Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

By an Elderly German saying Dresden was a war crime.

763 replies

Rjae · 13/02/2015 19:48

He said, yes, Germany started the war but the bombing of Dresden was a war crime.

AIBU to be outraged by this.

Exterminating Jews, gipsies, and prisoners of war was a war crime.
Invading half a dozen European countries and murdering it's citizens was a war crime.
Bombing Londoners and other british cities long before Dresden was a war crime
Starting the fucking war was a war crime.

Dresden was horrific of course, but not a war crime, unless you consider everything a war crime. It shouldn't have happened, but neither should the war. I'm sorry so many people were killed and a beautiful city destroyed. They were civilians but they supported Hitler wholeheartedly.

No doubt it didn't do much except kill civilians in the long wrong, but that still doesn't make it a war crime.

OP posts:
MightyMightyToros · 14/02/2015 02:30

Good. It's a shame the raid wasn't more effective.

Yes I wish more 16 year olds had died.

You're not funny Dodged in fact you're a fucked up nasty creature.

in2theblues · 14/02/2015 02:49

we know it was a crime

enochroot · 14/02/2015 03:34

My parents were 20 when war broke out and for some years after the war were sending packages of baby clothes and tinned food to friends my father made in Holland in 1944 because he had been so horrified by the plight of the starving population.
The Siege of Leningrad was so prolonged because once it had been encircled the job was done as far as German military effort was concerned. The army's orders were to simply wait for food to run out then take the city. Nazi doctors had done grisly research into exactly how long it would take for everyone in the city to starve to death. They didn't reckon on the ice road.

However, the USSR and Germany were both regimes that couldn't be disobeyed. Their citizens were ordered to fight to the death, military personnel and civilians, no distinction.
The British and US armed forces had a very different perspective. Most of the front line troops were seasoned veterans of the desert campaigns and Italy. By June 1944 they had done a lot of fighting over a long period while the bulk of the armies had been 'in training' with not a shot fired in anger for four years.
The vets resented having to spearhead once again in Normandy and Holland but the fresh troops were pretty near useless. Battle fatigue was endemic. Infantry would go to extremes not to move without tank cover and so got hopelessly stuck if terrain was boggy or wooded. Entire units were withdrawn because they refused to go on. A whole regiment was disbanded. Generals were seriously concerned that they were dangerously short of effective units.

When up against SS troops willing to fight to the death and with far superior weapons and training they almost always fell back. Meanwhile Russian armies were moving fast across eastern Germany with an enormous casualty rate and Stalin was angry that the Allies were making so little progress while his armies were taking the brunt.

It is against this background that bombing of German cities should be assessed. The western allies relied on what they had a lot of and which the Germans lacked - aircraft.

fizzycolagurlie · 14/02/2015 03:57

I reported this thread a few hours ago, because of some of the more extreme, inhuman, blanket responses.

mathanxiety · 14/02/2015 05:00

Katyn is universally accepted to be a crime committed by the USSR, and in fact Russia, the USSR's successor state, acknowledged a few decades ago that it was committed by the USSR. It was while traveling to a ceremony to mark an anniversary of the massacre in Russia in 2010 that a large number of high ranking Polish officials both civilian and military, and politicians including the president, were killed in a plane crash near Smolensk. The Russian government published and declassified more documents on Katyn after the crash than it had up to then and the parliament fully acknowledged the responsibility of the government of the USSR and Stalin its leader for the crime.

(This accident is now being touted all over the internet as a premeditated murder commissioned by then prime minister Putin).

Katyn is used as anti-Russian fodder by American and other neo-cons, who are very quiet on the subject of Nazi targeting of the Polish intelligentsia that had the intention of depriving Poland of its leadership and turning Poles into a nation of slaves. Professors, business owners, bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, members of the nobility, actors, writers, journalists and politicians were singled out and killed.

Foremost among the targets in Poland were RC priests and seminarians, among them the future pope John Paul II. About 2000 Polish priests and religious were murdered in concentration camps, with another 1000 elsewhere. About 1700 Polish priests were imprisoned in Dachau alone, half of whom were killed, and more were killed elsewhere, notably (Saint) Maximillian Kolbe in Auschwitz. Thousands were conscripted as forced labourers, including the future pope John Paul II. 108 Polish bishops, clergy and nuns who were killed by the Nazis are considered RC martyrs. Even when Pope JP II was first elected, this systematic German policy was rarely mentioned.

