Allied Terror bombing of Germany

True - there were no civilians in exactly that place - means the "Sportpalast"...the people who yelled "yes" to be exact.

What did the Ruhr people say if bomber alarm was given "Lieber Tommy flieg schön weiter nach Berlin, da haben sie alle JA geschrien"

 

b ) re-read the comments by other posters again, and you'll see your stance is incorrect.

 

I understand your point but Göbbels made official declaration of Total War in his Sportpallast Speech. The official Nazi Germany policy made all Germans directly involved in war and hence absolutely legitimate targets. Blame the Nazis if there is anyone to be blamed for bombing.

Yet, it was not intention of the Allies to cause unnecessary casualties among Germans. The aim of Britain was to stop the war and stop unnecessary loss of lives.

Just read how much Britain has done first to prevent the war in the roots and then to stop the war. This makes huge difference between the Alies and the Nazis. The hienous Regime had to be stopped and elliminated.

 

You make a good point. People are most assuredly products of their environment and during war time, especially in Britain and the whole of Europe, people are consumed with emotions and decisions are created and followed through.

I have to say, though I agree with your sentiment that technological advancement was a positive, I have to add human fortitude to the greater good. I know, very touchy addition on a thread such as this, but I for one believe in human fortitude and the collaboration between Allied nations for the greater good. Many brave men and women rallied to rid the world of an evil regime. Call me a cockeyed optimist.

 

If you insist on strict legalism based on Hague or Geneva conventions, then those -maybe- (edited) were war crimes . In that case we should also talk about some other moments. For one how truly absurd it is to talk about legalism or even sanity in that nightmare that was WW2. Yet most important reality here is that vengeance and even legal prosecution of Germans were downsized to lowest possible level after the war. I mean we are talking about 7 jail sentences of which most ended way before they were supposed to and 12 death sentences pronounced after the end of hostilities(10 carried out). 12!! death sentences.For Warsaw, London, Coventry, Belgrade, Baby Yar ,Leningrad, and Stalingrad, for all security actions in the rear(cynical title for barbarism,sadism and mass murder), for death of over 3 and a half million POWs(only Soviet), Warsaw uprising and for the Holocaust. There were also many unbelievable cases like Hermann Reinecke, man personally responsible for death of soviet POWs ,who was pardoned in 1954 or Obergruppenfuhrer von dem Bach Zalewski who organized anti partisan actions in the rear areas of conquered lands and crushed Warsaw uprising who wasn't convicted at all. So, there is absolutely no chance that justice was attained legally or otherwise for infinite evil that was done by Germany. This was probably part of the effort to avoid mistakes from WW I, avert any new feeling of injustice being done among german people and to finally rehabilitate german state in international community. Other important reason was already emerging antagonism between blocks.Yet considering all this I really think it's impossible for anyone to demand strictly legal interpretation of allied bombing.
Still IMO benevolent,compassionate and educational approach to great innocent part of german population payed off very well. Today I consider Germans to be one of the most progressive and humane societies and I believe that this has to do with their experience and lessons they took from their mistakes and suffering in the past and constructive post war approach of victors.

 

cheers mate!

 

The lack of proper English in the above makes me wonder if has been translated and retranslated or not accuratly transcribed. Do you have a linke to an on line source or book (with page number hopefully). It's also worth noteing that this is in contrevention to some of the previous vary strict targeting guidelines.

Not "maybe" the Ruhr and Kassel and much of the rest of Germany including Dresden were legitmate targets. Children were not targeted although it was known that some would be killed in the bombing. Of course some would be killed no matter what the target was. When the British were using very strict guidlines as to what to target a bomb hit an orphanage (in or near Berlin I believe).

The problem by the way is not with your ability to write English it's with your inability to contruct a rational fact based argument. If you add some facts and logic you will find your English is more than adequate.

What you fail to realize is that the targets were legitamate industrial ones although they varried depending on the time and raid. Children were never the target although they were going to be at risk if they were anywhere within miles of a target. As for shortening the war if allied intell had good info on exactly what the critical targets were then had they hit them it would have since they didn't have that info your assumption is based on 20:20 hindsight and is quesitonable. It's also quite clear that the bombing campaign was not a "war crime".

I think it's the US strategic bombing survey that goes into this in some detail. They tried to pick key industrial targets as others have mentioned and often switched just a bit too soon as they didn't realize how much flex was in the system. The U-boats in particular were on the target list from very early through the end of the war. Take a looke at the massive defences constructed for them though.

Actualy based on what's been posted on the doctrine to date your conclusion is the one that does not appear to be justified.

This is OT but ... Interestingly enough reprisals were allowed by the Conventions however they were requred to be exercised using due process and porportunate which is where the Germans ran into problems.

