parsifal
Colonel
I think TP will be fine with my response.....he and i are old hands at debating these issues.....I hope we can move on though as this is an interesting thread
Daylight V Night bombing....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Croatian general (Ante Gotovina) faces 20 years of prison beacause forces under his control shelled then Serb-held Knin ('capital' of their self-proclaimed state 1991-95) during 2 days. Even though Serbia Montenegro were making agression (either directly, or through their 'republics' within Croatia and B&H), he enjoys no protection compared with what enjoyed Bombr Harris, or Curtiss LeMay.
Sorry for derailing the thread
Sorry for derailing the thread
parsifal
Colonel
hi TP, the terms of reference for what is a war crime have changed. In 1945 it was a new concept, as was the international court of justice. Since then ther has been considerable change in international law, to address the very things you are talking about. If Dresden had happened in 1995 instead of 1945, it is very likley that Harris would have stood trial.
The US does not allow its personnel to stand trial before the Hague. Australia does, and currently we have three memeber of our defence force before the court for activities that hasppened in Afghanistan
We should get back on topic
The US does not allow its personnel to stand trial before the Hague. Australia does, and currently we have three memeber of our defence force before the court for activities that hasppened in Afghanistan
We should get back on topic
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Yes, for something that should not happen. The Hague should only go after the actual ones that start the war not those countries like Australia that are cleaning up other people's messes...
- Thread starter
- #65
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
About Dresden, if I may ask....
Was Dresden made to be a point by the Allies, as much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki later in the war.
Was Dresden made to be a point by the Allies, as much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki later in the war.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Croatian general (Ante Gotovina) faces 20 years of prison beacause forces under his control shelled then Serb-held Knin ('capital' of their self-proclaimed state 1991-95) during 2 days. Even though Serbia Montenegro were making agression (either directly, or through their 'republics' within Croatia and B&H), he enjoys no protection compared with what enjoyed Bombr Harris, or Curtiss LeMay.
Sorry for derailing the thread
Are you familiar with with the Medak pocket ?
Yep, the reduction of Medak pocket was performed in 1993, but in international level it was best known for war crimes trial vs. general Mirko Norac (sentenced at 7 years).
Sure enough, both Norac Gotovina are icons for many a Croatian.
We should indeed move on topic.
Sure enough, both Norac Gotovina are icons for many a Croatian.
We should indeed move on topic.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Not particularly. In BC's view it was a 'normal' op against a comms/industrial hub, in line with a standing requirement to bomb targets in support of the Russian offensive into eastern Germany. The 'perfect' firestorm that ensued was an accident of circumstances, largely due to the cities totally inadequate emergency response, and a convenient set of atmospheric conditions. BC did not 'plan' for the raid to be so devastating - indeed, a near identical raid against Chemnitz a few nights later was an almost total failure. Dresden was, through circumstance, the ultimate technical success of BC doctrine...
parsifal
Colonel
The point being that the british had spent a lot of time perfecting ordinance loadouts for incendiary bombing. Because BCs raids were aimed at city destruction, rather than point targets, they aimed to use their ordinance to start a conflagaration on the ground, rather than simply relying on the firepower of the ordinance carried. I dont think there was any other nation who had quite so perfectly det4ermined the right mix of HE and incendiary, and tweaked their ordinance to suit that formula, to the same extent as the RAF.
Having stated that their aim was the destruction of German cities, and then worked out the technique to do that, its a bit rich to then say it was not effective, and in the same breath, to say that it should treated as a war crime because it kills so many people.
I dont buy that it was a war crime.....it was the effective use of available technology, and at times it was devastating. Its failures were due, IMO to poor targetting choices, by stretching the force beyond its safe operating conditions....the attacks on Berlin and Nurnberg being the cases in point
Having stated that their aim was the destruction of German cities, and then worked out the technique to do that, its a bit rich to then say it was not effective, and in the same breath, to say that it should treated as a war crime because it kills so many people.
I dont buy that it was a war crime.....it was the effective use of available technology, and at times it was devastating. Its failures were due, IMO to poor targetting choices, by stretching the force beyond its safe operating conditions....the attacks on Berlin and Nurnberg being the cases in point
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I think Dresden was no more a 'war crime' than the earlier bombing of Coventry by the LW. Both were horrific (Dresden more so, I admit), but both were well-planned and executed raids against valuable industrial targets using the finest technology available at the time (as Parsifal has rightly said). I think those who claim Dresden as a war crime should really look at Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry before the throw their stones too hard...