Another detail about WWII that is rarely mentioned is that c. 2.5 million Poles were killed by the Germans between 1939 and 1945. About 200,000 Polish children were kidnapped for Germanisation. About 3 million Poles were enslaved and shipped to Germany. About 2 million Polish civilians were simply banished from large areas of the former Poland and crammed into the General Government or left to starve. They were replaced by over 1 million Volksdeutsch settlers from all over eastern Europe, Russia and Germany. However, the mass exodus of ethnic Germans from East Prussia, Silesia and Galicia ahead of the Red Army in the closing days of WWII is far better known. Women were systematically raped and used for sex slavery by occupying German forces in Poland and the USSR. Yet what mass rapes do people normally associate with WWII?

I am not trying to say one event is less terrible or more terrible than others, just that the picture of German victimisation (often contrasted with Russian villainy) is one that should be examined in light of a neo-Con agenda and also in light of the rise of the Right. There is a certain shamelessness to it that is disquieting. My suggestion has nothing to do with RT. The fact you would suggest it is is quite revealing.

mathanxiety · 14/02/2015 05:32

'It was after WW2 that they established the UN, wrote the Geneva Conventions, the genocide convention, put all sorts of customs into formal law -- exactly because they had just seen what happens when states conduct unrestricted warfare. And now we should just forget all that?'

The Hague Conventions wrt POWs were agreed upon in 1899 and 1907. POWs in WWI received very varied treatment regardless. The Geneva Convention on POWs dates from 1929. It was ratified by France, Germany, Great Britain, the United States and others, but not the USSR or Japan. Russian and Polish POWs were nevertheless slaughtered by Germany. The Geneva Convention was updated in 1949. After 9/11 American prisoners were simply declared 'unlawful combatants' and thus obligations were dodged. So much for respect for international law.

The Genocide Convention of 1948 has been ignored by people hell bent on wiping others of the face of the earth. Civilians remain completely vulnerable, and have suffered time and time again. One historical genocide remains off the books because it is not politically expedient to officially recognise it as such --Turkey is too important to NATO to risk upsetting by the US.

At this point as Dodged points out, and in fact ever since 1939 (or perhaps even since the Russian Civil War) all war is total war thanks to industrialisation and mechanisation of the means of war, and by definition all war is therefore a war crime.

SoupDragon · 14/02/2015 07:01

If you truly believe that "they started it" justifies everything, then surely the allies could justify their own version of the Holocaust and committed genocide without it being a war crime....? I don't think that is true at all. War Crimes can be committed by both the side "in the right" and the opposing side.

Sympathy is a finite resource. There is no such thing as an infinite resource.

Sympathy within a single human is infinite. It is not a physical resource. I am perfectly capable of feeling sympathy for as many people as I see fit.

If everyone was in the same camp as the OP and those who agree with her, the world would be an intolerable place. It probably explains a lot.

Footle · 14/02/2015 07:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MoustacheofRonSwanson · 14/02/2015 07:35

Can I just comment that reading all this makes me think that the EU is worth paying a bit extra for? I'd rather have a slightly wasteful common agricultural policy and a bit of a gravy train for bureaucrats in Brussels than all the stuff mentioned above. Bit less costly than total war every twenty years or so. That's not to say that that the EU and euro couldn't do with some reform and more power to the Greeks at the moment however.

mathanxiety · 14/02/2015 07:40

Rjae: 'I've lived in Germany and the majority of older Germans just don't discuss the war though one old army man told me the allies had killed the 'wrong pig' (some sort of German saying) meaning we should have fought the Russians who were all Cold War back then'

CalamitouslyWrong: 'Admitting that Dresden was a horrific war crime doesn't in any way lessen the atrocities of the holocaust or the blitz or anything else.'

It does to people who would like to rewrite the history of WWII as a heroic battle against bolshevism they are currently coming out of the woodwork all over Europe and that is why it should not be considered a war crime. It is unofficially considered so, and always has been, but I doubt it will ever be officially acknowledged as such, TB's ill-advised apologies aside. Tony Blair is a charlatan.

MarvellousMaisiesMummy · 14/02/2015 08:07

That is disgusting. My best friend lost her baby nephew in Iraq. Did he deserve it? Should he just have expected it?

MarvellousMaisiesMummy · 14/02/2015 08:08

That was a reply to youknownothingjonsnow by the way

Aeroflotgirl · 14/02/2015 08:10

Yes it was, but also was the bombing of our cities, especially in the Blitz.