 

He asked me to ban him awhile ago. I said that we´re a democratic site and we will vote for that if necessary at the highest level. Probably trying to provoke people again, my guess.

 

These are the type of posts it isn´t worth to reply. These kind are statements are the product of simpel minded persons, stupid propaganda nothing else. Show here a picture of a women or an old man being trained to use a panzerfaust and every German women is involved in the war ... You should show us a picture of horses wearing gas-masks - these were probably NAZI-horses or maybe show us a picture of little child saluting on the grave of someone - NAZI kids - absolutely legitimate targets ... Sorry, but this is completely bullsh.. Can you imagine that the NAZIs tried to manipulate the people by using these kinds of pictures?

Your strategy here is clear - pointing on other subjects but no answering about the topic ... The facts about your remark "Yet, it was not intention of the Allies to cause unnecessary casualties among Germans. The aim of Britain was to stop the war and stop unnecessary loss of lives." are worthy of discussion. The Area bombing directive (Directive General No.5 (S.46368 / DCAS) was issued by the British Air Ministry on February 14, 1942- and the results of area bombing fulfill what we call war-crimes ...

 

Sorry for my not proper english - you may look here : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Bombing_Directive

 

Well it's a bit clear for us English speakers to look it up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
It's also pretty clear that the targeting is still focused on German industry it's the mechanism that has changed as well as the fact that they were willing to let Bomber Command suffer greater losses. As it is I think it supports our positoin much better than yours.
By the way:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml
Goes into a bit more of the background.
It's also worth noteing that actually spelled out in some of the conventions is a right to respond in kind. Realistically if one side does something that appears to give it an edge the other is unlikly to refraind from responding in kind if the conflict last any length of time.

That's a bit harsh. While the post with the image didn't really add much the latter two made some very valid points. Simply dismissing them doesn't work. Your opinion that they were war crimes remains simply that and you have so far provided little to back it up at least that has not been either called to question or refuted.

 

In war neither side can avoid civilian casualties or it is extremely difficult to avoid it. They can try, but it is near to impossible. One side sees the civilians as the depot of support for the government and the pool of manpower and they see civilians as many things that can keep the enemy going. No matter what there is going to be some or a lot of civilian casualties. The Allies may not have been intentionally targeting civilians in German cities, but there was certainly nothing that they could do about it. They were given a mission, and they had to carry it out no matter how many civilians were killed.

 

Thanks! I wasn't aware that reprisals were legitimate. If it was legitimate then I wouldn't complain about that -- people just did their job.

 

25th Article of the Haague Convention:

25. Es ist untersagt, unverteidigte Städte, Dörfer, Wohnstätten oder Gebäude, mit welchen Mitteln es auch sei, anzugreifen oder zu beschießen“.

or in English:

25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

This article doesn't cover any German city because at that time Germany was in the middle of Fortress Europe, well defended -- absolutely and entirely valid military target.

Now, Nordwind511, please read this carefully:

That convention was valid for Oradour-sur-Glane where blood thirsty 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" massacred the entire willage in February 1944. Blame the SS turd (Ger.:SS Abschaum) for war crimes and you wouldn't be wrong.

Finally, please stop mixing deliberately real victims with perpetrators. Have some selfrespect, please and stop misbehaving. If you were really such a philanthropist you would first condemn real criminals not the bomber crews who did their job to provide a lasting peace in Europe - for Germans too.

 

A good place to look for that sort of thing is:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
Or in this particular instance:

It was specfically outlawed in 1949 see:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva07.asp
Part III section 1 covers it.

II could have sworn I saw it mentioned somewhere that it was indeed legal but:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
article 50 implies even the 1907 conventions outlawed it.

Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal
It may be what I saw was talking about reprisals against other than civilians as it states:

Another source:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal-killings/
points out:

By this definition the Nazi actions were for the most part not really "reprisals".

See also:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2194909?sid=21105936520893&uid=3739256&uid=3739552&uid=2129&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2
and
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=444497
and
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=djcil

It looks like I misunderstood the definition of "reprisal". In any case the Nazi actions were counter to the conventions.

 

I just read in "the Devil's Disciples" about Hitler and his Inner Circle that the Russians asked the Allies to take out Dresden because it was a major railway hub with arms manufacturing and high ground that was going to be a major base of resistance of the Wehrmacht.

 

Looks like a lot of pixels have been wasted since I visited this thread last.

Seems that it is forgotten that the victors of World War I never proceeded to try any Germans for War Crimes concerning the use of Zeppelins, Gothas, and Giants for raiding Britain, France, and their Allies.

So, I have to ask...If it was not considered, after the end of World War I, to be a "war crime", why would it be considered a "war crime" at the start of, or during World War II?