Allied Terror bombing of Germany

The plan for bombing Dresden had nothing to do with factories which were making things who were killing soldiers and civilians/children. Like every bigger town it was naturally a pass-thru town for Military. Especially because the front-line wasn´t far away in Feb 45. But the target of this air-raid - and some others at the end of war too - and the main aims of it was to destroy the center of Dresden, to destroy as many houses as possible and to kill the civilians who lived this area. In this way, this kind of bombing -the strategic bombing it-self was war-crime! Like the bombing of Rotterdam, Warschau, Coventry, Birmingham, London (and many other cities) by the Luftwaffe- also the bombing by V2 were war-crimes. Always - when the target of an operation are civilians we have to consider that it is war-crime!
It would be different If you want to destroy railway-lines, factories or special industrial areas and if you kill civilians by these operations - this would be no war-crime. But if your plans only reflect about the thought to destroy civilian houses and kill civilians ... you have to accept been called it war-crime.

 

I think that we have to accept that WWII as a whole was a war-crime. It was a total war between entire Nations and indeed peoples for their very existence. It was rather nasty - perhaps better if it had never happened.

 

To the contrary, that was NOT the aim to kill 25,000 innocent civilians. The city was chosen because it was a railway hub for armaments production.

 

Besides:were these 25000 civilians innocent ?

 

Yes, there was a railway hub - but if you would try to read the planes of the attack, you would have to concider that the plane which was called the pathfinder had not to mark another point than the railway hub ... Aren´t there railways hubs near every town of the size than Dresden?

Although there was no explicit rules for strategic air war in the Hague Regulations (the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 (approx) prohibits the widespread bomb used against the civilian population), it was war-crimal in my point of view. The reason that there was no regulation at this time was that there was no strategic air war expriences in World war I. So it wasn´t necessary to do a regulation for that explicit kind of air war. Although it is said that up to 25,000 deaths of these attacks have no relation to the millions of victims of the Holocaust, it remains a dark spot in the fight against Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Civilians are ALWAYS innocent, if they don´t take part actively on the fighting between the armees of two or more countries ... And this includes the fact that they might take part in producing for example weapons or support the own troops in other kind of way (but not activ fighting!).

 

Civilians never are innocent : without the support of the German civilians,no Hitler,no WWII;no Holocaust .

 

@LJAd

What you call civilians has nothing to do with this topic. If I follow straight the way of your arguments: At the moment when Kain murdered his brother - any humanbeing will be innocent till the end of time ...

 

"Civilians are ALWAYS innocent"

Yes and no. German Police and government works, not so much. Nazi Party members again not so much as Hitler declared this a Political struggle. Nor are Railway workers exempt since they are the land equivalent to merchant sailor's and they were in the firing line. Same for military factory employees.

This does still leave a considerable number of non combatant civilians, yet these same people suffered in a city under siege, a nation being blockaded or being under a rather ordinary artillery bombardment.

Suffering and death is just as terrible when it comes from a empty belly, a artillery barrage or a MG sweeping a street.

 

I was just about to ask if using the Paris Gun would also be considered a war crime as it was so inaccurate it was only used on cities in order to inflict civilian casualties and reduce morale.

 

Of course, most cities contained railway stations and employees for transportation purposes. My stance is that Dresden was a hub for armaments production with thousands of workers utilizing those rails to continually feed the Reich war machine.

The extensive loss of civilian life is horrifying, but "total war " is a tragic event. The goal of the multiple days of bombing runs had a military purpose.

 

Dresden was a way to show the Russians the power the Allies had to destroy entire cities and devastate the population from the air alone. The war was coming to an end, the Cold War was looming, who was going to influence Europe in the aftermath of the war, and they were starting to see thru Stalin. They wanted to "show support" and intimidate the Russians, under the guise of bombing a "city of importance to the war effort" which I put in quotes. Either way they deserved to reap the whirlwind whether it was a major railway for armaments or not.

 

Considering Leningrad and Stalingrad, I don't agree with you conclusion. One more devastated city is not going to impress Stalin one bit.

 

And Stalin practically new about everything pretty quickly. For instance the first A-bomb explosion and Stalin was aware what happened after a week through his Soviet spy connections in the US. No wonder Truman was surprised himself when Stalin was not amazed about hearing the massive new bomb.

 

Sources please.

City centers or other easily recognizeable features were usually what the pathfinders tried to mark I believe. I'm pretty sure the follow on bombers were given an offset from the pathfinder mark to get them to the actual target. Without knowing what if any offset was used where the pathfinders marked isn't reallly definative. Also given the accuracy of the time aiming at the city center may be the best way of insuring as much damage to the factories as possible so even with no offset it doesn't mean that civilians were the target.

Actually it does allow bombardment of cities as long as they are defended (and not declared open cities) and have targets with military implications.

Which is of little or no weight in the grand scheme of things.

Actually there was. Not extensive but it was there.

It may have been stated but it is hardly correct. The knowledge of the Holocaust reinforced, at least in some circles, the need to get the war over as soon as possible. The air raid on Dresden was seen as consistent with that aim.

Or not.

Sounds like your defintion of innocent is rather flawed. If I'm reading you right that would make Hitler and his civilian henchmen "innocent" like wise the members of the Gestapo. Civilians working in war related industries are if not legitamate targets certainly considered as acceptable collateral damage. Indeed the modern rules of war make it illegal to deliberately position military targets near clearly innocent civilian ones (such as schools and hospitals).

 

I agree. To piggyback off that statement, the Allies knew as of 1942 of the atrocities in the east. Information was being communicated throughout. Unfortunately, the sheer extent and size of the horrific extermination the European Jews in Aktion Reinhard made any real rescue impossible. The Allies interfered diplomatically and saved many, but the only real rescue was going to come by total capitulation of Germany. Hitler and his subordinates (most notably Bormann and Goebbels, not so much Speer at the end) were going to fight to utter destruction. Hence the increase of bombing runs aimed at military targets. It is safe to assume that the Holocaust played a role in the aerial bombardment.

(Kershaw)
(Holocaust research center)

 

Another issue was the credibility of the atrocity stories. Too many remembered the atrocity stories of WW1 being fabricated or grossly exaggerated. So although the information about atrocities was being received, there was initially a great deal of scepticism towards them.

 

Leningrad and Stalingrad were under siege being attacked by armor, dive bombers, medium bombers, artillery, and infantry. Dresden was just the Allied heavy bombers of the USAAF and RAF causing the firestorms, mass explosions, and mass casualties in a short period of time. I read statements by Churchill and Lindemann stating this post-war, and in "The World at War" Lawrence Olivier said the same thing in the narrative.

 

I guess the question popped is "are we down to their level" in this case. The next is " are we any better then?".

Just watched the Bikini atols Atom explosion. There were some 5,000 animals on the ships just to see what happens to them. I hope that helped the scientists alot.

After Trinity:

"After the initial euphoria of witnessing the explosion had passed, Bainbridge told Oppenheimer, "Now we are all sons of bitches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

 

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
.
It is kind of funny, those in the military that would clamor to use the weapon, that "the bomb" would never be used again.
Though we came so close in 1962.

 

Mac certainly wanted to in Korea as well.