how to justify that Dresden wasn't a war crime?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9823
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2019 20:44

NO ONE has to justify that Dresden was not a war crime .Those who deny that Dresden was not a war crime , which means :claim that Dresden was a war crime, have to prove that they are right .The defender has not to prove he is innocent .

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by aurelien wolff » 09 Apr 2019 13:40

is it a fallacy to say thing like "muh so it's justifiable to bomb new york(or other city)" because dresden wasnt à war crime?
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopini ... war_crime/

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23262
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by David Thompson » 09 Apr 2019 17:48

aurelien wolff -- You asked:
is it a fallacy to say thing like "muh so it's justifiable to bomb new york(or other city)" because dresden wasnt à war crime?
The statement is ignorant, in that it ignores the fact that the pre-WWII definition of "war crime" changed after the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2019 06:56

Hi maltesefalcon,

There was some disquiet in the UK about Dresden even before the war was over and questions were asked in parliament about bombing policy even before it. As a result, the UK reined back on similar raids in the last months of the war.

Harris's brusqueness was unappealing, but he was not widely known personally and his personality was not a significant factor in the wider debate.

Germany was responsible for the safety of its own citizens. If the Nazis wouldn't or couldn't protect them from bombing, why should the UK? Ultimately Germany could stop such raids either by surrendering completely or declaring selected cities "Open" and treating them as such. It did neither.

Cheers,

Sid

Peter89
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Peter89 » 22 Apr 2019 13:26

It was a terrible way of waging war and mostly an ineffective one as the USSB points out.

Was it or wasn't it a war crime?

Based on the then-current international law most likely not. But it is also true that aerial bombardment wasn't an issue that has been dealt with before WW2, so I would rather say that it was in the grey zone. Or at least it wasn't clearly supported.

It is somewhat like nuclear warfare. It didn't exist before, so it wasn't regulated.

The Allied committed many far more clear war crimes, eg. shooting at the rescue planes on the La Manche during the Battle of Britain.

From a human perspective I don't think that bombing the civilians and burning alive innocents by the thousands is a civilized form of warefare, and given the military situation in 1944-1945 it wasn't even necessary.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14986
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Andy H » 22 Apr 2019 14:31

Peter89 wrote:
22 Apr 2019 13:26
From a human perspective I don't think that bombing the civilians and burning alive innocents by the thousands is a civilized form of warefare, and given the military situation in 1944-1945 it wasn't even necessary.
Hi Peter89

Please give me a civilised form of warfare where 'innocents' weren't killed in the C20 and please define civilized?

You use some prosaic language in 'burning alive innocents' which is an abhorrent visual, but is it any worse than those German civilians who were
decimated, disemboweled, decapitated, torn to shreds or blast lunged etc from artillery, mortars or machine guns?
More German civilians were killed by the latter than aerial bombing.

Regards

Andy H

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9823
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by ljadw » 22 Apr 2019 15:47

Peter89 wrote:
22 Apr 2019 13:26


The Allied committed many far more clear war crimes, eg. shooting at the rescue planes on the La Manche during the Battle of Britain.

There was nothing wrong with shooting at rescue planes who tried to rescue German military so that they could kill again British military .

lartiste
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 15:08
Location: EU

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by lartiste » 22 Apr 2019 20:48

maltesefalcon wrote:
09 Mar 2019 17:10
How does one single out the Dresden raid in the first place? In terms of devastation Hamburg, Yokohama, Tokyo, Dortmund, Wurzburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were comparable. And at least four of tbe aforementioned raids occurred after Dresden, so timing was not the issue.

IMHO much of the bad publicity of this raid occured immediately after the war in an attempt to sully the reputation of Air Marshal Harris, whose arrogance and brusqueness had made him many enemies.
Are you sure? Much of aforementioned was done by US Air Force over which actions Harris did not have any power .... .

lartiste
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 15:08
Location: EU

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by lartiste » 22 Apr 2019 21:15

Many statements in this thread are more or less ignorant. Which acts constituted warcrimes during second world war were unfortunately defined as crimes ex post. Therefore they are in breach of basic principle of criminal laws - Nulla poena sine lege praevia.

And this is only top of the iceberg.

We can in my opinion only discuss whether liquidation of cities by bombers was not put on the lists of war crimes due to the fact that allies would be held responsible as well.

In my opinion there are two basic scenarios under which the cities are bombard:

1) liquidation of war facilities (e.g. tank factories);
2) liquidation of population;

The second meets simply the definition of Mass killing

Referencing earlier definitions,Joan Esteban, Massimo Morelli and Dominic Rohner have defined mass killings as "the killings of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under the conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims". The term has been defined by Benjamin Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants", where a "massive number" is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. This is the most accepted quantitative minimum threshold for the term.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Peter89 » 24 Apr 2019 16:16

Andy H wrote:
22 Apr 2019 14:31
Peter89 wrote:
22 Apr 2019 13:26
From a human perspective I don't think that bombing the civilians and burning alive innocents by the thousands is a civilized form of warefare, and given the military situation in 1944-1945 it wasn't even necessary.
Hi Peter89

Please give me a civilised form of warfare where 'innocents' weren't killed in the C20 and please define civilized?

