Question:
Am i wrong in thinking this about WW2?
2009-11-02 01:42:32 UTC
I watched a programme about the ~German bombing of Coventry in WW2 this Weekend. Now whilst the 500 or so people dying was tragic i was disgusted by the flippant way the programme dealt with the British war crimes of destroying Dresden, Hamburg etc.

I know that the Nazis were evil but German citizens? There was no need for the bombing of those cities, none whatsoever. They were not military targets, they didn't have factories turning out planes or tanks. The only reason for bombing them was to murder ordinary Germans.

So does anyone else agree that it was a war crime or at best an immoral act? Or am i pissing in the wind?
25 answers:
Kira
2009-11-02 13:45:54 UTC
You are right , this is one of the many war crimes against Germany.
Adamo
2009-11-02 03:04:13 UTC
General Curtis Lemay said of the Dresden-Tokyo incendiary approach to war, “If we don’t win this war, we will be hanged as war criminals”.



On the other hand, however immoral it may have been, the horrific 1945 bombing of Dresden had a clear military rationale, a British historian says, because it was “a major transport and communication hub less than 120 miles from the advancing Russians.” Each February, he says, protesting German neo-Nazis inflate “the myth that it was of no military or industrial importance” as “a tool to relativize Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust.”
eggman
2009-11-02 03:03:32 UTC
lots of questions here: I don't know about Hamburg. This is about Dresden alone.



war crime? war crimes is often a cynical term. who decides? it's the victors who punish war crimes. they decide the legality of a particular act. often, it has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality, just vengeance. vengeance is not the best part of us.



immoral? i have been in a shooting war and when the bullets start flying at you, your ideas about morality often undergo a radical transformation. in the end though, i suppose that the question of morality depends upon whether you can justify the bombing or not



was there justification? well...for me, i think about the aviators who had to put themselves in harms way first. why would I risk the lives of my bomber crews and escort crews for a target that everyone admits had minimal military value? again, for me, i don't believe that retribution is worth the life of even one pilot. I'm sure that there were other targets of more pressing value at that time. could we have knocked out a munitions factory for example and saved the lives of some ground troops as well? i don't know for sure. there were military targets we bombed after Dresden.



i have never seen any evidence that this particular raid had any effect upon german moral nor their capacity to wage war. and one would think that with the stink that was raised when the news came out, that the armed forces brass would have jumped at the chance to justify the bombing if they could



i don't know all the facts about why they did this and neither does anyone else who is alive today, so i can't make an informed decision



from what i know, i would not have done it. as to the argument that the germans did it first, well they were supposed to be the bad guys. the way you tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys act like good guys. i would not like to try to justify my behavior by saying, "Well, Hitler did it first, so it must be OK, right."



is retribution emotionally satisfying? h*** yes! but i would not put my own men at risk for an emotion. that is the definition of an immoral act.
Douglas L
2009-11-03 17:04:39 UTC
Tony

Yes you are 100% wrong. Bombing German cities was the right thing to do. They were filled with Germans that were sending a constant stream of men to the armed forces. They had factories making trucks, uniforms and all sorts of supplies to support the military. Look what the Germans did in the war. Over 2 million Russian POW's died at their hands. The idea of mercy for Nazi Germany is just ridiculous.

If it was in my power I would have turned their cities into radio-active glass.
2009-11-02 02:36:46 UTC
Of course ...it was wrong...as was Germanys bombing of the UK ( not just Coventry )...The Blitz was the non-stop bombing done on the United Kingdom by Nazi Germany. It occurred between 7th September 1940 and 16th May 1941. The bombing was done through Luftwaffe and it struck a number of cities and towns all across the United Kingdom, thought it main attack was concentrated on London.

