View Poll Results: Was Dresden a war crime ?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes definitely

    63 59.43%
  • No.

    31 29.25%
  • I am not sure.

    8 7.55%
  • I care only for the Illuminati (other)

    4 3.77%
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 140

Thread: War Crimes: Dresden

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,608

    Default War Crimes: Dresden

    "I asked [yesterday] whether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in East Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets. Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done"
    Winston Churchill January 26 1945

    "The Air Staff have now arranged that, subject to the overriding claims of attacks on enemy oil production and other approved target systems within the current directive, available effort should be directed against Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig or against other cities where severe bombing would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the east, but would also hamper the movement of troops from the west."
    Archibald Sinclair (secretary of state for air)


    In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.

    One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

    In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

    On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.

    It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land … The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
    The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.
    Winston Churchill March 28 1945


    According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II)

    The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Estimates are made difficult by the fact that the city and surrounding suburbs which had a population of 642,000 in 1939[18] was crowded at that time with up to 200,000 refugees[19], and some thousands of wounded soldiers. The fate of some of the refugees is not known as they may have been killed and incinerated beyond recognition in the fire-storm, or they may have left Dresden for other places without informing the authorities. Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000, but historians now view around 25,000-35,000 as the likely range[20][21] with the latest (1994) research by the Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert pointing toward the lower part of this range[22]. It would appear from such estimates that the casualties suffered in the Dresden bombings were not disproportionate to those suffered by other German cities which were subject to fire raids during area attacks[23].

    Contemporary official German records give a number of 21,271 registered burials, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt.[24] There were around 25,000 officially buried dead by March 22, 1945, war related or not, according to official German report Tagesbefehl (Order of the Day) no. 47 ("TB47"). There was no registration of burials between May and September 1945.[25] War-related dead found in later years, from October 1945 to September 1957, are given as 1,557; from May 1945 until 1966, 1,858 bodies were recovered. None were found during the period 1990-1994, even though there was a lot of construction and excavation during that period. The number of people registered with the authorities as missing was 35,000; around 10,000 of those were later found to be alive.[26] In recent years, the estimates have become a little higher in Germany and lower in Britain; earlier it was the opposite.

    There have been higher estimates for the number of dead, ranging as high as 300,000. They are from disputed and unreliable sources, such as the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels, Soviet historians, and David Irving, the once popular, but now discredited self-taught historian who retracted his higher estimates[27]. Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's retracted "authoritative" higher estimates.

    The Nazis made use of Dresden in their propaganda efforts and promised swift retaliation. The Soviets also made propaganda use of the Dresden bombing in the early years of the Cold War to alienate the East Germans from the Americans and British.
    We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.

    I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them.

    Eyewitness account (http://timewitnesses.org/english/~lothar.html)

  2. #2

    Default

    I believe it was, while some people will say that it was justified, because of the London bombings and the cities the nazis burned to the ground, with their war crimes. Neither side had clean hands after the war, the US actually had concentration camps for the Japanese and forced them to live there (it was brutal and inhumane, but they were fed though). I voted for yes. I don't know too much on Dresden, so I can't elaborate too much other then cite evidence proving both sides guilty of war crimes.
    Attollite portas, principes, vestras et elevamini, portae aeternales et introibit rex gloriae.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Praeses
    I believe it was, while some people will say that it was justified, because of the London bombings and the cities the nazis burned to the ground, with their war crimes. Neither side had clean hands after the war, the US actually had concentration camps for the Japanese and forced them to live there (it was brutal and inhumane, but they were fed though). I voted for yes. I don't know too much on Dresden, so I can't elaborate too much other then cite evidence proving both sides guilty of war crimes.
    Please, dont even compare concentration camps with what the US did with japanese citizens. Detainment of Japanese were wrong but it is no way comparable to concentration camps. Anyway I dont think it was a war crime but Im probably in the minority that thinks if you step over the line of war crimes, genocide etc you are in no position to complain/***** about the payback that will come from your actions. Im a reap what you sow, eye for an eye type of person though

  4. #4
    Wild Bill Kelso's Avatar Protist Slayer
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Oil Town, Alberta
    Posts
    5,203

