Merged Winston Churchill a war criminal?
- Thread starter moon1969
- Start date
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
How would you suggest the bombing of Dresden was unlawful at that point?
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Why is Dresden to be treated differently from any of the other many bombing raids conducted by Bomber Command? You do realize that the results at Dresden in Feb. of 1945 were a fluke, yes? Firestorms could not be created on command. If they could, then the RAF would have burned to the ground after Hamburg in 1943 another half-dozen or so German cities and quite possibly ended the war.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,456
The "Crime of Dresden" is based on the theory that it was not a manufacturing centre and thus bombing it was a war crime because it was de facto an attack only against civilians. However, I remember a radio discussion of the bombing of Dresden on the radio a few years ago. Toward the end of the show a lady phoned in to say that she was working in a ball-bearing factory in Dresden at the time of the bombing and thus critical war components were being manufactured there. I suppose she could have been lying but, if Hitler wanted to make ball bearings, what better place to make them than a city that would "never be attacked"? Like he cared?
As far as I am aware he was never charged with any such crimes by any of the international courts or tribunals that the UK recognised at the time (or that any significant group of countries recognised) never mind found guilty of such crimes so the answer is no.
Do you really mean to ask should he have been put on trial for his actions in regards to the bombing of Dresden in WWII? If that is what you mean exactly what laws or treaties do you think he broke?
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
I think it has more to do with the unusually high death toll from the raid. Had no firestorm happened, and the casualties from the raid been a more typical few hundred to perhaps a thousand or so, then Dresden would have gotten no special notice at all as it would have been no different from the hundreds of other raids.
There were a number of factories producing armaments or otherwise supporting the war effort in the city. So on that basis it could be targetted. Whether it was really militarily necessary to do so at that stage of the war is a separate question.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The death toll in Dresden was actually comparable with other raids - the stir about it has come about as a result of ridiculously exaggerated figures in the hundreds of thousands.
I am personally of the opinion that acts in World War Two have to be approached differently to any other war. The war was unique in so many ways, most distinctly it was total war, the nature of which renders every square mile of a country as a legitimate target.
There's a reason most of the war crimes convictions were for either the holocaust or the actual act of starting the war - it was recognised that the scale of destruction exhibited in World War Two was a unique characteristic of the nature of the war.
I am personally of the opinion that acts in World War Two have to be approached differently to any other war. The war was unique in so many ways, most distinctly it was total war, the nature of which renders every square mile of a country as a legitimate target.
There's a reason most of the war crimes convictions were for either the holocaust or the actual act of starting the war - it was recognised that the scale of destruction exhibited in World War Two was a unique characteristic of the nature of the war.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
I await a Santa Claus is covering for the evil Soviet's thread.
Even if Dresden had no war manufacturing it was a major railroad junction and destroying major infrastructure is a legitimate tactic. Many have speculated that Dresden was supposed to intimidate the rapidly approaching Red Army. However, as has been noted, firestorms were accidental flukes and not by design and any goal--with respect to the approaching Soviets--would have been to try and trap German forces (by destroying a vital transportation link) in front of the Soviet advance thus forcing the two to kill more of each other. More dead German troops are soldiers the UK and USA won't have to fight themselves and more dead Soviet soldiers are fewer that might take over Europe after the war.
Even if Dresden had no war manufacturing it was a major railroad junction and destroying major infrastructure is a legitimate tactic. Many have speculated that Dresden was supposed to intimidate the rapidly approaching Red Army. However, as has been noted, firestorms were accidental flukes and not by design and any goal--with respect to the approaching Soviets--would have been to try and trap German forces (by destroying a vital transportation link) in front of the Soviet advance thus forcing the two to kill more of each other. More dead German troops are soldiers the UK and USA won't have to fight themselves and more dead Soviet soldiers are fewer that might take over Europe after the war.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The "Crime of Dresden" is based on the theory that it was not a manufacturing centre and thus bombing it was a war crime because it was de facto an attack only against civilians. However, I remember a radio discussion of the bombing of Dresden on the radio a few years ago. Toward the end of the show a lady phoned in to say that she was working in a ball-bearing factory in Dresden at the time of the bombing and thus critical war components were being manufactured there. I suppose she could have been lying but, if Hitler wanted to make ball bearings, what better place to make them than a city that would "never be attacked"? Like he cared?
The Railyards at Dresden were critical in supplying the German Armies on the Eastern Front and , were, if anything, a more direct military target then the factories around Dresden,although there also were legitimate targets.
This 'Moral Equivlency' crap is driving me crazy.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
I agree with the latter point. But in regards to the former, in terms of non-firestorm raids, the Dresden death toll was quite high. Compared to other firestorm-producing raids, however, the results were roughly typical.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
ravdin
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 4,985
Kurt Vonnegut said that only one person benefited from the firebombing of Dresden- himself. He estimated that he made about $5 from every person who was killed that day (presumably from sales of Slaughterhouse Five).
To answer the question in the OP: no.
To answer the question in the OP: no.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
I remember reading that in WWII it was the Allies (actually the British) who instigated the bombing raids on cities. Berlin was bombed during a low-point, more as a propaganda exercise than anything militarily useful, and Mein Fuhrer sought retaliation.
He was a lover of the architecture, bless him, and the same source reckoned that he referred to a Berlitz guide to Britain's most architecturally significant towns and cities (which he happened to have been reading at the time), in order to be able to exact maximum vengeance.
Coventry was one of them, which, apparently, prior to the bombing had quite a few nice old buildings.
I can't remember the source, it might have been Inside The Third Reich by Albert Speer.
Another thing in the Mein Fuhrer / Churchill war crimes smackdown event. I understand Hitler was vehemently opposed to the employment of any chemical/biological weapons on the battlefield. Whereas old Fatty Lispy Bulldog had specifically recommended, in writing, its use against Kurdish tribes.
Hitler's attitude came from having been on the western front in WWI and having seen its effects on those he regarded as mensch. This is actually a topic I find has been left rather undiscussed. Gassing soldiers in WWI had terrible effects, which Hitler witnessed, and therefore he forbade this type of warfare to his Generals.
Rather decent of the old chap, I think.
On the other hand... Hitler war criminal?, Churchill war criminal?
You'd have to side with the former, due mainly to his more rabid belief in a Darwinist world view.