The Blitz bombing resulted in the death of forty three thousand people and shattered more than a million homes.. . The Blitz bombing was the initial example of Strategic Bombing. ...Hope this is of some help
vive l'empereur
2009-11-02 02:17:03 UTC
I'll agree with you that it was tragic, especially Dresden where alot of history was destroyed. Nonetheless its war and World War II was a total war, regardless of how people "feel" about matters, the Nazis refused to surrender and were going to fight until the end, these bombings dealt crippling blows to Germany, not only its industrial capacity but its citizen moral. This is besides the fact that humans have a need for vengeance. If another nation annihilated our allies, committed unprecedented atrocities, bombed nearly all our cities, and were consistently on the verge of invading us for for several years, would you want vengeance? Or would you say no thanks, let them go they didn't really mean it this time, or the last time.
Juzt
2009-11-03 00:34:50 UTC
Prehaps it was immoral. However Casulties of Dresden are roughly the same (prehaps slightly less) than the number of people killed in the London Blitz. Also it was a tactical move, some have argued it was done to ensure the Luftwaffe would continue to bomb British cities (in revenge) rather than Milatery instilation/factories. (though that point is debatable.
?
2009-11-02 07:19:57 UTC
War is wrong....I agree.



Germany after the WW1 became blinded by hate. The soldiers and their families all supported Hitler with heart (Not seen anything like that). They committed crimes which sixty years still disgust the world.



When Allies decide to bombed there homes they were teaching the Germans a lesson which need to be taught. So War Crimes or immortal act I think not...
ammianus
2009-11-02 05:29:15 UTC
There's little comparison to be made between Coventry and Dresden as targets; Coventry was an industrial city in WW2, producing tanks and warplanes. Dresden, bombed near the end of the war, was of no military or economic value to the German war effort and had been declared an open city.Further, the casualties at Dresden (24,000 is the smallest estimate) are not proportionate to those at Coventry (568).



Area bombing a war crime? WW2 was a Total War, and fought as such, particularly by the Germans, who waged the war as one of annihilation,conquest,permanent occupation and enslavement of the population (the portion of it allowed to survive,that is) being their war aims.

Further, the technology for accurate pinpoint high level bombing, even unopposed on a clear day, just did not exist during WW2.Large scale heavy bomber air raids were bound to cause lots of civilian casualties. Even today's hi tech US warplanes frequently kill civilians during airstrikes.



Curtis LeMay, a senior US heavy bomber commander responsible for the firebomb raids on Tokyo, once remarked to a colleague that, if the Allies lost the war, they would be the ones on trial as war criminals. One of the charges levelled at Goering at Nuremberg was the ordering of the air raid on Rotterdam (1940), a puny operation in comparison to Dresden and Tokyo.



An immoral act? If you take killing other humans except in direct self defence as immoral, then yes.However, many theorists both before and during the war championed strategic bombing as a war winning move, one that would avoid the risk of mass infantry casualties ala WW1 on the ground.



Due to the insufficient technology available and the high cost in terms of resources needed to produce large fleets of heavy bombers, and the high attrition rate of such operations, it was perhaps the theory itself and the continued prosecution of it a outrance for very little return in terms of advancing towards final victory that was the big mistake in WW2, and for that the senior strategists and leaders must take the blame.
azmanblues
2009-11-02 03:31:44 UTC
A war between countries involve all sectors of the warring nations. Though ordinary citizens are not military targets, they are just as involved for putting the instruments of war into the hands of their leaders, empowering their governments with their votes, and supporting every industry that is directly associated with the war efforts. Perhaps there are amongst them pacifists, who object to wars, as a method to resolve issues, disputes, or crisis. Still, they are members of that countries, devoted and loyal to their style of government, and even if outwardly opposing, who knows they'd want us annihilated anyway, within the secret confines of their conscience.



