By an Elderly German saying Dresden was a war crime.

[Rjae]

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.

Katyn was a massacre of POWs by Russia (therefore by our allies as fuzzy said). It has been categorised as a war crime.

*Or the Soviet Union if we want to be picky.

Sabrina my post is quite clear. It says that if that is considered a war crime in terms of definition then I concede the point, obviously. But it's minor isn't it, in the grand scheme of things? So armchair philosophers or lawyers trying to score points about what constitutes a war crime by definition is trivial, compared to a consideration of what is abhorrent and what not. Dresden was abhorrent, and the old man meant probably only that. These people directly affected bear scars, so picking them up on legalistic matters of definition is narrow beyond belief. Who cares about definitions in this context except the most trivial of thinkers? I'm not digging Sabrina, you are.

Allies yes, not Britain. The question of war crime isn't relevant here; there's not any doubt. My elderly cousin's father was shot at Katyn. I think my cousin tends to think of Russia as being responsible, not Britain, and he's pretty astute. A lawyer even.

The bombing of Warsaw, invasion of Poland, the annexing of Austria of Czechoslakia is what started the WWII in Europe - Hitler's aggressive expansionism in Europe was the cause of all the atrocities - from area bombings to the Death Camps and the Final Solution. So hardly inconsequential. Not minor in the grand scheme of things.

How do those who worry about Hiroshima feel about the Rape of Nanking?

I can tell you now: they've never fucking heard of it.

And one poster said that after Hiroshima, the message had been received "loud and clear" by Japan. That did make me laugh. You might want to check out the Emperor's exact words when withdrawing from the war.

Great, my relatives and millions of others died while helping put an end to the Nazi war machine and to the brutality of their Japanese comrades, and some of you mealy-mouthed keyboard warriors DARE call their tactics war crimes.

And whoever casually slagged off the USSR (or "Russia") needs a word with themselves. 20 million dead there, unparalleled suffering. The Battle of Stalingrad was almost indisputably the turning point in the war; everything started to go downhill for Hitler after that. So it's not only ignorant but also ungrateful.

The ignorance makes my damn head spin.

Just because Germany "started" it, doesn't make what happened in Dresden anything other than horrific.

I'm not sure what the definition of "war crime" is or indeed if it matters. But if you are looking at utterly brutal events of war, Dresden is there.

The definition of war crime is utterly, utterly inconsequential and completely minor Sabrina and you diminish yourself completely by prattling on.

Sure, but if Germany hadn't "started it" Dresden would never have occurred, because we wouldn't have joined the war. We weren't looking for war - "Peace in Our Time" remember? Hitler cared little for his civilians in German towns and cities - he wanted the war to continue and gave orders as such from his bunker. German boy soldiers ordered to fight the fight on pain of firing squad.

Dresden was an atrocity - but it wasn't an isolated incident. It was part of the world wide war.

When talking about brutal events of war, my mind tends to jump to Babi Yar and Aushwitz. Not really even acts of war - just mass murder of civilians on Nazi orders. That was what we were fighting - people capable of those acts.

"How do those who worry about Hiroshima feel about the Rape of Nanking?"

Again... thinking one thing is appalling does not stop me from thinking another thing is appalling. Just as a human being. I really can't see why this is odd in any way?

It's spelled Auschwitz. I take students there.

But if you can move away from thinking... "This is/was an appalling thing to do", to thinking, "This is/was an appalling thing to do but it's justified because... X" then you are part of the problem.
Not the solution.
No matter what X is.

I would imagine that any person with a secondary school education knows about the atrocities in Nanjing. But (once more with feeling), those atrocities in no way excuse later war crimes such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm really surprised that people on this thread continue to use the "but they did it first, but they were worse" excuses to justify wartime actions that IMO have no justification.

mildlyacquiescent, I completely agree with you about the role of the Soviet Union in WWII. The conservative estimate of lives lost in the USSR is 27 million. My lovely 93-year-old FIL fought in the Soviet army from Stalingrad to Berlin. He is a hero, plain and simple.