    Default

    You have to look at it if the Allies had lost (lets go for a long stretch and say Nazi germany woudl actually try the allied generals failry). If the allies had lost, the generals repsonsible for the bombings surely would have been held and tried for war crimes. Unfortunatly if this was the case the concentration camps would not have been viewed as war crimes, tragic yes, but not as a war crimes.
    Still here since December 2002
    At sometime I patronized all these old bums:Necrobrit, Sulla, Scrappy Jenks, eldaran, Oldgamer, Ecthelion,Kagemusha, and adopted these bums: Battle Knight, Obi Wan Asterixand Muizer

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danzig
    Please, dont even compare concentration camps with what the US did with japanese citizens. Detainment of Japanese were wrong but it is no way comparable to concentration camps. Anyway I dont think it was a war crime but Im probably in the minority that thinks if you step over the line of war crimes, genocide etc you are in no position to complain/***** about the payback that will come from your actions. Im a reap what you sow, eye for an eye type of person though
    You might be confusing concentration camps with the genocide in europe here. What the US had were still concentration camps, it's not about whether they killed people there, because concentration camps were just that, camps build to concentrate certain people there. It is an old concept.

    Oh and big cheers for your "they had it coming" statement, civilians always have it coming when being punished for their leader's actions
    I bet you know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right" and the bombings certainly didn't take place with the complete hindsight of knowing all german war crimes.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapax
    You might be confusing concentration camps with the genocide in europe here. What the US had were still concentration camps, it's not about whether they killed people there, because concentration camps were just that, camps build to concentrate certain people there. It is an old concept.
    No not really confusing them but the first thought when concentration camps is said is Nazi style camps so its probably a poor word to use given what is attached to it.

    Oh and big cheers for your "they had it coming" statement, civilians always have it coming when being punished for their leader's actions
    I bet you know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right" and the bombings certainly didn't take place with the complete hindsight of knowing all german war crimes.
    Shrug dont lecture me. I fully admitted Im in the minority in my view and if you dont like it oh well. Millions of civilizans lost their lives in WW2 due to *Germany*, the blame for German civilizan deaths fall upon the Nazis more then they do the Brits and Americans since they caused the conflict. I resent attempts by some people (not in this thread but in the real world) who try and use Dresden as a rally point to see yeah Nazis were bad but the Brits and Americans were just as bad, just look at Dresden! Dresden never would have happened if not for the Nazis, millions of people in Europe, Russian wouldnt have died if not for German aggression. War is brutal and during a war people who are attacked are going to strike back and yes there is going to be more then a bit of vengence in their actions so you are also applying hindsight to the entire affair, to average Brit who endured the "Blitz" I doubt they felt much sympathy at the thought of German civilizans dying. Two wrongs dont make a right, most definately true when the wrongs are comparable.

  7. #7

    Default

    It doesn't matter whether you're in the minority, therefor it's not terribly important whether you admit that or not. The point is that it can be regarded a war crime nonetheless like many others. This circle of violence that you actually seem to advocate doesn't really help anyone, everything would just go to hell if people would slug it out with disregard for any kind of rules. The people in London might not care about the bombing of german cities but somehow it doesn't make the unnecessary deaths of several hundred thousand civilians any better, does it?

    This happened to many other cities, though this one was bombed more viciously. I have to say, I do feel for them, but if you can make a case for Dresden, you can make a case for Berlin, Tokyo, Stalingrad, Hamburg etc.
    Well of course, but why Stalingrad? That city was fought over, not bombed for the heck of it.

  8. #8
    Major König's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    This happened to many other cities, though this one was bombed more viciously. I have to say, I do feel for them, but if you can make a case for Dresden, you can make a case for Berlin, Tokyo, Stalingrad, Hamburg etc.

  9. #9
    DimeBagHo's Avatar Praeses
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    7,943

    Default

    It wasn't a war crime, although it may well have been morally wrong. The laws of war are reciprocal in nature - or in otherwords if the other side does not make a good faith effort to abide by them then they do not exist. The Germans started population bombing in the 1930's in Spain and used it very early in the war against the British, so no one had any *legal* obligation to refrain from using population bombing against Germany.

    Arguably it was morally wrong because it did more harm than good, and it was expected at the time that it would do more harm than good, but to call it a war crime is simply confusion.