But, yes! You are right in thinking as you do, and you must not let your convictions be swayed, if you do not really agree.
2009-11-02 06:39:02 UTC
I see thumbs down were you there ?????? I very much doubt it



I am a Survivor of the London Blitz and i watched the V1 and the V2 destroying my city i watched the Battle Of Britain from the Ground



I did Nothing to the Germans yet they went out of their way to kill me they tried with the Wolf Packs to starve me to death and bomb me to death



and if hitler and the German people wanted my Countrymen to stop destroying the NAZI war machine all they had to do was Surrender



and they did not



there is only 2 ways to win a total war



One take all the Real estate so the enemy has No where to fight



2 to demoralise them so they loose the will to fight and Surrender



and at no time during WW2 in Europe Did the NAZIS ever give up



after we invaded on D Day and advanced into germany then they surrendered in the Hundreds of thousands but By this time NAZI Germany was in Ruins



I understand what your are saying but until you Live through the effects of total war watch them bury your innocent school mates



Volunteer to give up food for our servicemen when the USA arrived in June 1942 i never saw an egg until june 1944



i never saw the damage Coventry



But i saw London i saw famous buildings destroyed where i lived in Fulham there were no Military Factories bombed Nightly for years



Hitler Started Bombing Civilians if he had stopped in 1940 Germany Might Not have suffered the same Fate



Remember Destroy Hitler in 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 and surrender a few attempts were made but all failed why the German people loved Hitler



I was posted to Germany After WW2 and was appalled at the arrogance of the German Youth in the Netherlands





But i was Given total respect from every German citizen when i went out in RAF uniform



it did appear That the Girls had moved on but the young men were still arrogant and rude ages 16 to 30 my age Group



But i must admit i have some very fond memories of my german Girlfriends and Holidays at Sylt



I love the New Germany Holiday in 2007 and a bus trip from Prague to berlin Potsdam Auschwitz Krakow Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Austrian

a boat trip Up the Danube Main and the Rhine from Budapest to Amsterdam



and i am planing a week in Bavaria in 2010 with another trip to Berlin if Germany was Not so Cold in winter My experiences was - 27 Degrees i would have moved to Germany instead of Australia



In Hindsite was it fair or right ?????? at the Time Yes the same with the 2 Nukes on Japan totally Justified but that is another Story
2009-11-02 02:52:54 UTC
WHERE do you people get YOUR version of history.



DRESDEN was PAYBACK FOR COVENTRY.. pure and simple. Have you never BEEN to COVENTRY and visited the museum in City Center or gone up on top the hill on the way to Kenilworth and VISITED THE MASS GRAVE of the people who died n the fire bombing?.. It's in that big cemetery you pass about a mile down the road from where you crest the hills.



COVENTRY was allowed to happen because it would have told the Germans that their codes had been broken if the British evacuated Coventry... and it was not all of Coventry.. JUST THE CITY CENTER because its sits in a sort of 'bowl' which is what caused the fires storm.



I studied all about this when I was at Warwick University and had the time to dig into the bombing.
2009-11-02 01:52:31 UTC
No,,don`t apply your modern day way of thinking to something that happened over 65 years ago,,

The British public had no qualms about it and in some quarters demanded retaliation,it wasn`t just Coventry that got bombed but almost every major UK town and city,it was a part of the smashing of Nazi resolve to show what can happen,and did,

It like many actions of WW2 were inevitable and warranted
2009-11-02 06:44:18 UTC
Had the Allies lost the war, then the victorious Axis would have prosecuting Churchill, Harris, and others of crimes against humanity for those fire-bombings. It was certainly a horrible death for nearly 150, 000 humans!
hjgfjhgfjhgfjhgf
2009-11-02 03:31:28 UTC
actually, if you thought that bombing those german towns with ordinary citizens is wrong, then your mindset is completely against the nazi way of thinking. so good call on that, i think it was messed up too....i remember that only something like 20 percent of germans were actual nazi supporters/party members, so bombing indiscriminately is messed up. likkeee......i feel like not only did we kill innocent people, we wasted ammunition, weapons, and endangered allied pilot's lives...they should've been bombing the wolf's lair dude
?
2009-11-03 04:47:33 UTC
Yes you are wrong.

I have seen people below listing the Standard answer about Dresden, that it was a quiet place with no military value. could these people please list their sources for these statements?



