Allied war crimes of World War II

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Allied bombing of populated areas of Germany and Japan during World War II were not war crimes. They were absolutely necessary to win the war. Sure, 30,000 people died at Dresden, and it certainly shouldn't have happened, but how many people would have died had the strategic bombing campaign not been carried out? German production was knocked right down below 33% of what it would have been for some industries by strategic bombing. Millions more from both sides would have died had the strategic bombing campaign not gone ahead.

As for the nuclear bombing, over 150,000 people died, but how many would have died had the invasion gone ahead? Every single man woman and child in Japan was ready to defend against the pending allied invasion, and millions of civilians alone would have perished, never mind soldiers.

None of those things were war crimes. These were war crimes: despicable and violent acts of petty revenge that did not help the war in any way:

The Americans behaved as they always do, throwing our wounded from the bridge into the Waal, and shooting the few prisoners among the army reservists

Shameful mutilations had been commited again the wounded lying on the road bridge. Stab wounds to the head, throat and heart were seen by Lieutenant Schulz and Albrecht. These were recorded on paper and passed on to the higher authority.

Led by an American officer overseeing with a sub-machine gun, they were stood up against a wall. At that moment SS-Corporal Kochler and SS-Lance-Corporal Burgstaller overpowered three Americans, and managed to break through to the survivors of the Battalion Euling...Burgstaller saw how two other SS-Corporals, Lindenhaler and Beissmann, and a Fallschirmjaeger were shot down by the Americans. One can only assume the other siz prisoners were also shot. Further witnesses reported happenings which occured within the bunker one hour later. The lights were still shining as shots were head. It is likely the enemy massacred the six or seven wounded left inside, including SS-Captain Krueger, together with two medical orderlies. The light, according to precise estimates, was doused at the same time.

Captain Ortmann sent me to you as a messenger. Received machine gun fire en route, dashed for cover in a hedgerow, can't get any further. Range to the machine gun is approximately 20 metres, am under continous fire...Afterwards I see eight to ten fallschirmjaeger walking towards hte machine gun nest with their hands up, followed by Tommies and Canadians. A brief halt, the machine gun swings around and shoots up all the prisoners. I am powerless, having lost my machine pistol when I dashed for cover in the hedgerow. It is lying a few metres away. I went to reach for it slowly, suddenly "Hands up!". I think that's it. Another mortar barrage. My captors take. I get my machine pistol. Short bursts of fire, a few enemy less, including the machine ugn nest. Able to report back to Ortmann and also report the killing of the prisoners. Ortmann informs me that you made it back

If only I could describe it properly, the close combat in the Dutch woods! I wish I had the chance to go back to this country, Holland and tell what happened there... at the hydrochloric acid factory by the canal road - a fight against parachute troops on the ground and snipers in tree-tops. That night the former General der Flieger Student himself took part in the German counter-attack. We came up against hard, bitter opposition and our desperate attempt at attack was brought to a halt. It was raining and many of our men slipped and slithered down the wet slope into the canal where they drowned. The the Americans let hydrochloric acid into the trenches, which were partly filled with water. This acid caused terrible injuries on the bodies of the soldiers; few survived the ordeal

You might have thought this kind of thing was extremely uncommon, indeed the wikipedia article about allied war crimes lists only a few massacres.

But the above was just five incidents from a single battle, the battle of Nijmegen. I could have added many more incidents from the same battle, and doubtless tens of thousands of prisoners were killed at the hands of the western allies post 6 June 1944, never mind during the whole war.

[hellheaven1987]

A-bomb is nothing comparing to Firebombing on Japan.

But it is necessaried!!!

[Sphere]

Sure, 30,000 people died at Dresden, and it certainly shouldn't have happened, but how many people would have died had the strategic bombing campaign not been carried out?

Dresden is the most commonly sited example because it doesn't really fit into the terms you set forth. The red army was only 60 miles away from the city and the German resistance had already collapsed. Only the densely populated city center was targeted with the industrial outskirts left alone.

So overall, the bombing of Dresden certainly had no effect on the outcome of the war (there were only 85 days left in the war, German defeat had been unavoidable for over a year), as the city was going to be captured very soon anyways.

The bombing campaign of 1944 in Europe is different in that there were more industrial targets, and the Russian army hadn't advanced as far, but things get dicey with the raids in late-1944 into 1945 as military and industrial targets dwindled while allied bombing capabilities grew.

The bombing campaign in Japan is also different, as it was not on the brink of collapse from invading armies as Germany was. Its standing army in China was still considered formidable and the planned invasion of the home islands had not gotten underway. I.e. Tokoyo, Nagasaki etc were not about to fall to American ground forces.

