Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime?

Great Debates
1

Yep, another WW2 question.

We’ve had debates before on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, general consensus (and my own opinion based on facts at the time) being that it wasn’t pleasant, but in the end the bombs saved more lives than it took.

The bombing of Dresden in February 13-15, 1945, destroyed around 15 square km of the city and killed approximately 25,000 German civilians, according to modern estimates (cited on the wiki article).

So, let it be resolved; has one of the greatest crimes of World War 2 been overlooked simply because the allies perpetrated it, or was it a justified use of ordinance in a climate of total war, when victory at any cost was paramount?

In March, not long after, Churchill appears to admit fault in a letter to his chiefs of staff:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=d8df4fed-9a03-4d0b-90f7-57a9192e8a79

Proponents of the war crime view state that Dresden was a cultural jewel - known as ‘Florence on the Elbe’. Max Hastings writes;

Cited: Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia

In February 1945 - when the outcome of the war could be in no doubt - the city was also full of refugees, fleeing from raping Red Army approaching from the east.

(again cited in the wiki article).

This last quote is interesting, as it also makes the case that Dresden was a justified target, being a centre of communications. The Marshall inquiry also states that Dresden had targets of military necessity, including factories and railway communications.

In the end, I think it’s not an unreasonable conclusion to state that, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki it may be a terrible, but justified at the time - but in a different way. Bomber Harris explicitly states that the aim of bombing was not to disrupt production, but to;

We also know that this strategy was not particularly effective;

(from the same wiki article, cited).

This makes the Marshall inquiry seem like a bit of a whitewash. But the key thing is; hindsight. It’s easy for us to look back and condemn, but at the time ending the war ASAP was the priority.

2

At the time–probably something that 90% would agree was necessary.

After the fact–something so stupid and horrific, any right-thinking person is horrified.

3

I’m not sure I get your position. If it’s your take that anything that can be claimed to further your aims in the war (effective or not in hindsight) is a justifiable action, then what can possibly be called a war crime? I suppose the very existence of such a thing as a “war crime” can be debated, but I doubt that was your meaning.

4

Good point, so let’s define what a war crime is. Here’s the relevant part, if you ask me;
““the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity”.[1]”

The key word here I think is ‘wanton’. Were the allies destroying Dresden just for the sake of destroying it? There is evidence that suggests this is the case, which is why the debate exists - i.e. quotes by Churchill and Harris on causing terror.

But, in the climate of total war, where justification is found by the presence of military targets and a communication hub (I’m basing this on a RAF memo, which was corroborated later by the Marshall inquiry - which stated “Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance… The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front… and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.[37]”
(wiki on the bombing, cited).

Like samclem, I am of the mind that at the time and before the bombing was authorised, the Allies would be negligent if they did not try to end the war ASAP - including bombings. However, looking back and with the joy of hindsight, it’s clear that the bombing of Dresden was a horrific event in a war full of them, where the effectiveness can be called into doubt.

5

I’m not sure I get your position either. When you mention:

It is not relevant whether or not the bombs saved more lives than it took. If that was the sole criterion, hardly any tactical/strategic decision made during war time would be off-limits to being picked apart as a possible war crime. “All is fair in love and war” is the rule when you are defending against a genocidal aggressor intent on taking over the world. Inevitable mistakes, negligent decisions, and errs on the side of caution can be forgiven when engaged in a life or death struggle for the future of western civilization.

ETA: I just saw your last post, which seems reasonable, though in contradiction with the title of the OP.

6

I take the position that when you kill Nazis, it’s not a war crime; that any actions taken against the Germans during World War II by the allied powers was justifiable.

7

Hmm. Maybe I’m up too early; I’ll redefine my position as - if committed today, with all applicable international laws, the bombing of Dresden would likely be classified as a war crime. I don’t believe that victor’s justice played as much as a part as people like to believe - the applicable Geneva Conventions on civilians didn’t come in until 1949.

