouse the suburbs and destroy the industrial factory units. To me not a crime in a very long and bloody war where morality threshold was by then very low
Very easy in this day and age to cry "warcrime" but the notion of warcrimes only came about after the second world war. Dresden, not good but there again the enemy would not give up and those who were fighting this war had the first world war in their minds, so the attitude was never again will Germany be allowed to drive the world to destruction. It has to be put in its historical context before any valid argument can be put forward. After all the Germans did not give a sh*t about Rotterdam or even the "Bidecker" raids on this country. SO was the deliberate bombing of Canterbury a warcrime? Rotterdam- at the point of the Dutch surrender a warcrime? Germany reaped the "whirlwind". Interestingly only in the last few weeks German historians have revised down dramatically the number of dead caused by the Dresden raid. It would appear that the nazis statistics for casualties never contested until now.
Beware of revisionist historians-most are crap!
No I do not think it was a war crime. I personally and I do not wish to put this idea on anyone else, feel that if you declare total war everyone in your country is a fair and valid target. If one has a problem with their governments ways of working get out of the country or fight against the government like the Jews and the french did.
Hurley
It is only a crime if war is a crime.
No.
WWII was fought under terms of the Hague Conventions 1907, where the position and legality of aerial bombardment of civilian populations was subject to interpretation.
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention 1949 means that if Dresden were replicated today it would be a 'war crime'...however, who would enforce that? Who has prosecuted the warcrimes perpetrated by the western governments in the last 10-15 years?
There is however, a strong push to have these sorts of things retrospectively assigned warcrime status. To me this is dreadful historical tampering akin to the recent pardons given to those 'shot at dawn' in WWI.
So on, it wasn't a warcrime.
Now then, was the bombing of Dresden acceptable?
Well, that's very much something to debate.
Stretegically - yes. The Alllies were by that stage in the war switching their thinking from 'how do we win', to 'how do we win as quickly as possible'. To aid the Russians, the bombing of Dresden, Chemnitz, and Leipzig to interdict German attempts to counter the advancing Russians were entirely appropriate.
Tactically - yes. Dresden was the epitome of area bombing, which was the only aerial bombing option available. WWII did not have precision bombing techniques or technologies available.
The action was taken within the context of the 'total war' ethic of WWII. We forgive as we forget and looking back with our liberal sensibilities now, Dresden might be seen as unacceptable.
That said...Dresden was the change. Shortly after, even Churchill in a memo sent to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, expressed concerns that what was happening to Germany was becoming unacceptable.
OK, i've rambled a bit, but to conclude;
No it wasn't a warcrime.
At the time it was a sound strategic and tactical action.
Its effect changed opinion at the highest levels of the Allied command and contributed to the content of the post-war Geneva Convention concerning the legality of attacking civilians in war.
The general consensus seems to be 'No', so what about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they justified against the actions of the Japanese leading up to that, or did the US take it too far?
Quote from: Leon on 10 April 2010, 11:14:41 PM
The general consensus seems to be 'No', so what about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they justified against the actions of the Japanese leading up to that, or did the US take it too far?
Why are they different to Dresden?
Quote from: Luddite on 11 April 2010, 12:09:22 AM
Why are they different to Dresden?
The death tolls, the introduction of nuclear weapons, and the motive being more a show of power than about a specific military target.
Quote from: Leon on 11 April 2010, 12:28:15 AM
The death tolls, the introduction of nuclear weapons, and the motive being more a show of power than about a specific military target.
Tonnage droppedDresden 4000 tons
Hiroshima 13-18 kilotons
Area destroyed Dresden 15 sq miles
Hiroshima 3.2 km radius
Death toll Dresden 100,000-250,000est for many years after the war. Modern EU reinterpretations suggest 20,000-45,000 est. These lower figures remain highly disputed.
Hiroshima 140,000 est.
Not greatly different really.
Given the political fallout of the Dresden bombings, i also think there is parity between the two from a propaganda perspective.
Also, the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'aimed at 'showing power'' rather than, like Dresden, an attempt to shorten the war and reduce further Allied losses is also highly debatable.
Not saying you're wrong
Leon, just that its highly debatable...anyone else care to jump in on that debate? :D
Mr Hurley - you need to look in the mirror and read what you wrote in this discussion and take a serious look at yourself. War is a dreadful thing, and to say civilians deserve all they get??-and all wars are total wars? Have you been a soldier? or been to a country that has had a war where civilians have been mass murdered? hmmmm??? makes me wonder.
Dresden -no war crime - had to be done im afraid (married to a german so I should really watch what Im saying) :o :o
Quote from: Luddite on 11 April 2010, 01:05:23 AM
Tonnage dropped
Dresden 4000 tons
Hiroshima 13-18 kilotons
Area destroyed
Dresden 15 sq miles
Hiroshima 3.2 km radius
Death toll
Dresden 100,000-250,000est for many years after the war. Modern EU reinterpretations suggest 20,000-45,000 est. These lower figures remain highly disputed.
Hiroshima 140,000 est.
Not greatly different really.
Given the political fallout of the Dresden bombings, i also think there is parity between the two from a propaganda perspective.
Also, the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'aimed at 'showing power'' rather than, like Dresden, an attempt to shorten the war and reduce further Allied losses is also highly debatable.
