Dresden- Justified or Not?

[Adler17]

Germany did attrocities. But this is never an excuse for the carpet bombings. The eye for an eye law is obsolete in the civilized world. You are cought in a devil´s circle if you believe in it. In ww2 both sides lost the civilized method to make war. Barbary is barbary and so the responsible people of both sides had to be trialed. This is not excuseable.
To the German bombings: Civilians were the main target. Only in the last months also the refineries were bombed massively. If this happened before war might have been over much earlier. So it was only an act of terrorism to bomb the German population. At least when Harris & co. realized, this was not successful, that the Germans didn´t revolt.
Also Hitler never had the majority in the Reichstag. Even after the last elections, which were hardly democratic, he had to coalate with the German national party. These conservatives agreed and thought Hitler would be the puppet. Soon they saw the mistake they made as Hugenberg, their leader, said, he made the biggest error of his life. Later Hitler was able to gain the fruits others deserved: Rearmament, Saarterritory, reduction of unemployment. So he was quiete popular. But never he was legitimized by the population by an election. Also he lost popularity with the start of the war. Later on rebellions which would have come were not possible due to the bombings, which had the effect to make Hitler more popular instead of breaking the morale.
I can´t believe that each people got the government it deserved. Deserved the Cambodians Pol Pot, the Russians Stalin or the Chinese Mao? No. Gaining the power is not equal with the deserving of the population.

Adler

 

[Longasc]

I can only agree with Adler17.

Better play than even to dare thinking of any sorry excuses for bombing civilians everywhere for everything.

 

[privatehudson]

Germany did attrocities. But this is never an excuse for the carpet bombings. The eye for an eye law is obsolete in the civilized world. You are cought in a devil´s circle if you believe in it. In ww2 both sides lost the civilized method to make war. Barbary is barbary and so the responsible people of both sides had to be trialed. This is not excuseable.

Could we for once recognise that attacking German industrial might consisted of more than attacking refineries? The allies attacked many different and wide ranging targets from 1942-45 and to add such an arbitary and simplistic analysis of this campaign is ridiculous. War is barbaric, the Germans under Hitler were more barbaric, that to me is enough. Let us worry about bringing to justice those who slaughtered without rhyme or reason in the holocaust, then let us worry about the rest.

 

[pkmink]

In 1939 (already earlier in fact, Guernica in 1936) the Luftwaffe had no scrupules bombing civilian centers. Warsaw, with no air defence, was bombed daily by the Luftwaffe for almost 3 weeks during its siege in september 1939 in order to force it to surrender. The same principle was applied in Rotterdam 1940, when the Nazi's demanded that Holland would surrender or else Rotterdam (and later on other cities) would be bombed. Holland did in fact surrender, but something went wrong with signalling the bombers which were already in the air and one group of bombers dropped their load on the centre of Rotterdam. This is long before any of the major bombings by the allies on Germany.
By 1945, the news of the nazi death camps had been revealed in its full horror and the desire to take revenge (however wrong that may be) might have been too much for the bomber crews who bombed Dresden.

 

[Adler17]

The main target of British bombers were civilans, not industry. Some exceptions excluded German bombing runs against western powers were generally targeting industrial or military targets. However the Brits had at first developed long range attacks on civilians, but not executed until 1941. Since then they bombed CIVILIANS as main targets. That´s no simplification but the truth, admitted by Harris himself (exception: Essen). Indeed no one of the responsible officers of the allies was trialed. And there the democracy failed. There the western allies betrayed the high target to reestablish democracy in Europ. They did so but failed in their own states.
Again I repead myself: NOTHING CAN EXCUSE OR EVEN JUSTIFY THE DEATH OF CIVILIANS.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

The main target of British bombers were civilans, not industry

What do you expect from night bombing raids? The allied air effort though consisted of more than the British night raids... To suggest that the allies overall mainly concentrated on civilians is just silly (which was your initial insinuation), to suggest that somehow the British should have concentrated on a type of bombing that their planes were quite unsuited for is almost as silly, but quite expected I guess....