Please read my standard answer below. My sources range from Visits to Europe, the National archives at Kew and decrypts from Bletchley Park





The biggest problem with dealing with the matter of the bombing of Germany is that it is judged against modern morals and standards of behaviour.



Civilians have suffered during war from the beginning of time. When the barbarians sacked Rome they slaughtered men women and children. When the French stormed Spanish towns during the peninsular war the citizens inside were killed and the towns raped and pillaged. The powers during the 19th century and the early 20th laid down ever more stringent rules about conduct during war trying to prevent these excesses but until the Geneva Convention came along there were no hard and fast “rules of war”.

In 1945 the Geneva Convention did not prohibit the general bombing of a town to destroy its industrial capacity.



We have to look at Dresden in the light of the morality of the time.



Some people in Dresden and elsewhere claim that the Bombing of Dresden by the RAF AND the USAAF is a war crime. In my opinion it was not

I am not in any way denying the fact that what happened in Dresden was horrific and appalling. I do deny that the men who undertook the mission have any crime to answer for.



The bombing of Dresden has been used since 1945 as a tool to beat the RAF about its conduct of "terror bombing" during WW2.



The bombing of an industrialized town from the air in an attempt to destroy its industry or cause such loss of morale amongst its inhabitants that they ceased to work was NOT a crime by the Rules of War in 1945. The bombing of Coventry, London and other British Cities in 1940 and 1941 was also NOT a War Crime.



Within Europe we did not have the “industrial areas” afforded to towns in the New World. The factories were in and around the areas where the workforce lived. One side of the street would be the factory wall; the other side of the street would be the workers houses. Unfortunately this lead to what, nowadays, is called “collateral damage”



Dresden burned so heavily for several reasons.

It was a medieval city with many wooden buildings.

There had been a dry winter in the region which meant many buildings were tinderboxes.

The population were not used to air raids and did not therefore have the knowledge that you need to put incendiaries out quickly

The raid had little opposition because its Anti aircraft defence had been taken away by the Germans for use on the Eastern front. Therefore the bombers were able to put their loads in a concentrated space with little or no opposition.



Dresden was not "chosen for destruction". This was a raid on an industrial centre which went exactly right with horrifying consequences due to many circumstances some of which I have listed above.



Why did so many people die?

The 40000 people that died (absolute top number using all available, reliable sources) did so because of the reasons above and the fact that Dresden’s Air Raid Precautions were appallingly bad. There were few, if any, properly constructed public shelters despite money having been allocated for them which was spent by the local burghers on Air Raid shelters for their homes in the suburbs.

People therefore sheltered in basements of houses which, due to the firestorm above filled with noxious fumes and killed the occupants before the houses collapsed onto them and burned their corpses.



Many people have claimed in the last 60 odd years that Dresden was a quiet peaceable town going about its business and waiting for the war to end. Read the paragraphs below which are taken from research by myself and many others for the truth about "quiet, peaceable, nothing to do with the war" Dresden.



In early 1945 the war was far from over. The Allies were still camped outside the borders of Germany, V2 rockets were still falling. The Allies had just fought the battle of the Bulge where the supposedly defeated Germans suddenly punched a huge hole in the Allied lines, German Rocket and Jet aircraft were coming off the production lines and proceeding to rip the hell out of the allied air fleets.



It was an operation undertaken due to many reasons.



1. A request from the Russians at the Yalta conference in February

1945. General Antonov "We want the Dresden railway junction bombed"

Meeting between the Chiefs of staff as reported by an interpreter. Records kept at the Public Records office in Kew



2. It was a German base of operations against Marshall Koniev`s left flank as he advanced into Germany. (See above)

Captured German High Command documents from Berlin in 1945 state that "Dresden is to be fortified as a military strongpoint, to be held at all costs." These statements are also backed up by decrypts from Ultra at Bletchley Park.



