- #1
spender
- 22
- 0
So..what do you think about bombing of Dresden in 1945, was it justified or was that a war crime ?
spender said:So..what do you think about bombing of Dresden in 1945, was it justified or was that a war crime ?
Well, here's something you may consider a twist: consider the context of WWII.PerennialII said:A plain war crime, it'll be interesting if someone will twist even this the other way around.
Simply put, no, it was not a war crime. This is simply historical fact. In 1945, that's how wars were fought, all sides agreed on that, and all sides did similar acts.was that a war crime ?
Bombing civilian populaces was justified by those who did it (everyone) as being designed to break the will to fight of the nation being bombed. In a world war, the economy is a combatant, and the national will to fight is essential to the war effort. As a practical matter, carpet-bombing of cities did little to break the "will to fight" - the one exception to that is the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.was it justified
Practically, it didn't work, morally it is wrong (and people should have accepted that at the time), and it should not have been done.what do you think
russ_watters said:Well, here's something you may consider a twist: consider the context of WWII.
spender, the way your question is worded, its actually pretty complex, and a multi-part question, with one part being a question of history: Simply put, no, it was not a war crime. This is simply historical fact. In 1945, that's how wars were fought, all sides agreed on that, and all sides did similar acts.
Today, such actions are considered wrong, if not specifically war crimes (I'm not sure what, specifically, the Geneva conventions say about it). Bombing civilian populaces was justified by those who did it (everyone) as being designed to break the will to fight of the nation being bombed. In a world war, the economy is a combatant, and the national will to fight is essential to the war effort. As a practical matter, carpet-bombing of cities did little to break the "will to fight" - the one exception to that is the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Practically, it didn't work, morally it is wrong (and people should have accepted that at the time), and it should not have been done.
But that is, in fact, the point of the Geneva Conventions.PerennialII said:I see this opening up quite a can of worms if no general construct is applied to evaluate legality or morality.
spender said:So..what do you think about bombing of Dresden in 1945, was it justified or was that a war crime ?
fourier jr said:the highly gratuitous destruction of dresden is/was not a war crime because the allies did more of it than the germans.
fourier jr said:it's supposed to mean that the people who win determine what a war crime is. the germans could have shown that the allies did much more bombing of urban concentrations, so that didn't count as a war crime. (not that I think it's right). at the tokyo trial, the only independent asian justice (an indian named radhabinod pal) used the existing international law when he said that the only crime in the pacific that compared with the nazi holocaust was the dropping of the 2 atom bombs. that didn't happen at nuremburg; the allies made things up as they went along. there was a german submarine commander (gernetz or something) who was on trial for attacking civilian ships & got off because he said that the allies did just as much of that as the germans did. i think he even used admiral nimitz as a defence witness.
also, that the tokyo trial, the japanese prime minister also asked why anything he did was worse than the dropping of the 2 atom bombs. the proceedings stopped & his comment was stricken from the record.
so the criteria for a war crime is made up by the people who win. that's why savagely razing 29 square kilometres of an 800-year-old city with primarily cultural value (rather than military/industrial) isn't a war crime.
Integral said:To look back at history and call "war crime" is really pretty useless. Virtually every decision maker of that era is dead. This is history, there were atrocities aplenty on all sides.. It was war..
If you want war crimes why stop at WWII? Just look at what the European setters of this Continent did to the native population. There is not a trace of their culture left, and many tribes have disappeared completely. Where do you stop if you are going to call war crimes on the events of history? Virtually every nation has some skeletons in the closet somewhere in their history.
I cannot see where it is worth anybodies time to worry about such things. Would you not be better off studying the events with an eye for ways to prevent the atrocities from reoccurring?
Integral said:There is a difference between studying for historical context and pointing fingers. The question which started this thread seems to be looking for someone to blame rather then historical context. I cannot see any point it that approach.
AFAIK, the Germans were not prosecuted for bombing civilian targets, even though they did quite a bit of it. So what does that tell you?dextercioby said:What's that supposed to mean...? It certainly was a war crime.Period.And if the Germans would have eventually won the war,the US+UK leaders would have been executed for warcrimes,and not the other way around.
Period.
Daniel.
I'm interested to know which are those 2 countries?russ_watters said:Also, can you name any country that currently prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes? I can think of two off the top of my head. What does that tell you about the morality and integrity of those two countries and the rest of the world that doesn't at least attempt to hold even standards?
You can't guess? Ok, I'll tell you: the United States and England.chound said:I'm interested to know which are those 2 countries?
You forgot about Denmark; they've convicted a sergeant already..russ_watters said:You can't guess? Ok, I'll tell you: the United States and England.
Fair enough - I didn't know that. In any case, I realize its also a little unfair of a comparison because with the US doing more fighting than most other countries, there is more opportunity for abuse - and more opportunity to demonstrate how we handle it.arildno said:You forgot about Denmark; they've convicted a sergeant already..
fourier jr said:there was a german submarine commander (gernetz or something) who was on trial for attacking civilian ships & got off because he said that the allies did just as much of that as the germans did. i think he even used admiral nimitz as a defence witness.
& the germans weren't convicted of war crimes for bombing urban civilian targets because they could have shown that the allies did more of it, simple as that.
gravenewworld said:Russia suffered the most casualties out of any country during world war 2, and the majority of their casualties by far were civilian. You really don't think that the nazis were bombing civilian targets hardcore?
Germans did not hesitate to bomb hospitals marked with Red Cross symbol
russ_watters said:AFAIK, the Germans were not prosecuted for bombing civilian targets, even though they did quite a bit of it. So what does that tell you?
Also, can you name any country that currently prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes? I can think of two off the top of my head. What does that tell you about the morality and integrity of those two countries and the rest of the world that doesn't at least attempt to hold even standards?
No, guys, 'the winner decides what is a crime and what isn't' quite simply isn't true anymore, practically (since the first Geneva Convention came out), and was never true morally.
And I also agree with Integral: the tone of the OP looks like finger-pointing, and its not very useful to look at WWII out of context. In fact, I think that once you put it in context, you will see that the western world has made great progress in that department in the past 100 years.