War Crime by the RAF

[Sternenlied]

I think some things should be clear for everyone before this spirals down:

1) Nobody is defending Nazi war crimes (also to be used as a future guideline).

2) Starting a war "officially" by declaring it and invading/attacking another country doesn't really make a difference for those who die.
It's legal semantics - now I am utilizing simplicity - attacking a sovereign country is an act of war, plain and simple. Whether you declare it or not.

3) The history of WW2 is too vast for any of us to "know" it all - especially since none of us was there to witness everything, so everyone should be rather careful when stating "indisputable facts" and "the truth".

I would prefer something more on topic:

Nazi Germany indubitably commited war crimes as well as crimes against humanity in a magnitude some still fail to grasp, even today.

It has been trialed and sentenced, most members of the government and their helpers prosecuted and sentenced as well. It was split, rebuilt and made a puffer against rising communism. In 1990, nineteen years ago, it offically lost its status as being under allied occupation with the reunification.

Nobody in their right mind will deny war crimes committed (of course there are always some all around the world) by Germany. Imbedded in batffink's most emotional response I find a question however:

Does Germany not have the right to have potential war crimes committed against it recognized as well? Would such recognition necessarily lessen the war crimes committed by the Nazis?

In any case - are such debates appropriate/needed in a time where war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed every day around the world?

[pervipete]

While I understand what you are saying Stern, it would not be fair on him as he is not around to defend himself, and as I have said, these were not actions with the express intent to annihalate the whole German people, but were taken to try and end the war.

Air Marshal Arther 'Butch' Harris*, along with countless others around the globe, considered that Germany could be defeated without a costly, to the allies, land invasion. He intended that the bombs would force the population as a whole to rise up against the nazi leadership, and either force, or replace, them and sue for peace.

A few points that should be made here about this.

Firstly, if you look at the breakdown of the ordered German society in the later months of WWI and its aftermarth, for instance the formation of the short live Munich Soviet Republic in 1919, you can see that there is a precedent for this idea.

Secondary, while it is true that this not succeed with waves of Lancasters and B17s, the thoery was proved when all it took was two atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender. I say all, for while they was a horrendous loss of life in these cities, if you set it against the approx 40 to 60 million dead wounded in all over theatres, it was quite low.

It was estimated that at least one million allied soldiers, and at least the same amount of civilians would have lost their lives if an invasion had been attempted.

Would the Germans have carried on fighting if an atomic bomb had been dropped on say, Munich or Cologne? After the firestorm of Hamburg in 1943, the Nazis had to restore order amongst the survivors with theats, and ban them from mentioning what had happened in case they spread panic in the towns where they were sent as refuges.

Lastly, if Harris is posthumously convicted as a war criminal, what about those that ordered the night area fire bombing of Tokyo by USAAF B29 Superfortresses?

*Note, his nickname of 'Butch' was short for Butcher, and was a half affectionate ones given to him by his aircrews due to him being willing to send them up time after time, no matter what casualties they were taking. If anyone scoffs and says, well they were taking all the risks so it was easy, please remember that he was a WWI fighter ace, and had shown his personal bravery on many an occasion.

[Sternenlied]

Oh please, don't get me wrong.

I in no way intended to strike at batffink. I am quite sure he knows I didn't mean anything derogatory or offensive.

I also wasn't making a point or stating an opinion, it was honestly just what I wrote: A serious question.

[pervipete]

Oh, I know Stern that is what you meant, I hope my post reads in the same spirit

[dashrendar44]

My point above was not to absolve the Germans of any responsibility by claiming they didn't start the war, simply an attempt to illustrate the fact that it takes two to tango. I'm also not defending genocide or the Nazi ideals here. Stern got the point across that I was trying to make with my first post, that just beause the Germans did terrible things doesn't mean the things done in retribution were not also terrible and should recognized as such. Germany has done a lot over the years to try to apologize for what happened and fix things, and such anger at them even now seems rather unjustified, considering they are quite obviously not the same nation they were then. Everyone makes mistakes, the Germans have time and time again owned up to theirs. They have strict laws and regulations around the way they teach and handle the events and remains of WWII and have done everything they can to acknowledge what happened and become educated about it and educate others using themselves as an example to prevent mistakes by themselves or other nations in the future, which is a lot more than you can give to other countries, Japan springs to mind first obviously. Maybe I should stop arguing this though, it appears that the older crowd or those with more personal ties to the war will likely not agree because of the emotional impact of the war, which is understandable, though certainly not right. In the same way (figuratively, not literally so don't jump down my throat here) loved ones taken from you were taken from them as well, and it is important to recognize that their lives were and are just as important as ours.

[pervipete]

Dash, it is not a case of as you say it 'two to tango', if Hitler, his ministers had not invaded Poland then World War Two would not have happened, it is as simple as that.

And remember Hitler and the Nazi party were democratically elected by the German population, and a lot of their power was gifted by people who at the very least turned there eyes away from what was happening around them.