3. Munitions storage in the old Dresden Arsenal.



4. Troop reinforcement and transport centre shifting an average 28

troop trains through the marshalling yards every day. Intelligence from Russian and other sources stored in the Public Records office in Kew



5. Communications centre. Most of the telephone lines connecting

High Command to the Eastern front went through Dresden.



6. Quote from The Dresden Chamber of Commerce 1944. "The work rhythm of Dresden is determined by the needs of our army."



There were 127 factories in the Dresden Municipal area. The most

famous of these was Zeiss the celebrated camera and optics maker. In 1945 it was turning out Bomb aiming apparatus and Time fuses. (If you think the Dresden China Works making those lovely shepherdesses are more famous, they are actually made in Meisen 12Km down the River and always have been.)



A factory that previously made Typewriters and sewing machines was making Guns and ammunition



The Waffle and Marzipan machine manufacturer was producing torpedoes for the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.



The arts and crafts workshops in the old town were using their woodworking skills to make the tail assemblies for V-1s.



Other factories were turning out such non warlike goods as Searchlights, Aircraft components, Field Telephones and 2 way radios.



Yet another quote, "Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city would be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile activity that make Dresden ONE OF THE FOREMOST INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS OF THE REICH. (My Capitals)



Sir Arthur Harris? A Post war exponent of the bombing campaign?

Nope both wrong.

It comes from the Dresden City Council Yearbook of 1942.



The men who carried out these acts did so in the desire to make a world in which their descendants and countrymen, of whom I am one, could live in freedom from persecution and with a freedom to ask questions and form their own opinions. To those of you who feel it necessary to label them war criminals may I ask if you think that you could have asked a similar question under Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?
2009-11-02 01:57:25 UTC
I think it is fair to say that the citizens of all sides of the war didn't deserve what they were put through. I fully agree with that so you're not wrong to think that at all.
?
2016-10-15 02:30:38 UTC
some will cite Hitler's civil government beforehand of the war and factor out this "success" or that "success". yet those "achievements" have been "achieved" on the fee of each unfastened organization interior civil society and by utilising the explotation of exertions and by utilising deceit. despite Hitler 'achieved" beforehand of the war, it truly is gainsaid whilst considered in gentle of the surprising, unfathomable and systematic genocide that he orchestrated.
Louise C
2009-11-02 06:09:48 UTC
the Germans killed plenty of innocent civilians with their bombs. War is not pleasant, but we were fighting for our survival. Most of Europe had caved in to the Nazis, and we were fighting for our survival.
Sowcratees
2009-11-02 11:54:41 UTC
Did Hitler have to be stopped? Yes

Is it wrong to kill civilians in war? Yes

Is it wrong to return evil for evil? Yes

Therefore, some wars are justified to achieve a limited end.

All civilian casualties are subject to investigation as war crimes.
2009-11-02 02:03:05 UTC
Yes I wonder about this and the whole war crime morality - The moral maze Radio 4 had a programme on it which you can still listen again to onthe BBC R4 website



I was horrified about Dresden but also horrified to hear that Churchilll knew about the attack on Coventry and they were not forewarned as it would have upset the intelligence networks. I think that might have constituted a war crime also but I agree that the only thing to do now is to be horrified by what anybody does in wartime. There is no moral justifcation for war.
robbob
2009-11-02 02:02:24 UTC
No you're thinking is not wrong. Even over sixty years after the fact, those of us on the Allied side (I'm Australian), still have trouble accepting that our side was capable of great evil. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past in order not to repeat it.
2009-11-02 01:49:51 UTC
You're correct. Dresden-Meisen, was, in a small way justified, Hamburg is a port, so again justified, but Hitler introduced the idea of total war, Harris took it to the extreme.
hushper
2009-11-02 01:58:17 UTC
We gave them back what they gave us.Perhaps they thought we were too soft to retaliate like that.There's nothing immoral in war.
Jonathan
2009-11-02 01:57:34 UTC
All war is disgusting - always has been, always will be.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...