Were the Allied bombings of civilian targets during WW2 a war crime?

[Kafka2]

eh, everyone calls the bombings of Coventry and London and all otehr British cities hit 'war crimes' - so it is rather a question why Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim etc are NOT war crimes.

Keep rolling and rolling those eyes until you're really, really dizzy. Britons don't tend to call them "War crimes". I should know- I've been one for a very long time.

It's just "the war". That's how it was.

 

[carlosMM]

Keep rolling and rolling those eyes until you're really, really dizzy. Britons don't tend to call them "War crimes". I should know- I've been one for a very long time.

It's just "the war". That's how it was.

ah, the british art of understatement

 

[Kafka2]

It's just a fact of life. There were still bombsites around when I grew up.

There was a war. In war, bombs got dropped on cities. People got killed. What would be the point of prosecuting Luftwaffe survivors?

That's just how it was. We don't sit down and swoon, with the backs of our hands against our foreheads like the consumptive heroine of some Victorian melodrama. It was a war. There were bombings. Get over it.

 

[luiz]

Yes, targetting civilians is always a war crime, so the Allies did commit war crimes during WW2, which include Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But we have some things to consider:

-Most of the civilians killed by allied bombing campaigns were actually killed by accident, as the accuracy was very low.
-It was politically impossible to sacrifice some of your soldiers to save enemy civilians. Look at the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for exemple. While they were both terror attacks, they forced the japanese to surrender and thus saved the lifes of countless americans soldiers. So while this does not in anyway make those bombings ethical, they sure make them understandable.

 

[Hotpoint]

Nonsense. I'm going to have to introduce you to Vincent at CG. Here's one of his quotes-

"When I get a few minutes spare, I'll upload the photos of Britain that my Grandfather took. They're a bit blurred because he had to take them through the canopy of his Stuka."

I laughed my arse off at that one.

At the risk of leading the thread astray this brings to mind something my uncle (by marriage) said at a job interview to be a delivery driver in London.

Interviewer "Do you know London very well?"
Uncle " Only from the Air"

The comedy value is that this was the 1960's and my uncle was former Luftwaffe with a strong German accent.

He got the job by the way. The interviewer thought it was hilarious.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So do I, in this context.



Well, actually they had - Germans were than much more willing to fight. They wanted "revenge" for this killing.



That is pretty irrelevant, because in the times of Dresden raid, was was almost over. There was no need to break their morale.



I wouldn't say that. Germans kept fighting to the bitter end, even in encircled Berlin, without any chance, they fought (but I admit that was because they feared Russians much more than Allies).



This thread is supposed to be rather about the conventional raids. Nuclear bomb was a weapon nobody was prepared for, so it's obvious it caused a great shock. My question regarding nuclear bomb is - was it really necessary to drop a-bombs on densely populated cities, causing so much suffering and death?

Apparently it was necessary, because it refused to surrender until it happened. Japan was given plenty of opportunity to do so. It even hesitated after the first bomb was dropped!

It's funny how you shrug off my question about whether you asked the Dresdners whether they felt lower morale after the bombing of their city. Obviously you don't know. I don't either. As far as the Germans fighting to the bitter end, they most certainly did. They did so because Hitler wouldn't allow for anything else, and the people worshipped him. They had no idea that he wanted them to go down in a blaze of glory.

 

[Adler17]

Most of the Germans wanted to surrender in winter 1944/ 54 at last. However this was not possible with Hitler. Nevertheless the war was over, these missions were only terror bombings. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are described in other threads (which were also war crimes).
Luiz, Harris targeted the civilians as main targets, not the industry! This makes him a war criminal. Also I never said the bomber pilots were the evil but their leaders. I know of many British pilots who changed their attitude towards the bombing war dramatically after Dresden...
@ Hotpoint: Did your uncle deliver the goods by a He 111?