[batffink]

I really think now that this thread has gone as far as it can go. I sincerely thank everyone for their participation and hope that no hard feelings are retained. Everyone has had a chance to reply and, frankly, I was surprised by the quality of the responses. Thanks again.

[HRH1948]

Dresden Before:




Dresden After:





Internal Royal Air Force memo (January, 1945)

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.
__________________________________________________ ___________

After the Second World War Air Marshall Arthur Harris came under attack for the bombing raid on Dresden. In his autobiography he explained why he ordered the bombing of the city in February, 1945.

With the German army on the frontiers of Germany we quickly set up GH and Oboe ground stations close behind the front line and this ensured the success of attacks on many distant objectives when the weather would otherwise have prevented us from finding the target. At the same time the bombers could fly with comparative safety even to targets as distant as Dresden or Chemnitz, which I had not ventured to attack before, because the enemy had lost his early warning system and the whole fighter defence of Germany could therefore generally be out-manoeuvred.


In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany-the pre-war population was 630,000-which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.


An attack on the night of February 13th-14th by just over 800 aircraft, bombing in two sections in order to get the night fighters dispersed and grounded before the second attack, was almost as overwhelming in its effect as the Battle of Hamburg, though the area of devastation -1600 acres - was considerably less; there was, it appears, a fire-typhoon, and the effect on German morale, not only in Dresden but in far distant parts of the country, was extremely serious. The Americans carried out two light attacks in daylight on the next two days.


I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unnecessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole.

At Dresden, most of the industry was outside the town. The bombing was concentrated on the center section of town. Most of the industry and the transportation hub were untouched. Other than hospitals, there were virtually no military installations at Dresden. British Air Marshall Harris designed the bombing to create a firestorm to eliminate people. Some of those people were relatives of mine.

My great Aunt was in Berlin at the end of the war. She was paid in bread made from sawdust and potatoes to help clean the streets for emergency vehicles after the daily and nightly bombing. They were convinced that Germany was winning the war and that the allies were in worse condition. She believed this until the very end.

On a side note, when she first arrived in Texas, she stepped outside late one afternoon and hysterically ran back in the house screaming that the city (35 miles away) was being bombed. Apparently, the sunsets are less impressive in Berlin.

By definition, the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities were also war crimes.

In my opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic in nature and not war crimes. They were painful demonstrations of a new weapon that was specifically designed to end (win) the war. I believe that the two bombs actually saved lives. The upcoming invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives than were lost to the atomic bombs.

[pervipete]

As a communication centre it was a legitimate target, as for the industry, like all cities the world over there were smaller concerns in the city, which like there equivelant in London, were supplying the German war effort, small factories supplying optics for example.

I used the dropping of the atomic bombs to prove that it was not Harris' theory about using air power to force surrender that was faulty, it was just that the tools he had at the time were not able to. That is not to knock the brave efforts of the aircrew, the planes designers or even the design. It was just that it needed the use of a weapon far more powerful then was readily available to him at the time.

[dashrendar44]

Originally Posted by pervipete

Dash, it is not a case of as you say it 'two to tango', if Hitler, his ministers had not invaded Poland then World War Two would not have happened, it is as simple as that.

And remember Hitler and the Nazi party were democratically elected by the German population, and a lot of their power was gifted by people who at the very least turned there eyes away from what was happening around them.

It's not about them entering Poland or whatnot, it's about Britain rising to the challenge but then doing abhorrent things as well. If two little kids are fighting and one kicks the other in the balls, so the kid that got kicked throws sand in his attackers eyes and sucker punches him then tells an adult "I'm allowed, he hit me first and harder", that shit would never fly. Why should it here, what makes war looked upon so differently that the same behaviour should be allowed? I'm not even going to flat out say Dresden was a war crime, as there still isn't solid proof, but the general reaction from the brits here is to insist it wasn't because it would sully you. At least that's the vibe I'm getting. So why can you look upon countries in denial like Japan with such derision abot how they neglect teaching the rape of Nanking, yet so eagerly and ardently defend what may very well have been a war crime and insist it's not, or even never happened (not saying anyone in the thread thinks this, but I've heard it a few times before)?

[pervipete]

So Dash, one question, should we have let Hitler have his way? Should we have just left the Poles and the other myriad races of the East to their fates and said, sorry we don't want to get involved?

I have said this before, the Allied intent, for even the Americans indulged in their own form of carpet bombing, was not to destroy all the German population, but to bring the war to a conclusion in the quickest and cheapest, ok to our troops, but it would be a daft leader who puts the lives of his enemy above his own troops, way possible.

On the other way, the Nazi's policy from day one, was to cause suffereing to those that they hated. Decree by decree, the Jews, homosexuals, communists and myriad others that did not match the Aryian ideal, were stripped of rights and humanity, being pushed further and further out the general population.

And the ordinary German was pushed further and further to a point where they were quite able to see other people, Jews, Gays Slavs Romanies as Untermenschen, sub-human.