[thursgun]

About the A-Bombing on Japan, I was looking in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...ng_unnecessary and found this quotes:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

Many more here
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

The bombing campaign in Japan is also different, as it was not on the brink of collapse from invading armies as Germany was. Its standing army in China was still considered formidable and the planned invasion of the home islands had not gotten underway. I.e. Tokoyo, Nagasaki etc were not about to fall to American ground forces.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Japanese troops in China were not a threat for the allies because the Russians were to invade Manchuria as soon as V.E. was achieved. This was agreed in the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...n_of_Manchuria

[Mr. Scott]

About the A-Bombing on Japan, I was looking in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...ng_unnecessary and found this quotes:

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

Many more here
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



I wouldn't be so sure about that. Japanese troops in China were not a threat for the allies because the Russians were to invade Manchuria as soon as V.E. was achieved. This was agreed in the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...n_of_Manchuria

I'm sorry but I highly doubt the japanese would sue for peace unless they knew that they could lose without damaging america at all (US could flatten japan).

Till WW2 Japan had never been conquered or surrendered to a foreign force. The Japanese have a high high sense of honor and would be willing to fight to the death, so long as they could damage their enemies. Kamikaze's anyone? They would kill themselves if they failed their master. They are probably one of the most determined people's in history.

So, japan only surrendered because it saw that if it kept fighting it would be completely annihilated and that it would have not been able to damage the allies if it kept fighting.

[thursgun]

I'm sorry but I highly doubt the japanese would sue for peace unless they knew that they could lose without damaging america at all (US could flatten japan).

Till WW2 Japan had never been conquered or surrendered to a foreign force. The Japanese have a high high sense of honor and would be willing to fight to the death, so long as they could damage their enemies. Kamikaze's anyone? They would kill themselves if they failed their master. They are probably one of the most determined people's in history.

So, japan only surrendered because it saw that if it kept fighting it would be completely annihilated and that it would have not been able to damage the allies if it kept fighting.

I know and I agree with you. But that is not the point. The question about the A-Bomb is not "was it useful?" but "was it necessary?" as in "was it the ONLY way to end the war by wiping out two cities (not one, but two!) and killing innocent people like women and children?".

[Mr. Scott]

I know and I agree with you. But that is not the point. The question about the A-Bomb is not "was it useful?" but "was it necessary?" as in "was it the ONLY way to end the war by wiping out two cities (not one, but two!) and killing innocent people like women and children?".

Do you think that if the US invaded that the Japanese people would simply let us stay there? No, they would do anything to kill as many allied forces as they could. Kamikazes? The bombs probably saved hundreds of thousands more lives.

What do you think the japanese did? Did they show mercy to the chinese, koreans, or filipinos? No, they slaughtered them in the millions. Trust me, I'm korean. the koreans hated the japanese with a burning passion. I don't, but when I hear my grandparents/great grandparents talk of the japanese, I can tell how much they hated them. My great grandma told me of how her best friend (she was 14) was taken by the Japanese. Never saw her again. The japanese today are fine, but back then, they were horrific.

to be honest, the japanese, nor the germans, got what they deserved. Neither had to suffer as much as the suffering they caused. They did not get the punishment that they deserved. Germany maybe, but Japan, no. Japan, compared to those they conquered and killed, were relatively unharmed. But the world is not fair and the allies were generally merciful.

[Spartacus the Irish]

I know and I agree with you. But that is not the point. The question about the A-Bomb is not "was it useful?" but "was it necessary?" as in "was it the ONLY way to end the war by wiping out two cities (not one, but two!) and killing innocent people like women and children?".

Does it matter whether it was the only way to end the war? It did end the war.

We can debate all day long as to whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the use of atomic weaponry, but the only facts are that before the atomic weapons, there was no surrender, and the only realistic alternative was a full scale invasion of Kyushu (Olympic) and later Honshu (Coronet).

And after four years of total war, the line between combatant and non-combatant were very blurred (not using this as an excuse for the bombing, but it is fact). The argument (at least from the Allied side), was that in a total war, no-one is 'innocent'. You may not have a uniform or drive a tank, but the food you plant, the shells you polish and pack, the clothes you sew, all help the enemy war effort. In total war, your enemy is not the enemy army, but the enemy state. Civilian status (and the immunity rights it bestows) only applies if you are not involved in the war, if you are, that makes you a combatant.