As for the German lack of major bombing campaigns, the latter stages of the BOB show they certainly had the will, what they lacked was the ability. The Luftwaffe was incapable of launching the kind of campaign the RAF did, do not for a moment mistake that with being unwilling to do so. As for betraying the higher target, what would that be? The morale highground wouldn't have mattered a jot if we had lost the war They did what they had to do to remove a menace from europe in total war. I do love the way though that Geurnica, Warsaw, Rotterdam and others are labelled "Exceptions" whereas fully half the allied air campaign is ignored entirely to make your point.

Still never mind, I'm sure one day everyone in charge of anything from a Captain upwards during WWII will be labelled a war criminal in our history books.

 

[Zardnaar]

The main target of British bombers were civilans, not industry. Some exceptions excluded German bombing runs against western powers were generally targeting industrial or military targets. However the Brits had at first developed long range attacks on civilians, but not executed until 1941. Since then they bombed CIVILIANS as main targets. That´s no simplification but the truth, admitted by Harris himself (exception: Essen). Indeed no one of the responsible officers of the allies was trialed. And there the democracy failed. There the western allies betrayed the high target to reestablish democracy in Europ. They did so but failed in their own states.
Again I repead myself: NOTHING CAN EXCUSE OR EVEN JUSTIFY THE DEATH OF CIVILIANS.

Adler

In total war anything is fair game. What makes civilians sacrosanct? Theres a difference between bombinng civilians who contribute towards your enemys war industry and rounding up civilians for death in captured countries based on their percieved racil group. Both sides bombed each other. The fact is the Germans got it worse largly because they were incapable of the sustained bombing campaign required. Also even in the terror bombing the aim and motivation was to force the Germans to surrender. Killing civilians was a means to an end compared to the deliberate murder of Jews, gays etc.
BTW I have no moral qualms involving the Luftwaffe bombing England either- they failed due to stupid leadership, British technology, German technology and industrial base.

A neccessary evil as the intentions were good- or at least better than the alternatives (Hitler winning the war).

 

[ellie]

In total war anything is fair game. What makes civilians sacrosanct? Theres a difference between bombinng civilians who contribute towards your enemys war industry and rounding up civilians for death in captured countries based on their percieved racil group. Both sides bombed each other. The fact is the Germans got it worse largly because they were incapable of the sustained bombing campaign required. Also even in the terror bombing the aim and motivation was to force the Germans to surrender. Killing civilians was a means to an end compared to the deliberate murder of Jews, gays etc.
BTW I have no moral qualms involving the Luftwaffe bombing England either- they failed due to stupid leadership, British technology, German technology and industrial base.

A neccessary evil as the intentions were good- or at least better than the alternatives (Hitler winning the war).

Some interesting views here thanks

In short, for britain this was a war to survive, not a limited campaign
with the luxury of worrying about targets and casualties etc.

Consider the consequences if we had lost as a result of trying to
be "moral" in war

Or for those who feel russia alone would have won (not a theory i
personally precribe to) the consequences of the red army holding
all of western europe.

 

[Adler17]

The reasons to protect civilians are many, but only one word explains all: CIVILIZATION. In it the great ideas of philosopher are in up to the conventions to protect civilians.
Indeed the German Luftwaffe lacked on strategic bombers for a long time. They were not planned because the strategic warfare was seen as not so important. OTOH the British had plans to act like they did from the mid 1930s.
Killing civilians was in no way a reasonable means to stop the war, in contrary. If they bombed railstations or refineries war would have been over very soon. Indeed even after the Bomber Command recognized it as failure they didn´t stop the war. They continued. This isnt excuseable.
Privatehuson you contradicts yourself when admitting night carpet bombings are only for the terror of population. The British bombers were in the last 2-3 years so good to hit their target very precisely in general. So they were able to hit only the area of railsations or factories. But indeed they bombed civilians. What is it that you don´t seem to recognize that kind of bombardment as war crime ? It isn´t excuseable.