This policies lead to Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the raising of whole villages in the pursuit of one goal, the complete and utter destruction of these people.

That is why the Nazi's are considered war criminals.

[dashrendar44]

I'm not, and no one is for that matter, saying Hitler should have had his way (Chamberlain excluded of course ), and there is no need to talk down to me about what happened in the Holocaust. Again, the point I've been making seem to not register beause you simply parade around the "Well Hitler killed innocent people first!" card like the children in the aforementioned fight. Yes, he didn't care about innocent people, but by doing the same thing you stoop to his level of disregard for human life and become the very monster you are trying to fight. This notion is the VERY REASON why there is a war crime label now. Commanders and leaders of countries have the responsibility to look out for the innocent citzens of war zones. Why do you think there is such public outcry about the situation in Darfur? Because no one cares about the citizens. A leader should not just be concerned about his own people, but all peoples, and until people can understand that notion, that we are all the same and living in co-existance and not competition, this kind of shit will keep happening.

[somedude]

Hitler and the Nazis went far beyond not caring about innocent people! They purposefully and systematically murdered 11 million in the Holocaust and god knows how many more they killed in Russia, Poland and other countries they invaded. Do I need to go into the entire villages and towns that were massacred as retaliation for resistance attacks...
The Germans in WW II were certainly not the first nor the last to commit war crimes but they are right at the top of the list!

[pervipete]

Dash, if you want to insult the thousands of British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian etc who died flying over Germany and the occupied countries by saying that it was part of some childish game of he did it first, then you will have to be prepared to be talked down too. If you can't accept this, then maybe you should reconsider how you phrase things. Okay?

It is you who has missed the essential point, the difference between the actions taken by the Allies and the Nazis.

I for one am proud to have meet aircrew, sailors and soldiers from that conflict, I am eternally grateful that they did.

Now this is my last post on the subject, it is clear that we not going to agree, and if after making four or five posts I have changed your mind, or you mine, then it might be time to draw this discussion to a close.

--==--

In remembrance of all war heroes, no matter the nationality

Rest in peace

[HRH1948]

No one here is denying the atrocities committed by the Axis powers in WWII. No one here is making less of the heroic individuals that were on the ground, in the air and at sea. No one here is making light of their sacrifices and pain.

The debate surrounds a single action taken by the Allies at the end of the war and after the war was in reality already won. The Allies were already jockeying for which parts of the soon to be occupied Germany that they would claim.

This is a controversial issue and there are strongly held opinions of both sides. I suspect that it is time to withdraw from the debate and to thank Batffink for giving us all something to think about.

With respect to my fellow historians on both sides of the issue,

HRH

[sindyloo]

Congratualtions too all in this Topic. Very civil responses in a very touchy subject!

Lets face reality war crimes were commited by all Axis as well as Allied forces too. And of course the worst side effect of any war are the innocent civilian deaths.

[fatalerrror]

I think there is only one thing too add...

"Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it" - Unknown

or as they say in Italy

Those who forget the pasta are destined to reheat it.... - Me

[BTN]

At the end of the day war is a horrific thing. Things that are abhorrent in every day life need to be done with alarming regularity. This means that the people who are willing to do these things come to the fore. These people are a mixture of hard nosed bastards and out right evil fuckers.

Bombing Dresden was one of those hard nosed decisions. It is arguably a horrible thing to be doing but it did need to be done for alot of reasons.

But the phenominon of "war children" where 12 year olds are orphaned in front of there very eyes and recruited into a rebel army is just evil. But that raises a HUGE question. You have a group of kids bearing down on you armed to the teeth and intending to do you and your buddies harm......do you fire back? Thats the sort of hard nosed decision that is needed to be made in times of war. Thats where the hard nosed people come in. Bastards that can make the hard decisions that the nicer people in the world can't.

Its inappropriate but the film Team America puts it best....

There are 3 kinds of people in the world. Dicks, assholes and pussies.
Pussies don't like dicks because dicks fuck pussies.
But sometimes dicks fuck assholes as well.

War is hell as the saying goes. Lets just think ourselves lucky that when some asshole starts a holocaust or builds a bomb that theres usually a dick nearby on our side.

[Sternenlied]

Originally Posted by fatalerror

Those who forget the pasta are destined to reheat it.... - Me

Wow, this is so hilarous and clever I almost forgot this thread initially was about war crimes ...

Originally Posted by sindyloo

Congratualtions too all in this Topic. Very civil responses in a very touchy subject!

Well, sindyloo, as you can see above ... all good things must come to an end.

[fatalerrror]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Wow, this is so hilarous and clever I almost forgot this thread initially was about war crimes ...


Well, sindyloo, as you can see above ... all good things must come to an end.

Regardless of reason, all wars are futile and pointless and just a blight on humanity.

I think the first part of my post " those who forget the past are destined to repeat it" reflects this, the second part which you chose to quote was just a play on words.