Adler

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh on a side track here:

Heres a moral delema

Bombing of concentration camps.
During the last year of the war, detailed information was succesfully smuggled out pertaining to locations and operations of concentration camps. It was requested that the allies bomb them to halt to clockwork killing.

In fact Survivurs of the holocaust had expressed that they strongly hoped the camps and themselves be bombed.

yet the Allies believed it was a German trick in which to lure them into destroying "evidence" and passing the blame. As we all know the Allies did not bomb the camps.
In a strange way the concetration camps help win the war by diverting resourcse needed at the font. In fact it was Erichmen who was in fact "sabataging" the war effort by giving priorty to fullfilling hes "mission" instead of prioriting for the front.

 

[carlosMM]

It's just a fact of life. There were still bombsites around when I grew up.

the same is true for my childhood neighbourhood.

There was a war. In war, bombs got dropped on cities. People got killed.

Uh, yes, black is black and white is white and there's no need to differntiate further.
In fact, there is a HUGE difference between a bomb dropped accidently on a civilian house, by error when aiming for a building next to it, or with the SOLE intent to kill civilians.

What would be the point of prosecuting Luftwaffe survivors?

None - unless you prosecute the people who planned the bombings to hit civilians.
If we follow your attitude, then the Nuremberg trials would have been unnecessary and Göring should have gne free.

That's just how it was. We don't sit down and swoon, with the backs of our hands against our foreheads like the consumptive heroine of some Victorian melodrama. It was a war. There were bombings. Get over it.

Let's take you argument a bit further. 'There was a war and fascist racists in power. Jews got killed. Get over it.'

Does that sound right?

 

[Kafka2]

Uh, yes, black is black and white is white and there's no need to differntiate further.
In fact, there is a HUGE difference between a bomb dropped accidently on a civilian house, by error when aiming for a building next to it, or with the SOLE intent to kill civilians.

Oh come off it. The Blitz on London, the bombing on Coventry, and many others on both sides would satisfy the culpability tests for criminal guilt on the grounds of recklessness alone- and that's the most charitable interpretation,

None - unless you prosecute the people who planned the bombings to hit civilians.

Because the bombers were just obeying orders, right? That defence doesn't work, though- as numerous war crimes have established.

If we follow your attitude, then the Nuremberg trials would have been unnecessary and Göring should have gne free.

Let's take you argument a bit further. 'There was a war and fascist racists in power. Jews got killed. Get over it.'

Does that sound right?

Nope. It sounds utterly bizarre because, in case you missed the point, I'm arguing that by the standards of the time the bombing of cities was not a war crime. The attempted deliberate extermination of civilians in the camps was a war crime.

So what's it to be? Do we prosecute RAF and Luftwaffe bomber crews, or do we accept there is a difference?

 

[Adler17]

A crime can´t justify another. Also you will be condamned as murderer if you are objectively acting in self defense but you do not want to self defend, at leat in Germany (Clarification: If you kill a man who is attacking you, but you don´t know that, for example you are aiming at someone with a rifle and this one has a bomb laid near to you and you shoot him before he just can push the button without knowing the bomb).
So the bombings of the RAF are still war crimes, regardless what happened in the KZs or elsewhere.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

By 'the standards of the day' of most nations bombing civilians was a war crime according to international treaties.

The Nazis considered these treaties utter rubbish of course.

And at the same time the British had been very, very careful not to sign anything of that sort — knowing how they had used air power in their colonies.

So no, neither Nazi Germany nor the UK of the day considered exclusively targetting civilians a war crime.

Just about everybody else did though.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

eh, everyone calls the bombings of Coventry and London and all otehr British cities hit 'war crimes' - so it is rather a question why Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim etc are NOT war crimes.

Well, THOSE people who say that are poor, confused and mentally feeble individuals and I throw rocks at them...I for one did not argue along that rationale.

 

[Kafka2]

A crime can´t justify another. Also you will be condamned as murderer if you are objectively acting in self defense but you do not want to self defend, at leat in Germany (Clarification: If you kill a man who is attacking you, but you don´t know that, for example you are aiming at someone with a rifle and this one has a bomb laid near to you and you shoot him before he just can push the button without knowing the bomb).
So the bombings of the RAF are still war crimes, regardless what happened in the KZs or elsewhere.

Adler

We have exactly the same concept in English criminal law- it's the test of Mens Rea. However it's pretty pointless applying it to soldiers in wartime because a totally different set of rules apply.

"Sorry Mr Smith. We cannot be held responsible for the accidental death of your family, because the 500 pounds of TNT was actually dropped on the ball-bearings factory next door."

You see? Wars, as we know it, would be prosecuted out of existance. That's probably not a bad thing, but I doubt our governments would agree.

 

[carlosMM]

We have exactly the same concept in English criminal law- it's the test of Mens Rea. However it's pretty pointless applying it to soldiers in wartime because a totally different set of rules apply.

"Sorry Mr Smith. We cannot be held responsible for the accidental death of your family, because the 500 pounds of TNT was actually dropped on the ball-bearings factory next door."

You see? Wars, as we know it, would be prosecuted out of existance. That's probably not a bad thing, but I doubt our governments would agree.

bolding by me

Again: it is not the SOLDIER, but rather the general who orders the bombing.

And yes, if the TNT is dropped on a factory, intentionally, then it is not a war crime if a civilian gets killed. If it is dropped on the civilian, intenteded, then it is. MHO.

 

[Adler17]

bolding by me

Again: it is not the SOLDIER, but rather the general who orders the bombing.

And yes, if the TNT is dropped on a factory, intentionally, then it is not a war crime if a civilian gets killed. If it is dropped on the civilian, intenteded, then it is. MHO.

Nothing to add here.

On the Hague conventions: Both Britain and Germany were member states of these conventions damning the intentional killing of civilians! And even if they would have been not in these treaties there was a common usage not to target civilians so both sides commited war crimes by bombing civilians intentionally.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

And even if they would have been not in these treaties there was a common usage not to target civilians so both sides commited war crimes by bombing civilians intentionally.

Oh but I beg to differ. The history of the Boer war for example and many campaigns in Africa, or North America are filled with deliberate attacks/actions on civilians.

 

[Kafka2]

bolding by me

Again: it is not the SOLDIER, but rather the general who orders the bombing.

Again: the "I was just obeying orders" defence is not accepted. As demonstrated by the penalties faced by those acting in the Einsatzgruppen. Fail to pursue the perpetrator, and you play into the General's hands.

And yes, if the TNT is dropped on a factory, intentionally, then it is not a war crime if a civilian gets killed. If it is dropped on the civilian, intenteded, then it is. MHO.

It's a crime under normal criminal law, however. Hence my utterly correct point about the uselessness of applying the normal Criminal Law stipulations. And that's not MHO- it's a fact.

 

[Adler17]

In a war you have to differ: Warcrimes which are obvious then the soldiers are guilty, despite the fact that the order has to be recognized in the punishment. This means if you have the order to shoot civilians with MGs. On the other hand there are warcrimes which are not able to be seen or when it is very difficult to recognize by the average soldier. Then these soldiers are indeed only acting after orders. They are tools. If they recognized this however they are also guilty. IMO the bomber crews of ww2, except the B 29 bomber crews of the nuclear bombers, were only tools. However the general who orders to bomb is in all cases guilty, either because of instigation of a warcrime or because of being an indirect perpetrator. So Harris is guilty where it is doubtful by the crews.
PH, I meant generally it was kept. However there were exceptions. Also colonial warfare is a whole exception. But in normal wars generally these laws were kept.

Adler

 

[carlosMM]

Again: the "I was just obeying orders" defence is not accepted. As demonstrated by the penalties faced by those acting in the Einsatzgruppen. Fail to pursue the perpetrator, and you play into the General's hands.

That is true - when the individual soldier KNOWINGLY commits a crime.
Which does not really apply to Dresden.