Adler

 

[Longasc]

I think you guys simply forget that if one does a war crime this is no justification for the other party to do the same!

Following this argumentation, the Allies fighting against the considered evil dictatorship of Nazi Germany would then be allowed to commit everything they did, and more!

Because one does fail in moral terms in no excuse to do the same! I guess the western allies did not copy concentration camps, but they had no problems to start a never before seen bombing campaign.

One cannot see the havoc wrecked upon civilian cities from a bomber as if he would be down there in the bombed city, the psychological barrier is much lower than to kill someone directly with own hands.

For those pretending to be Christians, this attitude of an eye for an eye has been considered wrong by the new testament and many people a thousand years ago.

The boming campaign also has the flavor of two eyes for one eye. Finally: If anyone still considers bombing of civilians justifiable in any way, he should be dropped with the bombs, too. Would fit his barbaric views.

 

[privatehudson]

The reasons to protect civilians are many, but only one word explains all: CIVILIZATION. In it the great ideas of philosopher are in up to the conventions to protect civilians.

Philosophy is mostly too idealistic to deal with the real world, and almost entirely useless at times of war.

Killing civilians was in no way a reasonable means to stop the war, in contrary. If they bombed railstations or refineries war would have been over very soon. Indeed even after the Bomber Command recognized it as failure they didn´t stop the war. They continued. This isnt excuseable.

Privatehuson you contradicts yourself when admitting night carpet bombings are only for the terror of population. The British bombers were in the last 2-3 years so good to hit their target very precisely in general. So they were able to hit only the area of railsations or factories. But indeed they bombed civilians. What is it that you don´t seem to recognize that kind of bombardment as war crime

Try taking the entire allied air effort into account for a change, the allies were doing all of these things However, the RAF suited more night raids when compared to the USAAF, and it was the USAAF's role to attack such targets. And they did. As for why they chose civilians over military targets, well firstly Harris and others believed it would work. So it didn't, they were proved wrong, point being they believed it would end the war sooner, and then sooner or later. Big difference between that and slaughtering civilians in camps. The RAF also did attack specific targets on some raids, though not usually mass raids which would be much more difficult to co-ordinate and get specific targets on at night.

The British effort can only be viewed alongside the USAAF's efforts and their style of attacks. The allied air war effort was an attempt to strike at both civilian and millitary targets to reduce the German morale and ability to fight the war. One didn't have it's intended affect, the other did. IMO in total war both are targets, especially if the enemy has already set the scene by doing exactly the same to you. To quote others, if you sow the wind....

Civlians pay for war, they pay more for total war, to expect otherwise is just nieve, which IMO philosophy and international law tends to be.

The problem here is that not all people agree that civilians were not targets, and let's face it, nor did the majority of air-force people on all sides in WWII. You believe them not to be, people in the Luftwaffe and the RAF did. I'd never be in doing it right now, but back then, the world was a different place. Preserving democracy and stopping hitler were a damned sight more important than preserving the lives of the civilian population of your enemy.

 

[Reno]

War crime definatly. Same with the bombing of Hamburg 300.000 people were killed during one day alone.

 

[Boleslav]

I'd like to point out that the Allies deliberately bombed the civilian areas outside Dresden in full knowledge that refugees would flood to the 'safe' city (assumed to be safe because of it's limited military targets and because the city was so beautiful it was on a par with Paris and Prague). So you have a pattern where the Allies deliberately herd the German population into 'safe' Dresden, then firebomb them.

The Dresden bombing stands utterly apart from any other bombing in the European theatre of WWII. It's a false analysis to compare it to, for example, the bombing of Clydeside shipyards or of the East End of London.

 

[Adler17]

It was a barbary and war crime. Bad enough that the commanding officers of the air forces were acting so and were war criminals. Even worse it is to see this not as war crime as it was. This means the surrender for the barbary the civilized world abolished. There is no justification. Also the war lasted longer by doing so. That Hitler was really beaten due to the bombing raids or the Russians prevented to take whole Europe I can not see.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Perhaps then you should quit looking at the campaign as being about more than air raids against civilian then...

