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.

How is saying "I believe that all civilian bombing are war crimes" thinking that a narrow definition reigns supreme?

You're just pissed that you were wrong and I called you on it.

Molio, I am one of those 'affected at one remove'. Just admit that you got it wrong... Sabrina has talked about the wider issues.

In fact, she said this, agreeing with a PP:
just because it has not officially been declared a war crime does not mean that it should not be appearing on that list!

I agree livingzuid.

Yes mehsmum - thank you. Thankfully you are capable of reading my posts properly.

And "what do you do when the Nazis come calling" is a very good question indeed - one that anguished Churchill and the allies no end, I'm sure.

I always find it amusing when people talk about a war "crime" because there is clearly no such thing. The entire point of a war is that it's gone beyond regular rules, it's become a case of the tougher person enforcing their will upon the weaker one. At that point, there is no such thing as rules.

I really couldn't give the slightest tiniest toss in the whole wide world Sabrina, read my posts. I'm always very ready to admit I'm wrong, especially on unimportant points of technicality. What I'm quarrelling with is your jingoistic insistence that the definition of war crime is the only thing which matters, and that the actuality of what happened, and the moral measure of things, doesn't matter at all. Ultimately, I find your mantra extraordinarily unimaginative and narrow.

At that point, there is no such thing as rules.
Er, yes there are. They are called the Rules of War. They govern things like safe conduct of embassies, respecting the white flag of surrender, and the treatment of captured combatants. If I understand things rightly, the Hague Conventions are a development of these concepts.

True, war is about force, but it does have rules.

I'm always very ready to admit I'm wrong,

You're so not!

MehsMum war has NO rules. If you get to the point of war, you are saying that the strongest person has the right to enforce their will upon the weaker one. At this point there are no rules. You fight dirty to win, that's all there is to it. That might include deliberately targeting civilians. Because think about it, it's less risk to kill some civilians than it is to attack a group of soldiers who have the mentality and the physical ability to fight back. If you are at the point where you still think of "rules" then quite simply you are not at the point where you should be going to war with anyone. War = no rules. Don't like that, don't go to war. Simple as that.

Certainly Germany had signed the Geneva Convention, and as far as I'm aware did (largely) keep to it wrt British POWs. The British POWs were treated somewhat better the Russian POWs (who hadn't signed to convention) and were treated appallingly.

I'm happy to be corrected here though, but anyone with better knowledge.

*the convention. More damn typos.

Sabrina I said immediately that if I've got the legal definition of war crime wrong, in relation to the invasion of Poland, then I concede that completely. So you're wrong about my not being very ready to admit I'm wrong. That said, your position is utterly trivial and shallow beyond belief. But that has nothing to do with my readiness to admit I'm wrong on the technical point - which doesn't affect the broader one does it?

Why on earth are we having this conversation then? You were wrong - brilliant. I called you on it. Fab. No need to call me mindless and jingoistic and all that other stuff. I haven't insulted you, just called you out on something you typed that was wrong. Jog on. I'm trying to discuss the broader points in the context of the whole war.

Actually Molio - why don't you answer mehmums question? What do you do when the Nazis come knocking?

Burke, it's too late to argue... I'm about to toddle off upstairs but I'll check the thread again tomorrow...

As an example... the 'rules' - as they stood in WWII - involved the decent treatment of POWs. That was why the Allies coming up through France after D-Day were taking surrendered Germans as POWs, and not just shooting them or penning them up and leaving them to starve. It's a lot more hassle to guard them, feed them and obtain medical treatment for them, than to just guard them. But the 'rules' were that they should receive reasonable treatment. This was why German POWs in British hands had a very low death rate.

That some nations broke the rules is beside the point. They existed, in the form of the Hague Convention (which Japan had signed but not ratified - that was used as a get-out clause but the Japanese).

BY the Japanese. It's late.

You see - insults again. I'm just on a discussion forum, having a discussion - I'm a long term MNer. I haven't insulted you, but there you go again with the name-calling. You're just showing yourself up.

Guys, leave it. This is a serious thread and it's turning into a bunfight.

Agree Meh. Sabrina, I'm sticking to the point. The definition isn't the main event, the broader issues are.

OK - how's this for the point: You said, What I'm quarrelling with is your jingoistic insistence that the definition of war crime is the only thing which matters,

It has been pointed out to you, by me and another poster, that I have not argued this:

"MehsMum Sat 14-Feb-15 22:23:36
Molio, I am one of those 'affected at one remove'. Just admit that you got it wrong... Sabrina has talked about the wider issues.

In fact, she said this, agreeing with a PP:
just because it has not officially been declared a war crime does not mean that it should not be appearing on that list!

I agree livingzuid."

^ See? That was me agreeing with livingsuid that just because something has not been officially declared a war crime doesn't be it shouldn't be. But what is damn sure is that something declared as a war crime on that list is a war crime.

xpost. happy to leave it - just not too keen on having my own posts misrepresented by another poster.

And lastly Sabrina, before I disappear off too, the idea that I'm directly challenged to answer the question 'What to do when the Nazis come knocking?', in the context of what I've already said about a great uncle arrested after precisely that knock on the door, and his death on a death march, is amazingly tasteless. Goodnight.

It wasn't a 'challenge' it was a genuine question, molio. To try and move the discussion on a bit.

Becuse I'm not sure I know the answer myself - I was interested. It's you that turned this nasty.

Burke1 has posted far more provocative posts on here than me - but you're still sniping only at me - just because I had the cheek to point out a factual error you posted - hours ago.