At the time, I think there was general feeling that the bombing was…unpalatable, but militarily justifiable (destroying communications and factories, to help the Reds advance and end the war quicker). I don’t think that the Allies were trying to destroy Dresden for the sake of it, or simply trying to kill civilians - which would be the defining traits of a war crime (although I’m willing to be proved wrong on that).

On Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to rehash old debates again, but both these cities had military targets in them - their bombings also shortened the war in comparison to all other military options available at the time.

I’m aware that there’s a slippery slope argument to be had - ending the war quicker would justify anything, but there’s also a distinction to be made between the unjustifiable war crimes of the Nazis and Japanese (from the Massacre of Kalavryta to the Rape of Nanking) to what the Allies were morally prepared to do.

8

So, the killing of some 25,000 "Nazi"s is OK, as long as some of them were Nazi’s.

If Germany had bombed NY City in 1945 and killed 25,000, would that have been justifiable?

9

No, because New York City was not filled with Nazis. You’re misunderstanding me, I think. I’m not claiming that every action taken in war is justifiable, or even that every action taken in World War II was justifiable. Just any action taken against Germans in World War II.

10

If we had a bunch more nukes and turned Germany into a fused glass parking lot and killed everyone, that would have been ok?

Not that I don’t appreciate your position. Mine is pretty similar. Losers commit war crimes and winners don’t, Pretty much by definition, since the losers aren’t in position to drag anyone into court.

11

^^ This this this

The OP needs to define what constitutes a “war crime” and distinguish it from 2010 sensibilities vs. 1943 sensibilities.

A “crime” is only what we define it as. Some places a woman showing her ankles is a crime.

While our perspective today considers what happened to Dresden hideous the perspective back then was distinctly different.

From my reading I will say the bombing of Dresden did seem unnecessary and excessive even from a perspective of WWII but kind of a toss up. They were on a roll. I have not decided what to think of “Bomber Harris”.

I think he went too far but then I was not living through WWII. Not sure I can make a call on this.

12

So the mass rapes of German women by the Soviets was justified?

13

That would be a crime, rather than a war crime?

Anyway, you’ll notice that the Germans have stopped waging genocidal wars to devastate Europe every thirty years or so. So perhaps Allied tactics in WW2, including the firebombing and rape, were more appropriate than those adopted in WW1?

For someone who so eloquently critiques current US policy and the backlash against American citizens, I’d be surprised that you don’t get this.

I do not buy the argument that nations who repeatedly wage unlimited and indiscriminate warfare against their neighbours deserve to be protected by their victims, or that there is some equivalence of guilt between the Nazis and their victims.

14

No, rape is acknowledged as a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

15

We’re talking about 25,000 civilians. You really think that all of them were Jew-hating Hitler-hailing Nazi sympathizers?

16

I would assume Captain Amazing means any military action. Where military action would presume some reasonable theory of tactical or strategic significance. I would propose the following criterion:

Draft a jury of, say, 10 supposedly competent military strategists. Ask them if they find that such an action, given the information available at the time, could be seen to have some reasonable tactical/strategic utility regarding the winning of the war. If none of them agree, then it is probably a war crime.

17

And rape in war often has a military purpose, to destroy enemy morale. Just like the bombing of civilians in Dresden was supposed to do.

18

It can (and has) been argued that the bombing of Dresden had no tactical or strategic utility regarding winning the war.

It has also been claimed that the Russian soldiers were “let loose” on German women by their high command, as a reward, as revenge for the abuse and murder of Russian civilians, and as some kind of object lesson to the German people. I don’t recall how much evidence there was for the rapes as a matter of policy.

19

I remember reading in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, that whilst rape wasn’t officially encouraged by Red Army brass they didn’t do much to counter it - only one recorded instance of the NKVD intervening in a gang rape, whilst a commander informed of the problem remarked that he “Didn’t give a fuck.” There was some attempt in official propaganda to dissuade the frontoviki from abusing the ‘gretchens’, but overall the Red Army was far more concerned that their soldiers in a blind rage were destroying useful resources.

20

Pretty clearly a war crime that might have also accomplished minor military goals.