As for the civilised world being abolished I've not heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. A barbaric world would be one in which it happened frequently and without the extreme circumstances of WWII. If you wish to ignore those then there's no point talking about it any more...

Furthermore, to expect the allies to try their own airforce officers is just nieve, on your terms the allies would have had to try just about every officer involved in WWII and we'd still be holding nuremberg trials right now.

 

[Longasc]

Just look up at Wikipedia what was considered to be a war crime in the Nuremberg Trials and then judge air raids on cities.

You are trying to justify somehow something which was seen as a war crime by Eisenhower and Churchill. But not by privatehudson.

You might of course continue narrowing your view of the world to fit your needs even more.

 

[privatehudson]

Just look up at Wikipedia what was considered to be a war crime in the Nuremberg Trials and then judge air raids on cities.

You are trying to justify somehow something which was seen as a war crime by Eisenhower and Churchill. But not by privatehudson.

You might of course continue narrowing your view of the world to fit your needs even more.

No, I'm saying that in the real world, some things are necessary and some are not. Lining up and trying everyone who comitted a "warcrime" in WWII would have left no-one in the allied forces above a certain rank. At some point the allies recognised that beating the evils of Hitler and his regime were a little more important than their own temporary moral questions about bombing civilians. I'm saying that extreme times call for extreme measures, and whilst Dresden was deeply regretable due to it's timing, to start labelling the entire allied bombing efforts, or even the RAF's attempts as "warcrimes" is not something I agree with.

You might want to call it a warcrime, technically it may be a warcrime according to various treaties and courts, that does not mean that I agree that the allies were not justified in taking the actions they did. Call it what you like, more important is whether it was felt to be justified at the time or not, and that's what matters to me, and guides my choice on how we should view the people responsible for the actions.

My appologies for not insisting on following such straight jacket views of the world

 

[TrailblazingScot]

What crime had the Germans committed against the West I see one German poster put up failing to recognise that forcing Britian to war twice in a period of about 25 years costing over 1,250,000 British and Commonwealth lives counts as enough reason to want revenge.

I could add the sinking of our merchant marine, the devastation of our economy, the massacure in some instances of our prisoners of war, the blitz of British cities, including the utter devastation of Coventry and then we get to the V1 and V2 rockets which were indiscriminate and purely designed to be weapons of terror. Just by posting that the acts of an enemy are no excuse for retailiation in kind is just stupid, the idea that the Germans should in essence get away with what they did.

Britain had all these reasons and that of wanting the Germans to give up the fight and overthrow Hitler and not force the war to continue. The Germans this time had to be shown the horror of war and that they had been defeated completely to prevent it happening again.

This talk of war crimes is nonsense as the gloves were off, war crimes had been committed against us and there was no reason to handicap ourselves in defence of an enemy who had little regard for the rules of war with some exceptions (Generally, POWs were handled well).

People sometimes idiotically think that how you act in war should be a banner as to the value of your civilization, that is nonsense. Times of war can force a civilization to turn to all weapons at their disposal, it is how that civilization lived and acted before and after the war that shows the merits of that civilization.

What I find scarely in this thread is the two German posters condemning Britain and not the Nazis for forcing War upon Europe, for some reason they think Germany didn't deserve to get levelled for what it had done. The difference between the combatants is that Britain didn't start the barbarity, Britain wasn't barbarous to its own citizens and didn't conduct genocide (the attempt or complete annihilation of a people).


Ask the people of Warsaw in 1945 if the German people deserved payback after the destruction of their city.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

War crime definatly. Same with the bombing of Hamburg 300.000 people were killed during one day alone.

Yeah, we sure hurt your ally for plunging Europe into war.

 

[Benderino]

I have no sympathy for the victims of Dresden. Their inaction sanctioned the Holocaust, and so they should burn with my forefathers.