  10. #10
    Sidus Preclarum's Avatar Honnęte Homme.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Paris V
    Posts
    6,909

    Default

    I generally consider indiscriminate strategic bombing, especially as it was conducted by either side in WWII, to ba a war crime.
    Ditto the use of sub-ammunitions warheads in urban area by some modern western armies *hint hint*

  11. #11

    Default

    I don't know if indiscriminetely bombing civilians is a nominal war crime, but if it isn't the definition is idiotic and has to be revised.

    Total war (as first practiced in full-scale only in WW2) as in holding as a vaild target the whole nation (and not only the combatants) is an abominal form of warfare. War might be a necessary evil, but killing non-combatants is unacceptable, immoral and unethical.

    Under that light, Dresden was a horrible war crime, as were the slaughters of the Wehrmacht and the SS in Russia, Yugoslavia and Greece, the burning of villages and the massacre of their inhabitants in the same regions, performed either by the Germans or by their local cooperators (especially the Baltics and the Khozaks had a terrible record on that field... Stalin didn't took that very well, of course) the mass-executions of non-combatants whenever the local resistance stroke a blow, the sinking of non-combatant ships (a sport both sides of the war practiced widely) the numerous massacres the Japanese conducted in the far east and most certainly the bombing of two civilian targets - Hiroshima and Nagashaki - to oblivion via the A-route.

    P.S. The holocaust is not a "war crime", it's a crime against humanity.

    Winner of the - once upon a time - least popular TWC
    TOPIC award

    Υπό την αιγίδα του Tacticalwithdrawal
    under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal


    Naughty bros: Red Baron and Polemides

  12. #12
    imb39's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Patrician Citizen Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,872

    Default

    Victor's Justice - therefore no...

    Looking at it dispassionately - then yes. Cities are also centres of civilian population. However it is very easy for us to sit here and condemn the actions performed whilst fighting - had I been around during WW2 I would have supported the bombings - it was either us or them and if by devastating one of their cities, our own are protected - then so be it. It's not right, but sensibilities depart during times of war.

    Britain took advantage of a mistake by German bombers - Britain knew it was a error when London was first bombed during the Battle of Britain. But you don't look a gift horse in the mouth when your primary defense is on its knees. The Blitz that followed (by both sides) did cost Germany more than Britain - it meant that Germany took its eye off the ball and did not achieve its aim of eradicating the RAF.

    Undoubtedly it affected German production - but the effect was fairly minimal and easily overcome. Strategic bombing has now been proved to be a worthless tactic. Everytime it is tried - production is quickly recovered and civilian morale stiffened. Targetted bombing, however, is much, much more effective.

    I voted yes as by todays standards it is a war crime - and this can be decided on retrspectively (it seems to me). However at the time then strategic bombing by all sides was not considered so. This should also be extended, of course to the bombing of Japanese cities.

    Even though it has nothing to do with bombing - I also find the parallels between U Boat operations and American Pacific submarine operations chillingly similar...
    Last edited by imb39; October 20, 2005 at 05:25 AM.

  13. #13
    No, that isn't a banana
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,216

    Default

    I don't think the issue is about victor's justice, or even retaliation. It was war. Total war. Dresden was a transit point for German troops moving to and from the Eastern Front. The civilian population of Dresden served two possible purposes: potential workers in military-based factories, or potential enemies-at-arms of the Allies. Regardless of how Bomber Harris actually felt about German people, his decision to level Dresden, and any other German city, was not "criminal." The Allied air forces had an obligation to destroy the economic and military potential of Germany. Dresden was just another cog in the war-machine. It didn't matter if the war was going to end the next day, the next week/month or even the next year - wars don't "wind down" like a country fair. They often go out with a bang.

  14. #14
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default

    I voted "no", for the reason that the victors in the war decided it was not a war crime. I actually do believe that the bombing of Dresden, along with the Blitz against London, the destruction of Warsaw, and the fire bombing of Tokyo were war crimes. However, war crimes are a matter of perspective, you see.

    General von Falkenhorst was hanged by the Nuremburg Tribunal for planning and executing aggressive warfare against Norway. However, the general's plan was only promulgated and executed because the Germans discovered that the British were going to invade Norway. Indeed, the British invasion was only a few hours behind the German invasion.

    Yet, those British officers who planned and executed aggressive warfare against Norway were given medals, and the honor of their country.