MarvellousMaisiesMummy · 14/02/2015 08:11

We are all the human race.

MissPenelopeLumawoo2 · 14/02/2015 08:23

The first concentration camps were built in Germany, for Germans. They were first used by the British in the Boer War actually.

mathanxiety · 14/02/2015 08:32

Winston Churchill, the architect of the Black and Tans and a war of terror waged against a civilian population in Ireland in the 1920s, was in his own way a charlatan too.

His cabinet agreed to the area bombing of German cities as early as 1942. The only factors at that time preventing raids as effective as the one on Dresden by British and American bombers were technical difficulties -- lack of planes and navigational problems for night bombing. The will was always there and despite objections and division in the military on practical and moral grounds the policy was carried out to the end. In 1942 Cologne was attacked by a Thousand Bomber raid. The huge number of planes in the massive raids envisioned by Harris was designed to overwhelm German air raid defences and allow unhindered comprehensive destruction of cities and rail and industrial targets. After Cologne came Hamburg, and after that Berlin suffered a series of massive raids with high British casualties, and Nuremberg, a symbolic and industrial target that also resulted in high attrition for the RAF. The cabinet including Churchill decided to keep on informing the British public that the object of the raids was military targets.

Harris was promoted to Air Marshall in 1944. To me this signals a level of comfort on the part of Churchill, the Cabinet and military brass with the area bombing approach he favoured. In the closing stages of the war Churchill accused Eisenhower of being soft on German civilians whom he thought should be terrorised, turned out of their homes and transformed into teeming masses of refugees who would clog roads and block German retreat. Terror was in Churchill's mind a good reason to keep on bombing German cities. The Allies were privy to the reports from Hamburg that were sent to Berlin and encouraged by them. It was only after Allied public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic had expressed disgust at the destruction of Dresden that Churchill began to change his tune on area bombing. The RAF and Harris in particular carried Churchill's can. The Russians carried the USAF's can -- General George Marshall claimed the bombing had bee requested by the Russians..

Other reasons to area bomb that had kept its few critics silent were:
The area bombing of German cities was interspersed with raids on the Ruhr that sought to end German synthetic oil production, plus bombing of cities necessarily disrupted western German rail hubs, which had an impact on potential troop deployment or defence against Allied troops on the ground.

Cities in a state of partial or complete destruction were also less likely to become traps for advancing American and British troops. It was a tossup as to which army would arrive in Dresden first, the Soviets or the American Third Army. Either way, preventing a defence of any city as staunch as that encountered over the winter at Breslau was desirable, and the possibility of retreating Germans holing up in Leipzig, Chemnitz or Dresden was one Churchill wanted to avoid and he ordered the destruction of all three. In the runup to the Yalta conference and with the USSR resuming operations all along the front, an impressive attack of tremendous fire power right at the Red Army's doorstep on the Elbe was also considered politically expedient for the sake of USSR-Allied relations.

As well as that, as long as German anti aircraft guns, Luftwaffe planes and flyers and military personnel were tied up fighting off RAF and USAF bombing raids they could not be deployed to the east or against American and British troops in the west or in Italy -- Dresden was considered such an unlikely target by the Germans that its flak batteries had been removed to the east. The continued bombing of German cities was important because the war had become a zero sum game of war materiel availability and production capacity where every gun counted on the German side, and also because president Roosevelt had dictated to the Allies at Casablanca that nothing short of unconditional surrender would be acceptable in either the European or the Pacific theatres, and right up to the end neither Germany nor Japan gave any indication that they intended to surrender.

(It has been argued that the seeking of unconditional surrender by itself stiffened resistance in Germany and led to the prolonging of war longer than it might otherwise have gone on as the German military received no signal from the Allies that they could hope for terms they could agree to. Germany was left with much to fight for therefore.)

Moving on to today, the risk-averse military establishment of Britain and America continues to depend on aerial attack, missiles, drones and other long distance means of war in order to maintain popular support for winnable wars that will not put lives at risk. This was one of the main reasons for the development by the Allies of air forces possessing overwhelming superiority, and also one of the reasons put forth for the dropping of the Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The various conventions on civilian safety, etc., have been completely disregarded in the quest to keep on winning wars without risking lives and thus keep post WW2 aggressive American foreign policy popular.