Oh, you're winning when you point out an innocent typo.

Students should visit Aus c hwitz- lest we forget the horrors inflicted by the Nazis we were fighting against. It's a humbling and haunting place.

Nanking - war crime
Hiroshima - war crime
Coventry - war crime
Dresden - war crime
Malmedy - war crime
Chenogne - war crime
German concentration camps - crime against humanity
Soviet Gulags - crime against humanity
British concentration camps in S. Africa - crime against humanity
North Korean Concentration camps - crime against humanity
Geurnica - crime against humanity
Zong massacre - crime against humanity
I could go on.
None of us can take the historical high ground when it comes to human rights.
What we can do is to work hard to make sure that tomorrow, human rights are respected around the world.

Here's the speech which started all this in full:

www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Joachim-Gauck/Reden/2015/02/150213-Dresden.html

English translation available by clicking on the link to the right of the page.

I still can't see what there is to be so 'outraged' about.

I still think this whole argument about whether such an atrocity is a war crime or not is just semantics. We're not in a law court here. There's some interesting points on this thread, and I've learned a few things, but I'm still horrified by the lack of compassion some posters show.

Perhaps the point being made about Hiroshima and Nanking is that if you know more about WWII in the Pacific than the atom bombs, you start to understand why bringing it to a swift close might have been seen as a good idea. The atom bombs were appalling, but they were dropped to end a war in which people were dying of hunger, POWs were being death marched, and the military and civilian casualties were mounting by the day. The Japanese were known to have committed major massacres: the likelihood was that when cornered, they would commit more. As it was, events went from fighting to surrender in about a week, so the POWs were not massacred (as had been planned).

When talking about brutal events of war, my mind tends to jump to Babi Yar and Aushwitz.
As does my mind. But my also jumps to the terrible things that happened in Asia. I grew up on horror stories: people my father had been brought up amongst, including his father and brother, died in horrendous circumstances.

Sabrina, I agree with you that's its important to get the facts right.

I think a proper knowledge and respect would involve taking the trouble to spell correctly Sabrina, yes, on this particular one.

I already said, several times on the thread that I consider all civilian bombings a war crime.

The 'semantic' argument only started because a poster said that the bombing of Warsaw/invasion of Poland was not a war crime (and I just pointed out that it is,and is officially defined as such).

What we can do is to work hard to make sure that tomorrow, human rights are respected around the world. FrancesNiadova

The voice of reason.

One of the most sensible and pleasant things I've read on this thread all day.

Here's to you, Frances!

But if you can move away from thinking... "This is/was an appalling thing to do", to thinking, "This is/was an appalling thing to do but it's justified because... X" then you are part of the problem.
If you take this argument to it's logical conclusion, self defence is not permitted:
Country A in invades Country B, killing soldiers and civilians en route. This is appalling.
Country B, to protect its civilians, returns the assault, which includes bombing the railway hub/port/whatever from which the attack was launched. Soldiers and civilians are killed. This is also appalling.

So what do you do when the Nazis come calling? All war is horrible. I hate the whole idea, but I hate more the idea of authoritarian dictatorships taking over the globe.

I've visited Auschwitz, molio. I know how to spell it - it was a typo. Unlike your little factual error.

No absolutely not Sabrina. What you insist on is that a narrow definition reigns supreme, ignoring the far deeper issues of proper right and wrong. Unbelievably trivial.

Interesting that those affected - albeit at one remove - are all ad idem on the horror of every bit of this stuff. Whereas the others just pontificate on how right they are, definition wise. Takes the biscuit really.

Quite, mehsmum. Which is how I got entangled in this argument all along. We have to look at Dresden in the context of a long and desperate war against Nazism - against the backdrop Nazi expanionism and all the atrocities of the war. Against the threat of Hitler invading Britain (because he would have done given half a chance- he got the Channel Islands) I just don't think it should be singled out as a particular atrocity of the war - they were happening aplenty.

Dresden was absolutely an appalling war crime. Read Slaughterhouse 5 and then tell me it wasn't...