Q of the Week - Dresden

[Leon]

This week's question for the masses:

Was the bombing of Dresden a warcrime?

[ziparoo]

In a word: no. In a total war of national survival, who are we to look back in retrospect and claim the moral high ground by labelling it a war crime? The truth is that at the time, the Allies believed there were legitimate targets in the city. That said, I don't exactly agree with 'Bomber'   Harris' policy of 'de-housing' German civilians, but what could they do with the bombing technology of the time?

These days we can achieve the objectives through precision bombing - but don't forget, if we ever find ourselves in another total war - those nuclear weapons that some Western Democracies possess aren't going to descriminate between soldier or civilian.

[Kebabman]

In a word,YES.Allied intelligence new exactly what was in the city REFUGEES.......

I have always thought it to be a late war revenge attack,not so much survival more of a very large scale TERROR ATTACK.

[Ben Waterhouse]

No; as well as a transport hub, attack designed to encourage the Germans to surrender quicker than they might have done so shortening the war in Europe.

Anyway, they started it!

[Bernie]

It was indeed a transport hub, but the Brits and Americans did not even bomb the railway yards, preferring to dehouse the suburbs and destroy the industrial factory units. To me not a crime in a very long and bloody war where morality threshold was by then very low

[Martyn]

Very easy in this day and age to cry "warcrime" but the notion of warcrimes only came about after the second world war. Dresden, not good but there again the enemy would not give up and those who were fighting this war had the first world war in their minds, so the attitude was never again will Germany be allowed to drive the world to destruction. It has to be put in its historical context before any valid argument can be put forward. After all the Germans did not give a sh*t about Rotterdam or even the "Bidecker" raids on this country. SO was the deliberate bombing of Canterbury a warcrime? Rotterdam- at the point of the Dutch surrender a warcrime? Germany reaped the "whirlwind". Interestingly only in the last few weeks German historians have revised down dramatically the number of dead caused by the Dresden raid. It would appear that the nazis statistics for casualties  never contested until now.
Beware of revisionist historians-most are crap!

[Hurley]

No I do not think it was a war crime. I personally and I do not wish to put this idea on anyone else, feel that if you declare total war everyone in your country is a fair and valid target. If one has a problem with their governments ways of working get out of the country or fight against the government like the Jews and the french did.   

Hurley 

[Paint it Pink]

It is only a crime if war is a crime.

[Luddite]

No.

WWII was fought under terms of the Hague Conventions 1907, where the position and legality of aerial bombardment of civilian populations was subject to interpretation.

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention 1949 means that if Dresden were replicated today it would be a 'war crime'...however, who would enforce that?  Who has prosecuted the warcrimes perpetrated by the western governments in the last 10-15 years?

There is however, a strong push to have these sorts of things retrospectively assigned warcrime status.  To me this is dreadful historical tampering akin to the recent pardons given to those 'shot at dawn' in WWI.

So on, it wasn't a warcrime.


Now then, was the bombing of Dresden acceptable?

Well, that's very much something to debate.

Stretegically - yes.  The Alllies were by that stage in the war switching their thinking from 'how do we win', to 'how do we win as quickly as possible'.  To aid the Russians, the bombing of Dresden, Chemnitz, and Leipzig to interdict German attempts to counter the advancing Russians were entirely appropriate.

Tactically - yes.  Dresden was the epitome of area bombing, which was the only aerial bombing option available.  WWII did not have precision bombing techniques or technologies available.

The action was taken within the context of the 'total war' ethic of WWII.  We forgive as we forget and looking back with our liberal sensibilities now, Dresden might be seen as unacceptable.

That said...Dresden was the change.  Shortly after, even Churchill in a memo sent to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, expressed concerns that what was happening to Germany was becoming unacceptable.

OK, i've rambled a bit, but to conclude;

No it wasn't a warcrime.
At the time it was a sound strategic and tactical action.
Its effect changed opinion at the highest levels of the Allied command and contributed to the content of the post-war Geneva Convention concerning the legality of attacking civilians in war.

[Leon]

The general consensus seems to be 'No', so what about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Were they justified against the actions of the Japanese leading up to that, or did the US take it too far?

[Luddite]

The general consensus seems to be 'No', so what about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Were they justified against the actions of the Japanese leading up to that, or did the US take it too far?

Why are they different to Dresden?

[Leon]

Why are they different to Dresden?

The death tolls, the introduction of nuclear weapons, and the motive being more a show of power than about a specific military target.

[Luddite]

The death tolls, the introduction of nuclear weapons, and the motive being more a show of power than about a specific military target.

Tonnage dropped

Dresden    4000 tons

Hiroshima  13-18 kilotons

Area destroyed   

Dresden   15 sq miles

Hiroshima    3.2 km radius

Death toll    

Dresden   100,000-250,000est for many years after the war.  Modern EU reinterpretations suggest 20,000-45,000 est.  These lower figures remain highly disputed.

Hiroshima  140,000 est.



Not greatly different really.

Given the political fallout of the Dresden bombings, i also think there is parity between the two from a propaganda perspective.

Also, the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'aimed at 'showing power'' rather than, like Dresden, an attempt to shorten the war and reduce further Allied losses is also highly debatable.

Not saying you're wrong Leon, just that its highly debatable...anyone else care to jump in on that debate?   

[17-21l]

Mr Hurley - you need to look in the mirror and read what you wrote in this discussion and take a serious look at yourself. War is a dreadful thing, and to say civilians deserve all they get??-and all wars are total wars? Have you been a soldier? or been to a country that has had a war where civilians have been mass murdered? hmmmm??? makes me wonder.

Dresden -no war crime - had to be done im afraid (married to a german so I should really watch what Im saying)

[Leon]

Tonnage dropped

Dresden    4000 tons

Hiroshima  13-18 kilotons

Area destroyed   

Dresden   15 sq miles

Hiroshima    3.2 km radius

Death toll    

Dresden   100,000-250,000est for many years after the war.  Modern EU reinterpretations suggest 20,000-45,000 est.  These lower figures remain highly disputed.

Hiroshima  140,000 est.

Not greatly different really.

Given the political fallout of the Dresden bombings, i also think there is parity between the two from a propaganda perspective.

Also, the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'aimed at 'showing power'' rather than, like Dresden, an attempt to shorten the war and reduce further Allied losses is also highly debatable.

Not saying you're wrong Leon, just that its highly debatable...anyone else care to jump in on that debate?   

You can't really compare the tonnage dropped when one of them was a nuclear weapon.  And the combined death toll for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are over 250,000, ten times the more recent estimates for Dresden.  How accurate these figures are is debatable though.

I think the major difference is still the fact that the US motive, whilst having the potential benefit of ending the war earlier, was purely to prove dominance over the Japanese, threatening them with complete annihilation.  They opened the door to a whole new type of warfare, and the global impact of that was huge. 

With Dresden, actual military targets were identified.  The scale of the bombings to destroy those targets is where the problem lies.