The Korean conflict was only just acceptable to the American public the appearance of winning helped but the Vietnamese War like no other convinced the American establishment that the only way to conduct war was from a distance, preferably by proxy (an approach visible today in Ukraine, an arena very popular with neo-cons), maximising use of technology (drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan), and by covert means (deposing and replacing regimes and rulers considered unfriendly, by use of the CIA -- Iran, Panama, etc. etc., and also covert training and equipping of military juntas in Central America, death squads, etc).

Binkybix · 14/02/2015 08:57

I would recommend the podcast 'logical insanity' in the hardcore history series for people interested in this topic.

hijk · 14/02/2015 09:30

There is a lot of information and discussion about other atrocities on here, which is all interesting in its own way, but the subject of the thread is Dresden, and Dresden was a war crime, what ever has or hasn't happened before or since.

It was seen as a war crime at the time, by both sides, it has been seen as a war crime ever since, and it will always be seen as a war crime.

The politics of the situation then or since is irrelevant. It was mass murder.

sanfairyanne · 14/02/2015 09:52

for those interested, an example of protest at the time would be Vera Brittain's book Seeds of Chaos:what mass bombing means

the germans themselves found the raf bombings in general to be poorly organised and ineffective. a better planned bombing campaign against military targets would have been a much better idea from the pov of winning the war than the mass bombing of civilians

SabrinaMulhollandJjones1984 · 14/02/2015 10:05

I don't think you can consider Dresden out of the context of WWII. War is terrible. Aerial bombing of civilians is terrible - but it was a tactic used by both sides.

Giving so much weight to Dresden, and not seeing it in the context of all the other atrocities of the war is dangerous - it does give rise to revisionist historians like the ghastly David Irving, who use it to say the allies were worse than the Nazis and such like.

dreamingbohemian · 14/02/2015 10:11

math, it is simply delusional to say people don't know about what the Nazis did and only concentrate on the Russians. Holocaust education has hugely expanded in recent decades (I know because I used to work in it) and most of these efforts do include what the Nazis did to non-Jewish populations, especially the Poles. Your average person will know far more about Nazi genocides than about Soviet targeted killings and deportations in Poland.

I agree there are political factors that emphasise certain killings over others but to say that anyone talking about Soviet war crimes has some kind of hidden neo-con agenda is ridiculous and, quite frankly, the kind of thing they do say on RT, hence my question.

Not all wars are total wars. A total war is one with no limits, where every sector of a country is devoted to the war effort. Does that sound like the Falklands war? Or the current war in Ukraine? There is a wide spectrum of wars and many of them DO have limits, in part for strategic reasons but also for legal ones. That's why there are hundreds of military lawyers screening US/NATO targeting choices and why even non-state armed groups often have a code of conduct they follow. We hear about the breaches of the law but not the countless times that the law prevented specific attacks and spared lives.

The difference with the post-WW2 treaties is that they were signed by many more states and became customary law binding on everyone in the world, whether they sign the treaty or not, and also that they are embedded in a UN system with at least some capacity for enforcement.

To use the burglary analogy from earlier: just because some people do burgle, we don't tear up the laws, because we know that would mean even worse anarchy. The laws of war do have important constraining effects, we shouldn't tear them up because some people violate them and other states let them.

dreamingbohemian · 14/02/2015 10:15

I mean, do people have a problem with the Red Cross? The treaties banning chemical and biological weapons? The global bans on genocide and torture? The UN refugee agency and conventions? These are all rooted in the laws of war, the main purpose of which is to limit human suffering.

I can understand people saying the law isn't effective, I can understand people trying to explain why it gets broken sometimes, but I am really surprised to see people arguing against its fundamental principles or saying it's pointless.

hijk · 14/02/2015 10:19

Sabrina, Dresden was quite quite separate and should be singled out.. You cannot lump it in the general bombing. it was a deliberate attempt to suffocate everyone in an entire city.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones1984 · 14/02/2015 10:30

If that was directed to me, dreaming, then no I don't have a problem with any of those things.I am firmly against the targeting of civilians.

But why is Dresden singled out so much? Much more so than say, the London Blitz/V2 rocket attacks, Coventry etc. Are they called war crimes with the same frequency? It was the same thing - aerial bombing targeting civilians. It was used by both/all sides - doesn't make it right of course, but in a War of such unbelievable atrocities, why does everyone go on about just Dresden all the time?

I do have a problem with that - because it is so frequently used by those with a very unpleasant agenda.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones1984 · 14/02/2015 10:39

What was Coventry then? A play fight? It was the carpet bombing of a city targeting civilians. It was an attempt, along with the Blitz, to bomb Britain into submission using the civilian population.