As I say, this is not my personal view, I am arguing theoretically. A worker who produced war materials, in a total war, is just as much of a combatant as a soldier in his foxhole.

[alhoon]

Dresden is the most commonly sited example because it doesn't really fit into the terms you set forth. The red army was only 60 miles away from the city and the German resistance had already collapsed. Only the densely populated city center was targeted with the industrial outskirts left alone.

I think 80.000 died in Dresden, not 30.000. It doesn't matter though, as I agree with this post. Dresden IMO was an unecessary act, where the pilots were instructed to cause civilian casualties to curb the resistance of the Germans.
Again: The target was the civilians.

Precision munitions and drone assassinations have gone a long way toward assisting the revisionist historian in creating his moral plays. How easy it is to remove history from context and then begin the moral formulation that will ultimately conclude that an act of war was criminal. The deliberate bombing of civilians on both sides was deplorable by our modern standards of warfare. The airplane had never been used in a major war before. Thus it was a new vector to rain death on the enemy and destroy its ability and will to fight; a prevailing philosophy in the conduct of war at the time.

The idea that civilians should be granted sacred protections from the ravages of war may have weight if the powers on both sides went to any length to protect them; but they did not. Assigning a absolute moral judgment on the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki, Coventry, London, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Darwin, etc, without accepting the context of the struggle is counterproductive. The reason why both wars are so monumental and chilling is because of the devastation and loss of life. Assigning blame at this point is completely pointless and only serves to reinforce old biases. There are far better lessons to be learned from both World Wars. We seem unable to learn them as well.

I respectfully disagree with the sentiment that since the morals of the time were different, we shouldn't judge them. No, one of the best lessons IMO of WWars is how we were able to rationalize killing civilians on purpose to curb the will and ability of said civilians to become soldiers.

In Roman era, genocide was considered also accepted. If your tribe was a nuissance it was removed from existance, stamping out culture and religion. Yes, we can critize that.

To enforce my point, I'll say this:
There are still WW2 veterans around. Most of them are not proud of what they did in the war when it comes to killing civilians.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Yeah right Allies had rights to kill innocent people...
And just look what USRR did to German citizens, they killed almost all Germans in Kenigsberg! You'll say that was necessary?

[Gromovnik]

Yeah right Allies had rights to kill innocent people...
...they killed almost all Germans in Kenigsberg!

no they didn't.

[milns]

It is totally unacceptable and silly to judge actions done more than 60 years ago. In that war nobody was white and fuzzy, everyone has some blood on their hands, even the victorious allies. There were a lot of atrocities, but what we should really concentrate upon is how countries has managed to settle their disputes and learnd to live on. It is sad to look upon people who still uses arguments like "they killed more" or "only jews suffered from nazis" and than on attepmts to use these arguments for personal gains.

[Jaketh]

nobody cares because we won the war

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

no they didn't.

Yeah keep listening to Russian self made History!

[EmperorBatman999]

Crippling an enemy's war industry is one thing, targeting civillians for no reason is another.

[Koelkastmagneet]

From a military standpoint, the atomic bombing was unnecessary.

[OTZ]

From a military standpoint, the atomic bombing was unnecessary.

I'm not sure I follow.

From a political perspective, I could agree.

[bushbush]

well the allies did not START the war. That's really the biggest crime of all.

[RomanSoldier9001]

well the allies did not START the war. That's really the biggest crime of all.

Who said they didnt?
First the outcomes of Treaty of Versailes even Allied Nations themsefls like Japan and Italy felt that tree major powers US UK and France were greddy and imperialistic to their interents.
Also Soviet Union that was allied power after 41 invaded Poland with Germany.

[Nietzsche]

Precision munitions and drone assassinations have gone a long way toward assisting the revisionist historian in creating his moral plays. How easy it is to remove history from context and then begin the moral formulation that will ultimately conclude that an act of war was criminal. The deliberate bombing of civilians on both sides was deplorable by our modern standards of warfare. The airplane had never been used in a major war before. Thus it was a new vector to rain death on the enemy and destroy its ability and will to fight; a prevailing philosophy in the conduct of war at the time.

The idea that civilians should be granted sacred protections from the ravages of war may have weight if the powers on both sides went to any length to protect them; but they did not. Assigning a absolute moral judgment on the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki, Coventry, London, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Darwin, etc, without accepting the context of the struggle is counterproductive. The reason why both wars are so monumental and chilling is because of the devastation and loss of life. Assigning blame at this point is completely pointless and only serves to reinforce old biases. There are far better lessons to be learned from both World Wars. We seem unable to learn them as well.