Not saying you're wrong Leon, just that its highly debatable...anyone else care to jump in on that debate? :D
You can't really compare the tonnage dropped when one of them was a nuclear weapon. And the combined death toll for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are over 250,000, ten times the more recent estimates for Dresden. How accurate these figures are is debatable though.
I think the major difference is still the fact that the US motive, whilst having the potential benefit of ending the war earlier, was purely to prove dominance over the Japanese, threatening them with complete annihilation. They opened the door to a whole new type of warfare, and the global impact of that was huge.
With Dresden, actual military targets were identified. The scale of the bombings to destroy those targets is where the problem lies.
I'd highly recommend The Fog of War , which is effectively a long interview with Robert McNamara. A lot of it deals with his involvement in and reflections on the use of aerial bombing and atomic weapons in the 20th Century. Lots of food for thought.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804#
Quote from: 17-21l on 11 April 2010, 01:09:52 AM
Mr Hurley - you need to look in the mirror and read what you wrote in this discussion and take a serious look at yourself. War is a dreadful thing, and to say civilians deserve all they get??-and all wars are total wars? Have you been a soldier? or been to a country that has had a war where civilians have been mass murdered? hmmmm??? makes me wonder.
Dresden -no war crime - had to be done im afraid (married to a german so I should really watch what Im saying) :o :o
Do you know what the statement "total war" means when a country declares it? I'll put it in one line "All production and efforts will be put toward winning the war" This could be viewed two ways: the aggressor and the victim.
Aggressor: Each and every person in the country is in effect agreeing with the it leadership in killing other people.
Victim: The leadership has decided that it is better to fight on then to surrender.
My view is that each person has a brain and therefor can make up there minds if they want to be part of ether of these options. Just like a lot of people did in WW2. I would ask you this where does the classification of ok to kill end? supply truck driver? Factory worker? cook for the factory worker? butcher for the cook?
I'm not saying hell bomb everyone in any conflict but if you ever find yourself voting or hearing your government talk about war, stop and think about it. Remember what happened in the past to other people could happen to you.
I'm Canadian and a Newfoundlander 17-21, I've never had someone try to kill me. I can look in the mirror and say "I believe in what my country has done and will do, because I'm a part of it. I also take full responsibility for anything it does because I'm Canadian." If you can't look in the mirror and say "I'm glade to be from here" then you have some thinking to do.
Im proud to be British - that much so that I served my country for 23 years!! dont mean I agree with everything she does!! (look at the price of petrol ;D) . Yes you are correct Canada hasnt had to do much since the war - but what if , lets play with your head, the USA invaded Canada and declared Total War for no reason! You wouldn't have an option would you? ( could make for a great scenario wargames wise)
People dont tell governments what to do, they do what they wish. Take it from me Ive seen what little wars do (Bosnia) and that was enough.
as for "leaving a country" if you dont agree! well I beleave 1930's Europe was a totaly different mind set than today. People were very limited in knowledge of other countries etc (" tell you what I dont agree with Herr Hittler - Ill move to England-cant speak the lingo like and cant afford the bus fare!!) people just didnt have the means to just 'up' and go- and why should they??
So only one question to you Mr Hurley - where have you served your Country to see Total War, and then what made the deciding factor that made you beleave it was a good thing ???
God save the Queen
Quote from: 17-21l on 13 April 2010, 07:31:38 AM
So only one question to you Mr Hurley - where have you served your Country to see Total War, and then what made the deciding factor that made you beleave it was a good thing ???
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question.
No - you probably dont, forget it - and game on
Quote from: 17-21l on 13 April 2010, 07:31:38 AM
Im proud to be British - that much so that I served my country for 23 years!!
Where did you serve?
Let's not get personal dudes!
Pax Vobiscum
I've tried being nice to this gentlemen and I've tried to stay away from using anything but facts and personal opinions. He seems to have some sort of problem with me.
Hurley
Let's all have a beer, agree to disagree, and get back to painting!
Agreed - lets have a beer - i havent got a problem with you at all - I just beleave that people, in general, should think before typing. Your first comment on this topic just bewildered me that someone could think such a thing ??? - hey maybe its just me ?
In regards where Ive served -Germany, Cyprus, Canada, Bosnia , UK, even got to Gib at one point, all the good postings that A Royal Armoured Corps soldier got sent in them there days.
I agree to disagree, this debate is now at an end, it is a dead debate, ;)
God save the Queen
I rank Dresden as a needless tragedy. Britain (and the Americans) still believed that strategic bombing and flattening cities was a viable strategy to end the war. The mistaken belief that civilians remaining steady under fire was a uniquely British trait and the Germans were on the verge of revolt and hanging old Hitler for letting him bomb their cities is still believed to this day.
On the other hand there are people who seem to think that because the Allies were "the good guys" they should be blameless and therefore Dresden becomes a war crime. Not to mention the naziphiles who will feel that Dresden makes up for all the horribly nasty things Hitler and his gang of thugs perpetrated.
Dresden was largely unnecessary. The only reason why it was picked was because was an attempt by Bomber Command to show that it wasn't useless by this stage of the war and that it could still win major victories (destroying cities) right up to the end. Dresden was a part of Germany that hadn't been heavily bombed before and it was now in easy range of the bombers. In a nutshell, BC was still trying to make its mark and showing it was still capable of doing business.