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.

Of course Dresden was a war crime.

Bomber Harris did think bombing Dresden would end the war sooner.

It was a tactic he thought worth trying to save lives in the long run.

I agree we should discuss history because we learn not to repeat it! It is also clear we should discuss the morality of certain episodes during wars. I think both world wars were crimes against humanity but I can't single out one particular episode and say it was a war crime because civilians died. They died in horrible ways throughout the war. Nobody has labelled the firestorms and bombings that killed so many in the east end of London a war crime so why Dresden?

The question of whether those bombs were necessary is debated by historians with no clear consensus about how close the Japanese were to surrender in August. There is plenty of evidence that surrender was imminent after the 6th with no real need for the second bomb. Especially as the soviets launched an attack on Manchuria. The US weren't even ready for the surrender, which is why they failed to get their troops to Korea quickly enough resulting in the soviet invasion of Korea and the diplomatic solution to split it in two along the 38th paralell. They could easily have waited another week for the Japanese to surrender. It's possible they didn't want them to surrender before they'd tried out their second type of bomb.

Totally agree with alisvolat that sums up the situation at the time

We can't judge now with hindsight and no personal knowledge of war.

The US are war mad. Their Government rushes in time and time again, leaving chaos and devastation time and time again. Why their Government has not been tried for any of these crimes is beyond me.

You do realise that plenty of people who actually were there at the time also thought it was a war crime?
And who has said that the bombings of London, Coventry, Clydebank were not war crimes?

The bombing of Scarborough and Whitby during WW1 was a war crime. Far fewer people died than the bombings of cities during WW2 but it was still an attack on civilians.

I haven't lived through a war just a rather unpleasant guerrilla skirmish. I have seen bombs. I have seen soldiers ripped asunder by mobs. I have seen people blown apart because they fancied fish. These were crimes. So was dresden. So was Nagasaki. So was Hiroshima. So was Coventry. So was London. Some of these had a wider impact and may have stopper other horrors. But they were crimes against humanity.

YABU!!!! Very very very much so! Dresden WAS a war crime! Targeted innocent civilians to die in horrible pain!!!! You're horrible, you really are. Your post makes me so so mad.

You're asking the wrong question OP. As Rowanhart says, the question isn't whether it was a war crime, which it was without any doubt at all, but whether you think committing war crimes is justified against an enemy also committing war crimes (an eye for an eye as someone so charmingly said earlier).

If you think that committing a war crime is okay if you're doing it for the right reasons (they other side started it, they were nastier, it would end the war sooner), then say so rather than keep treating the war crimes issue as if it's a matter of opinion.

I've never heard anyone say the blitzkrieg was a war crime. The Londoners just accepted they were targets.

I don't like the fact Dresden was bombed as it was. It was no less wrong than austwitz. I just can't see why it should be called a war crime when the war as a whole was a crime and the whole of Europe was one big crime scene.

Of course it was a war crime. The Allies should be held to the same standards as the Axis powers when considering these things. The Axis did much worse things than the Allies, of course, but it is quite wrong to say that the Allies did nothing at all blameworthy in 6 years of total war. Dresden achieved no genuine military outcome nor was it likely to do so and plenty in the military knew that at the time. I think the purpose was revenge. The British had a gutsful of another war provoked by the Germans, and were fed up with their cities being bombed and their civilians killed, so they wanted to give the Germans a taste of their own medicine.

So it is a war crime. But I don't see what practical difference that makes. In fact, calling it as such is unhelpful. It divorces what happened from the very, very sad context within which it happened. Also it encourages us to stand in judgment over those who had to go through that awful, awful time and I certainly don't think I have the moral right to do that.

That said, if some elderly German said it was a war crime, I'd agree. If he then got on his high horse about the war, I'd pretty swiftly tell him he ought to climb down.

Here is an excellent Radio 4 programme about a broadcast made from a recording from a Lancaster on a bombing raid on Berlin in 1943. It contains interviews with a German woman who experienced the raids as a young girl. She does not blame the bombers, and she says most Germans don't. One of the saddest things about the programme is how she blames herself for being taken in by Nazism even though she was clearly too young to be responsible. It is an excellent programme, but so, so sad.

War is a crime. Full stop.
If necessary put opposing armies on a battle field to shoot the fuck out of each other but leave civilians alone.
Wherever and whenever.

Dresden was a war crime.
Innocents were killed.
Sick and inhumaine.

"They began the bombing of civilians."

I'm sorry you didn't learn at playgroup that "but he did it first!" isn't an acceptable excuse.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe you never learned it at school.

I don't think committing any war crime, or any crime at all is right.

I just can't see why Dresden is being singled out? Civilians died horrific deaths there, but are their deaths any worse than those of other civilians? Concentration camp victims? Coventry or London? Were they less painful because the buildings weren't so pretty.

It's labelling it a war crime and ignoring all the other crimes that upsets me.

OP, I do agree with you that the war as a whole was a crime. I personally do not believe in the concept of a "just war", as every war leads to the death and mass suffering of civilians. But to state that the fire-bombing of Dresden was not a war crime because the entire war was a crime is to strip the term "war crime" of any useful meaning. And in this age of constant global warfare, I think that is a frankly dangerous stance to take.

I don't like the fact Dresden was bombed as it was. It was no less wrong than austwitz. I just can't see why it should be called a war crime when the war as a whole was a crime and the whole of Europe was one big crime scene.

I think "tragedy" or "catastrophe" would be a better term for what you're describing. Labelling it all collectively as a "crime" doesn't take into account that some people were very blameworthy, whereas others were entirely innocent. Same with events - I take the view that there really is no comparison between the Dresden raid and Auschwitz.

The better thing is to learn, move on, and make sure it doesn't happen again, which perhaps is why I'm uncomfortable with applying the term "crime" to the war, or to historical events generally. The term is better off restricted to its traditional meaning, ie, acts that can lead to individuals being prosecuted and punished under the law.

OP it's the anniversary. That's why Dresden specifically is receiving coverage.

You called the Blitz a war crime in the OP! And you were right it was... Dresden is also a war crime. There is no reason to consider one but not the other a crime.

No the war as a whole wasn't a crime. If states are attacked they are legally and morally entitled to defend themselves (and to come to the aid of third parties).

The act of aggression that starts a war is a crime and specific actions within wars (deliberate targeting of civilians, for example) are crimes, but war as a whole isn't.

So, the Soviets were not committing a crime by killing German troops at Stalingrad but they were committing a war crime (as defined now) in their use of the mass rape of German women as collective punishment of the German people.

I personally do not believe in the concept of a "just war", as every war leads to the death and mass suffering of civilians.

I, by contrast, believe one has the right to self-defence. That means one can wage war justly in some circumstances.

Yabu - def a war crime.

Toad, I obviously don't agree that war can be covered by the term "self-defence". But I am curious as to your opinion re the second half of my sentence, i.e. the suffering caused to non-combatants. Is that in any sense "just"?

YANBU in the slightest.

If a foreign country invades yours, and your army fights back to drive them out, their civilians need not be involved at all. Your own civilians are only affected because of the foreign invasion.

Of course your own civilians will be caught up in the fighting too, but if the alternative is unconditional surrender I think that's not your fault and doesn't make your defending yourself unjustified.