You use some prosaic language in 'burning alive innocents' which is an abhorrent visual, but is it any worse than those German civilians who were
decimated, disemboweled, decapitated, torn to shreds or blast lunged etc from artillery, mortars or machine guns?
More German civilians were killed by the latter than aerial bombing.

Regards

Andy H
This is strictly a human perspective. Like I said, the international law did not explicitly forbide the terror bombings, or the nuclear warfare, or the rocket warfare.

Target military objectives, spare hospitals and POWs, avoid mass murder of civilians whenever possible. Some will be victims but they shouldn't be the target. Like: 6 days war, Falklands war, etc.

There are also differences how each part of an army handle their occupied territories, POWs, how they abuse their dominant position. This can be different from unit to unit and from operation to operation.

If you ask me whether the siege of Leningrad was or wasn't a war crime from a human perspective, I'd make no distinction just because most of the fallen were victims of starvation and artillery bombardment. Civilians were the target.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Peter89 » 24 Apr 2019 16:25

ljadw wrote:
22 Apr 2019 15:47
Peter89 wrote:
22 Apr 2019 13:26


The Allied committed many far more clear war crimes, eg. shooting at the rescue planes on the La Manche during the Battle of Britain.

There was nothing wrong with shooting at rescue planes who tried to rescue German military so that they could kill again British military .
I understand that, but they were unarmed medics in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and the RAF attacked them anyway, clearly committing a war crime.

With the same logic you can say that you can kill your POWs, because guarding them and feeding them hinders your war effort. Yes it is true, but then you are committing a war crime.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9823
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by ljadw » 25 Apr 2019 07:23

I don't see that medics could intervene in combat situations to rescue wounded military .
If a German unit was fighting against a British unit,and suddenly British medics would arrive at the battlefield to save their wounded men , I am sure that the Germans ,rightfully,would shoot on these medics .Medics can not claim immunity during a battle, only after a battle.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9823
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by ljadw » 25 Apr 2019 07:26

Peter89 wrote:
24 Apr 2019 16:16
Andy H wrote:
22 Apr 2019 14:31
Peter89 wrote:
22 Apr 2019 13:26
From a human perspective I don't think that bombing the civilians and burning alive innocents by the thousands is a civilized form of warefare, and given the military situation in 1944-1945 it wasn't even necessary.
Hi Peter89

Please give me a civilised form of warfare where 'innocents' weren't killed in the C20 and please define civilized?

You use some prosaic language in 'burning alive innocents' which is an abhorrent visual, but is it any worse than those German civilians who were
decimated, disemboweled, decapitated, torn to shreds or blast lunged etc from artillery, mortars or machine guns?
More German civilians were killed by the latter than aerial bombing.

Regards

Andy H
This is strictly a human perspective. Like I said, the international law did not explicitly forbide the terror bombings, or the nuclear warfare, or the rocket warfare.

Target military objectives, spare hospitals and POWs, avoid mass murder of civilians whenever possible. Some will be victims but they shouldn't be the target. Like: 6 days war, Falklands war, etc.

There are also differences how each part of an army handle their occupied territories, POWs, how they abuse their dominant position. This can be different from unit to unit and from operation to operation.

If you ask me whether the siege of Leningrad was or wasn't a war crime from a human perspective, I'd make no distinction just because most of the fallen were victims of starvation and artillery bombardment. Civilians were the target.
I disagree : civilians were not the target in Leningrad: to be a target, you must be seen . Which was not the case .
Leningrad was a military target where were living a lot of civilians who were aiding the Soviet military .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by Peter89 » 25 Apr 2019 15:04

ljadw wrote:
25 Apr 2019 07:23
I don't see that medics could intervene in combat situations to rescue wounded military .
If a German unit was fighting against a British unit,and suddenly British medics would arrive at the battlefield to save their wounded men , I am sure that the Germans ,rightfully,would shoot on these medics .Medics can not claim immunity during a battle, only after a battle.
Yes, and it was the case when unarmed, red-crossed rescue planes went to save the already shot down German fighters' crews.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9823
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: how to justify that dresden wasn't a war crime?

Post by ljadw » 25 Apr 2019 18:10

Why should Britain allow the Germans to save their crew ?If it was the crew of a tank, Britain neither Germany would allow the opponent to save them .Pilots are not better than tankists .

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”