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... I think those who claim Dresden as a war crime should really look at Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry before the throw their stones too hard..."
I believe BombTaxi is 100% on this.
Coventry was much more than just a UK industrial city - it was/is very historic (Coventry cathedral et al) and, I believe it was referred to as England's WOODEN city. WOODEN.
This the Germans knew very well - if not from their history books, then from their Hitler Jung boy scout field trips to England before WW2.
German 'city-bombing' was primarily a terror-weapon, not a strategic weapon disrupting coal barge traffic.
In Coventry the LW succeeded in doing what it failed to do with London.
The scale is different, I grant, (also 2 years of war have passed) but the comparison is BC Dresden and Berlin and LW Coventry and London. Nothing was done to the Germans by the Allied air forces that hadn't already been done by the LW to their opponents.
With the greatest respect for tomo pauk - comparisons between WW2 and the recent Baulkan conflict(s) are misleading and unhelpful.
There is a moral basis for establishing war crimes - although I personally don't think it works, but then Prohibition didn't work either .
Proud Canadian
MM
I believe BombTaxi is 100% on this.
Coventry was much more than just a UK industrial city - it was/is very historic (Coventry cathedral et al) and, I believe it was referred to as England's WOODEN city. WOODEN.
This the Germans knew very well - if not from their history books, then from their Hitler Jung boy scout field trips to England before WW2
.German 'city-bombing' was primarily a terror-weapon, not a strategic weapon disrupting coal barge traffic
.In Coventry the LW succeeded in doing what it failed to do with London.
The scale is different, I grant, (also 2 years of war have passed) but the comparison is BC Dresden and Berlin and LW Coventry and London. Nothing was done to the Germans by the Allied air forces that hadn't already been done by the LW to their opponents.
With the greatest respect for tomo pauk - comparisons between WW2 and the recent Baulkan conflict(s) are misleading and unhelpful.
There is a moral basis for establishing war crimes - although I personally don't think it works
, but then Prohibition didn't work either .Proud Canadian
MM
parsifal
Colonel
Bombing of cities by any power is not a war crime, in the context of WWII technology. The war crime occurs, only if you are engaged in a war of aggression, and you deliberately target civilians.
W hat is being mixed up here is the concept of "war crime" as a legal entity, and "war crime" as a moral judgement. Moral judgements are , as always a result of personal values. Legal judgement is in part the sum total of collective moral judgement, with an overarching statutory framework. In 1945, "war crime" as a concept was in its infancy, and was interpreted as needing to possess two elements....the physical assault (if you like), on the one hand, and the aggression (ie the waging of aggressive warfare) on the other. Rightly or wrongly this was the legal test applied to whether an action was a war crime in 1945. And because of that test, only the axis nations were, or were not, guilty of war crimes.
I prefer using that legal test, rather than descending into endless moral judgements, which have no corect answer, and which are pointless, because there is no correct answer.
W hat is being mixed up here is the concept of "war crime" as a legal entity, and "war crime" as a moral judgement. Moral judgements are , as always a result of personal values. Legal judgement is in part the sum total of collective moral judgement, with an overarching statutory framework. In 1945, "war crime" as a concept was in its infancy, and was interpreted as needing to possess two elements....the physical assault (if you like), on the one hand, and the aggression (ie the waging of aggressive warfare) on the other. Rightly or wrongly this was the legal test applied to whether an action was a war crime in 1945. And because of that test, only the axis nations were, or were not, guilty of war crimes.
I prefer using that legal test, rather than descending into endless moral judgements, which have no corect answer, and which are pointless, because there is no correct answer.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I tend to think that the war crime label is one thrown about far too lightly, usually because the person using it cannot come up a more structured criticism of the alleged perpetrator. Civilians have always been a target in warfare - those who laid siege to castles knew that there would be non-combatants inside that would be put to the sword after the castle fell. Indeed, the threat of a massacre was used to induce surrender. WWII elevated the killing of civilians to a science, on all sides, but the validity of 'civilian' locations and their occupants as military targets had already been established in WW1. As such, I don't see how the bombing campaign can be seen as a war crime.
