The Bombing of Dresden in 1945: Justified or War Crime?

[fourier jr]

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?

if the nazis were put on trial for that though, it would have set a legal precedent, and the germans would have been able to put on trial some of the allies (like churchill) who authorized turning dresden into a basketcase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
(look at "controversy": However as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions [levelling dresden] constituted a war crime.)

 

[gravenewworld]

Scroll down a little further and you will find some more interesting articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_London_in_World_War_II

Germans did not hesitate to bomb hospitals marked with Red Cross symbol

Major cultural sites in London bombed by the Germans

* All Hallows by-the-Tower
* All Hallows-on-the-Wall
* Bank tube Station - January 11, 1941
* British Museum - May 10, 1941
* Buckingham Palace
* Central Telegraph Office - December 29, 1940
* Chelsea Old Church
* Christ Church, Newgate
* City Temple
* Dutch Church
* Euston station - November 15, 1940
* Guildhall - December 29, 1940
* Holland House
* Houses of Parliament - May 10, 1941
* Lambeth Palace - May 10, 1941
* Lambeth Walk - September 18, 1940
* London Library
* Marble Arch Underground Station - September 17, 1940
* National Portrait Gallery - November 15, 1940
* Old Bailey - May 10, 1941
* Paternoster Row - December 29, 1940
* St Alban Wood Street
* St Alfege's Church - March 19, 1941
* St Andrew by-the-Wardrobe
* St Andrew Holborne
* St Augustine Watling Street
* St Bartholomew the Less
* St Botolph Aldersgate
* St Clement Danes
* St Dunstan-in-the-East
* St James Garlickhite
* St James' Palace - May 10, 1941
* St Lawrence Jewry - December 29, 1940
* St Mary Abchurch
* St Mary Aldermanbury
* St Mary-le-Bow - May 10, 1941
* St Nicholas Cole Abbey
* St Olave Hart Street
* St Paul's Cathedral - December 29, 1940
* St Vedast alias Foster
* Temple Church
* Westminster Abbey - November 15, 1940
* Westminster Hall - May 10, 1941


The nazis destroyed 90% of Warsaw Poland with mass bombings just like how 90% of Dresden was leveled by the Allies. More homes were also destroyed by the Germans when they hammered London than all the homes lost in Dresden. The protestors today still against the Dresden bombing can go cry me a river for all I care.

 

[singleton]

The idea that morality has a place in war is...odd. In war, everything is "fair target" IMHO.

Is killing ten soldiers any less "evil" than killing ten women and children? Does anyone "deserve" death more than someone else? Because that's what is implicitly suggested when killing soldiers is "normal" but tears are shed for the city turned to glass.

 

[spender]

Dresden was not the only city bombed to the ground by British and Americans.
In Hamburg more people died during one summer bombing than in Dresden,also Cologne,Hannover,Stuttgart, Lubeck etc,etc were destroyed.
What is scary is that during bombing of Dresden fighter pilots intentionally killed civilians on the roads escaping burning Dresden.Something simmilar happened at the end of Gulf War 1 when Iraqis were leaving Kuwait,our "heroic" fighter pilots killed thousands of fleeing Iraqi soldiers (War crime again).

 

[klusener]

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.

Having experienced a corrupt government, I would look at that and say wouldn't that court be lenient on its own citizen than if that citizen/soldier was tried on an international court, isn't this what the US is refusing to do?

 

[Integral]

It is said that WWII was won with Russian blood and American trucks.

 

[dextercioby]

It is said that WWII was won with Russian blood and American trucks.

Ja,wohl!

Daniel.

 

[russ_watters]

...& 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.

But you said that the Germans would have tried allies for war crimes for such actions. Just doing a little more (and while that's arguable, its not really significant - a crime is a crime is a crime, and how many times you do it only affects the punishment) wouldn't make the situation different. You're saying the Germans would have held a double-standard while the allies wouldn't have (didn't). That shows that the Allies had moral superiority - and I agree.

if the nazis were put on trial for that though, it would have set a legal precedent, and the germans would have been able to put on trial some of the allies (like churchill)

But again - only if the winner of the war allowed it. Again, this contradicts the typical "the winner decides what is right" argument. You're implying that the allies would have been equitable, or by not prosecuting Germans for attacking civilians, actually were equitable. Again, when the winner is truly immoral, "legal precident" simply doesn't apply. They do whatever they want.

Having experienced a corrupt government, I would look at that and say wouldn't that court be lenient on its own citizen than if that citizen/soldier was tried on an international court, isn't this what the US is refusing to do?

Certainly, it could be - it isn't a perfect process, but it is a step up from the multitude of countries who would never even consider prosecuting their own soldiers. It simply depends on how much integrity the government/legal system has. However, I would say that as long as the US makes a reasonable effort (yeah, I know, how do you define "reasonable?"), the US doesn't need to enter the world court. The World Court has some problems when applied to the US because of who the US is: being the big boys on the block, everyone is gunning for us. The EU, for example, was created largely to be an economic force to oppose the US. The UN works by majority rule (mostly), and let's face it: the majority of the countries in the world are not responsible enough to have the same vote as, say, France or Germany. That the world court would be dominated by 3rd world dictatorships is our fear, and it is a legitimate one: we would be their biggest target.

It is said that WWII was won with Russian blood and American trucks.

And to make it worse (could it be?) even the majority of the Russian "soldiers" were soldiers in name only - they were quite literally civilians rounded up, handed guns (or told to follow a guy with a gun) and forced to fight, with guns pointed at them from in front and behind.

 

[dextercioby]

And to make it worse (could it be?) even the majority of the Russian "soldiers" were soldiers in name only - they were quite literally civilians rounded up, handed guns (or told to follow a guy with a gun) and forced to fight, with guns pointed at them from in front and behind.

True,yet Russians won the war,by confirming the rule:"In war,quantity prevails upon quality".

Daniel.

 

[franznietzsche]

True,yet Russians won the war,by confirming the rule:"In war,quantity prevails upon quality".

Daniel.

IIRC, more Russians died in the war than people from all other countries combined, military and civilians.

 

[Bystander]

IIRC, more Russians died in the war than people from all other countries combined, military and civilians.

--- and, there're indications/suggestions that Joe ran up a larger score than the Wehrmacht and SS --- little motivational policies like "Get killed and we send your family to the Gulags." Joe ran up a 2-3:1 edge that way through 1940-41.

 

[franznietzsche]

--- and, there're indications/suggestions that Joe ran up a larger score than the Wehrmacht and SS --- little motivational policies like "Get killed and we send your family to the Gulags." Joe ran up a 2-3:1 edge that way through 1940-41.

I didn't say anything about who killed them, i just said that more russians died in the war (18 million IIRC) than the total dead from all other countries combined.

Over the course of his reign old joe was 'responsible' for some 20 million deaths.

Note: these statistics are from different sources, possibly are supposed to be the sam number I'm not really sure, this is all haphazardly off the top of memory, so if anyone knows these figures better, please correct me.

 

[dextercioby]

No.Approx.20million Russians died in WWII,while at global level approx.100 million lost their lives...20% is somehow MUCH LESS than 50%.

Daniel.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, China didn't fare so well at the hands of the Japanese either...