    War crimes are a matter of perspective ...

  15. #15
    No, that isn't a banana
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,216

    Default

    I have to disagree with you OG - just this once.

    War crimes are not a matter of perspective - they are a matter of internationally agreed upon law. On the other hand, I will agree that the application of the law is an entirely different issue.


    Unfortunately, for the victims of any Area bombing campaign, the powers that be failed to ratify any sort of addition or ammendments to the Geneva Conventions on the Conduct of War prior to the outbreak of WW2. As a result, there technically was nothing illegal about bombing civilians. However, the Americans had used the principles outlined in the section of the Geneva Conventions that dealt with Sieges and Naval Bombardment as a sort of guideline for the justification of the bombing of Dresden. Here are some of the points the US military made following the war.

    "1. The raid had a legitimate military end, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
    2. That there were military units, and anti-aircraft defense within a sufficiently close perimeter to disqualify the town as "undefended".
    3. The raid did not use extraordinary means to achieve this end, but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
    4. The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
    5. The raid achieved the military objective established without "excessive" loss of civilian life."

  16. #16
    Centenarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Forest, Hampshire
    Posts
    885

    Default War Crime - what a load of Crap

    Hi all,

    Some of you on this thread aint gonna like what i have to say but ...

    There is no such thing as an innocent person in a war. All enemy personnel are legitimate targets in any war, be they soldiers, civilians or auxillaries. All members of a society have always been victims of war, ever since conflict started. You only have to look at history to see that.

    Oh, I hear you say, how terrible that he says such things - nasty man !!!

    I lived in Germany and Austria for 20 years and I have many friends who actually lived through the allied bombings on German cities like Hamburg, Dortmund and Hannover. None of them blame the British or the Americans for the bombings, so how can the instigator of this thread who is no doubt not old enough to have experienced it, have the right to blame us.

    I say, just accept that things like this are a part of war. Not nice, I admit, but i'm sure we will all see far, far worse than Dresden in the future.

    I find it rediculous that anyone can contemplate Dresden as a war crime - Dresden just like any other city was an enemy target, and therefore a legitimate target.

    Eurolord
    To the Brave comes Honour and Victory. To the Weak comes Defeat and Dishonour.

  17. #17
    First Crusader's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eurolord
    Hi all,

    Some of you on this thread aint gonna like what i have to say but ...

    There is no such thing as an innocent person in a war. All enemy personnel are legitimate targets in any war, be they soldiers, civilians or auxillaries. All members of a society have always been victims of war, ever since conflict started. You only have to look at history to see that.

    Oh, I hear you say, how terrible that he says such things - nasty man !!!

    I lived in Germany and Austria for 20 years and I have many friends who actually lived through the allied bombings on German cities like Hamburg, Dortmund and Hannover. None of them blame the British or the Americans for the bombings, so how can the instigator of this thread who is no doubt not old enough to have experienced it, have the right to blame us.

    I say, just accept that things like this are a part of war. Not nice, I admit, but i'm sure we will all see far, far worse than Dresden in the future.

    I find it rediculous that anyone can contemplate Dresden as a war crime - Dresden just like any other city was an enemy target, and therefore a legitimate target.

    Eurolord
    This is a relatively new attitude that is shown in many, if not all, modern wars.

    The distinctions in the old trinity of Clauswitz, the Government, the Military, and the people, are wearing away.

    I wouldn't call that "bad". It is just the course the evolution of warfare is taking.

    Interesting related article.

    http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...ng/creveld.htm
    Heresy grows from idleness.

    No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.

  18. #18

    Default

    well WW2 was a Total War after all
    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be used until they try and take it away.
    Staff Officer of Corporal_Hicks in the Legion of Rahl
    Commanding Katrina, Crimson Scythe, drak10687 and Leonidas the Lion

  19. #19

    Default

    I think so. At that time in the war, it was a completly ruthless and unnessecary thing to do (so were Hitler's raids, but I'm trying to stay on topic).



  20. #20
    Freddie's Avatar The Voice of Reason
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,534

    Default

    So if German bombers blow up British cities such as London, Coventry, Bristol’s, Hull etc we have no right to respond in kind? Remember it was those people who we bombed in Desdern who voted for Hitler to take power anyway, so I can’t see how they have any complaints.

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •