Dresden Photos

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 11:13

Leica wrote:
Lord Gort wrote:Sorry, i got a bit carried away :) , the allies did belive there to be sufficient military reason in bombing dresden, transport hubb, troops moving through the city etc etc

German bombing of Rotterdam and London was also just to kill civilians to persuade the dead civilians governments to come to agreement with Germany etc etc


She reaped what she sewed.


regards,


Sorry, but thats a myth. The allies neither believed that Dresden was a important military target nor they didn't want to kill civilians. The whole purpose for the bombing was pure terror and mass destruction (see the intensive usage of fire bombs). As i have written in another thread: one crime does not justify another. So please don't hide behind Rotterdam etc. Thats no excuse for what your fellow citizens have done to us and our cities.


Sorry Leica but you are going to give the impression, that in your eyes the bombing of Dresden was a bigger warcrime then the bombing of for example Coventry. Of course bombed allied cities cant be an excuse, thats what i allready said, but i dont think the question is was bombing German or English cities a warcrime, it should be "is the bombing of civilian targets a warcrime ", then my answer is YES.
But i agrre with you when you say that we have accepted our crimes, and they should do too.

BW
Dennis

User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 11:18

@PAK who wrote: That's just naive, if you expect war without "warcrimes"

So you tolerate warcrimes as a naturel effect of war?

User avatar
Leica
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 18 Jun 2003 09:37
Location: Deutschland

Post by Leica » 26 Jul 2003 11:32

Caldric wrote:Stalingrad was about the identical situation as Dresden. 40,000 dead almost all civilians, fire bombed by German Air Force for days, city stuffed with refugees and broken military units. Far be it for Germany to cry foul and place Dresden upon a pedestal.

Before someone cranks up the old "two wrongs don't make it right", the fact is this is how it was, horrible. Was acceptable means to wage war in 1940’s, civilians were targets and total war is destructive.


Caldric, we are talking about whether Dresden was a war crime or not. What you are doing is to bring up other commits (this time on the german side). Please note that nobody wants to negate these crimes, but that does not change a simple fact: Dresden was a war crime too, a big one.

User avatar
Leica
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 18 Jun 2003 09:37
Location: Deutschland

Post by Leica » 26 Jul 2003 11:35

PAK wrote:That's just naive, if you expect war without "warcrimes", so let the volunteer soldiers line up on an empty battlefield and fight.
Today war is a crime itself.


I didn't say that i expect a war without war crimes (because thats totally unrealistic), but that does not change the fact that such an action like the Dresden air raid remains a war crime.

User avatar
Leica
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 18 Jun 2003 09:37
Location: Deutschland

Post by Leica » 26 Jul 2003 11:37

Whisper wrote:Sorry Leica but you are going to give the impression, that in your eyes the bombing of Dresden was a bigger warcrime then the bombing of for example Coventry.


Both were war crimes, but Dresden is the bigger one without any doubt.

User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 11:46

Leica wrote:
Whisper wrote:Sorry Leica but you are going to give the impression, that in your eyes the bombing of Dresden was a bigger warcrime then the bombing of for example Coventry.


Both were war crimes, but Dresden is the bigger one without any doubt.



It seems we have the same opinion, from a different point of view.
I agree with you when you are saying Dresden was a crime, but i cant agree, not to say strongly disagree, that one crime is bigger than another one, when both had the same reason. Where do you draw the line? And how will you differantiate?

Bw
Dennis

User avatar
PAK
Member
Posts: 253
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 11:48
Location: Aachen/Germany

Post by PAK » 26 Jul 2003 12:15

Whisper wrote:@PAK who wrote: That's just naive, if you expect war without "warcrimes"

So you tolerate warcrimes as a naturel effect of war?

I don't tolerate them, but I don't tolerate war either, so this is out of question for me.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Jul 2003 12:43

Germany had the option of using poison gs during the blitz in 1940. One factor that deterred it from doing so was that Great Britain threatened to use her own poison gas.


During the cold war the threat of a Soviet Nuclear strike on the United States and allies and vice versa was prvented by the deterrent of the same happening to the other side.


During ths econd world war Great Britain said that bombing of its cities would cause a similer retaliation against German cities. Germany, with the mighty Luftwaffe and seeing the poor show of British attemots to bomb Berlin ignored these warnings. The attacks on German cities were retaliatory.



As Arthur Harris said himself.....

" The Nazis entered this war under the childish notion that they were going to bomb everyone else and no one was going to bomb them"

Harris said that ‘they have sown the wind, let them reap the whirlwind’ - you can’t cry ‘unfair’ when you’re loosing a war if you started the thing in the first place. Harris was right when he paraphrased Bismarck ‘All the cities in Germany are not worth the bones of one British Grenadier’. This makes him a war criminal? Or a man that used the assets given to him in the best way to shorten the war?

So no military targets in Dresden then?
Quote from the Dresden-Klotzsche website


The strategically important air base was not targeted during the war. The Deutsche Wehrmacht tried to destroy the airfield and technical equipment when retreating in April 1945, but German workers managed to prevent at least the Hansa-Haus from being blown up. The Wehrmacht moved out of the airfield on 7 May 1945, leaving an incredible chaos behind.


Or how about the rail yards – not the biggest in SE Germany?



This was written by Maple in another thread on Bomber command.



It is apparant to me that the Germans did employ terror bombing and that they would have done it more if they had the ability to do so. They utilized terror bombing in Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, The V-1 and the V-2 were not accurate at all and were used to kill civilians more than anything else. During WW1 the Zepplins and the Paris gun didn't perform any militarily useful function other than to terrorize civilians in an attempt to reduce allied morale. I think that the Axis powers believed that their 'strength of will' would enable them to defeat the Allies. I also believe a strong component of this 'strength of will' is indifference to the suffering of people both friendly neutral and enemy. It seems the Axis powers were surprised when their 'weak willed' enemies could also be indifferent to the suffering of German civilians, I supposed they were appalled that these lesser people could not recognize the superiority of the master race. The impression that I got from the WW2 USAAF vets I've met is that nobody needed to trick them into fighting the Nazis.


This also summs it up beautifully. If a thread on such a tragedy can be described as such.



regards,

User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 17:09

I still think that most people look at this topic to much from the winner or the looser side. From good to bad, trying to justify their position by using arguments like "they bombed first" or "the war was allready lost", "there were no military targets", and so on and so on.

Im trying really hard to remain neutral in this question, and also im trying to understand how a crime can justify another crime! Is it really relevant who started the bombing, when a child has to balance the account with its live?
Looking at this topic from that point of view leaves me thoroughly convinced that it is unimportant who did what and when first and out of what motivation. Its just wrong!!!!!

Bw
Dennis

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Jul 2003 17:18

In it being wrong I think everyone can agree, in it being a war crime I totally disagree, not in the context it is set in.



I would like to get my hands round the neck of whoever from whatever nation gave the Germans the notion of Bombing British cities and therefore British civilians.


regards,

User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 17:23

Lord Gort wrote:I would like to get my hands round the neck of whoever from whatever nation gave the Germans the notion of Bombing British cities and therefore British civilians.


Sorry, you are too late, they are allready dead.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 26 Jul 2003 17:31

Dresden was not a war crime, there was no law against it. It was not nearly the worse bombing of the war, Germany set the precedence for bombing cities.

People often make the mistake of mixing up what they think should be a crime and what actually is.

User avatar
PAK
Member
Posts: 253
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 11:48
Location: Aachen/Germany

Post by PAK » 26 Jul 2003 17:42

Whisper wrote:Im trying really hard to remain neutral in this question, and also im trying to understand how a crime can justify another crime!

If the soviets would have droped a bomb on an american city, would it be a war crime of the americans if they would respond by dropping another on a soviet city? Even if more died of the counter attack?

The argument is germany was already down, but to which degree was this certain? And would it have been right to risk the lifes of your soldieres for sparing german civilians?

As I said before, war is a crime itself, just my opinion.
Last edited by PAK on 26 Jul 2003 17:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Whisper
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 16:16
Location: Germany

Post by Whisper » 26 Jul 2003 17:43

Caldric wrote:People often make the mistake of mixing up what they think should be a crime and what actually is.


Well, who, if not the people, decides what´s crime and whats not?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23243
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 26 Jul 2003 18:47

For those who claim that bombing Dresden was a war crime, please give some authority (an international treaty, etc.) for your claim.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”