Allied war crimes during World War II

Originally posted by lirelou Neither Dresden nor the atomic bombs were war crimes. They were nothing to take great pride in, but they both hastened the end the war. It's nice that we have sharp legal minds that they can delve into this subject and dissect its parts. But none of the ideas they cite has ever prevented another war. I liked the idea that war should be outlawed. Yes, there's the solution. Pardon if it incites the snappy rejoinder: When wars are outlawed, only outlaws will fight wars. OK, who's going to bring the guilty parties to justice? Maybe the United Nations? Here's a question: On the day Dresden was bombed, how many died in the death camps? How many Allied soldiers died in or as a result of combat that day?

1) Have you read the article of the HC, I quoted above? What do you think, is the intention of the article?

2) How many jews were saved by the bombing of Dresden? How many allied soldiers were saved by the bombing of Dresden? But as well, how many jews were killed during the bombing, how many forced labourers?

Chamberlain wrote in 1938/39, that the bombing of civilians is against international laws and there is even Churchill's withdrawn cable (see above - Just for the sake of terror!). Perhaps you know the book of Grayling. Different to me, he sees the bombing not as war crime, because there was no international law against it. Well, I tried to show, that this is not correct, allthough there is indeed no direct law against terror bombing. But Greyling calls the bombing a "crime in a moral sense" and "against the moral law". he shows in his book, that the allied bombing was excessive and morally reprehensible. For greyling the allies fought a justified war against criminal enemies, but the winners went in some aspect down to the level of the nazis. he is, as me, not equalizing but wanted to start an long overdue discussion about warfare.

One of his thesis is, and these thesis is fully affirmed here, that the britains like to cover their responsibility for the bombing under the coat of the german guilt for the war and nazi crimes. Bertrand Russel once said, "Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country." That's probably why people want to honour and glorify the soldiers of the BC. So it is a usual human behaviour. Russel said as well that, "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." And for sure this summarizes the refusal of a discussion about the legality and morality of the bombing.

The Albertstadt is a great military complex of Dresden in the North-east. It was one of the greatest areal of barracks in Germany. Several divisions, brigades and regiments, from Infantry to engeneers had their barracks there. There were SS-schools and there was even the military academy for Wehrmacht officers.
In the case of Dresden, the military and industrial complex was mainly NOT destroyed. During the bombing of Dresden only around 100 soldiers died. AFAIR is this including the number of non-active soldiers, ill, vacation etc. The number of killed soldiers on duty was only a couple of men. And the Albertstadt was just hit coincidentally. Yes, there were some war-related targets hit as well, the railway station, but troop transports went on after a few days.

And how many of the 25-35,000 in Dresden were nazis? How many children? Do you know that 75,000 of the 600,000 victims were children? Do you know, that more than 25,000 victims of allied bombing were forced labourers? The only Nazi I know in the moment who was killed by an air attack is these bloody Freisler. And have you ever heard that the residences of the naz leaders were bombed, Goebbels villa in Wandlitz or Goering's carinhall?

To quote from the link Politisches Buch: Bomben auf Dresden | Literatur | ZEIT ONLINE (in German)

"Denn der Autor zeigt, dass der Angriff der britischen Bomber gerade nicht den Stadtteilen mit den Industrieanlagen und dem Rangierbahnhof galt, sondern der Altstadt mit ihren jahrhundertealten Bauwerken."

"Cos the author [Taylor] shows, that the attack of the British bombers was not directed at the districts with the industrial complex and the railway yard, but at the old city with their centuries old buildings."

The discussion is about the question, whether nations are justified to do everything to win a war, especially because the western allies were constitutional states.
The question is as well not, were the Russians allowed to bomb Breslau or Königsberg to ruins. germans did defend these cities till the end and therefor the destruction was a military necessarity.
The question is as well not, were the allies allowed to bomb german cities at all. The question is were the allies allowed to bomb german cities just for the sake of terror and the destruction of civil lifes. There are some examples in which the allies did not bomb war-related industries because there were US-shareholders.

And that is the same for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had offered peace negotiations and were therefor in contact with moscow. That the bombings have saved lifes is a cheap excuse. There are very different estimations about losses, especially US losses during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. And the conventional bombings of japanese towns before have shown, that the USA did not care about japanese losses. The bombs were dropped, because they were available. They were dropped to show the Soviets the power of the USA and they were dropped to force japan to a surrender under US conditions and to avoid any soviet influence.


Edited by beorna - 26-Apr-2013 at 04:27

Problem with 'after the fact' moralization efforts to determine war crimes is that... rarely are the contextual events of the moment considered or appreciated by and ref the leadership that made policy or decisions that lead to a definable example. Later on by the moralizers.
This then becomes a double edged sword.


(and by appreciated...I mean examined, in context, given the era and the standards existing; if at all. From a moral standpoint one doesn't need to agree with and usual wont with the 'logic' of the decision making process. Especially when dealing with deliberate perpetrators of genocide. As this might be based on any number of conflicting social, theological, political ideological and cultural differences, prejudices and bigotries and interpretations by different nation states.)



Who is the greater villain the initiator of horrendous atrocities? Or the reactors who might be labeled as war criminals later; because they took actions to stop the original war crimes perpetrators and progression. Even in-if in the execution of those actions, they become subject to identification as negative.

Any where anytime the label of war crime might be rendered.

The value of such labeling is found in the historical identification of the situations that might have caused abrogation of existing standards and laws and their revision or temporary suspension. For a specified period of time and at a level necessary to accomplish the goal of stopping the initial aggressors.


Which I have noted dozens of times; is, insofar as a codification and adherence or rejection of international law or agreements, is a recent phenomena.

It's not representative of the historical record. In totality.

The answer to the question, afaic, is the former not the latter. Simply because in the totality of the effort the need for the many will out way the need for the few.


As for whether military experience and combat experience better qualifies an appreciation?

Depends on the viewpoint and hence moot. Imo. Yes, again afaic; as that is just that much more general or specific experience being utilized preferably in an objective fashion to conduct analysis...those without are then at a disadvantage....to those who have it

Should they be ignored? No.


As to 'wishing' war away and obtaining universal peace? tis bosh. Horseshit..caca...foofoo....urinating into a headwind.

Not the record.


Hasn't been for 10,000 known years. Is it desirable? Certainly. Probable? Nope. The reasons why, in all their facets, are historic as well.

And in the end the wishers of peace...the utopianists...the appeasers...
oftentimes end up in the ovens first.

And then assuming the more moral are victorious, they are remembered. Because if anyone assumes the opposite their fracking delusional.


Amen.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 26-Apr-2013 at 12:48

Economic warfare ntl remains warfare.... and historically has been used in conjunction with and semi-separately from it's physical brother. To obtain the stated goals of either of the participants.

That however does not lessen the potential impact. If I embargo a nation state and allow it's citizens to starve...is this a war crime any more or less devastating then any listed using weaponry? Or merely an excellent use of a known tactic to obtain an military end. In turn obtaining a national strategic goal.

It is the intent not the morals of the issue in question necessarily at the contextual moment in time.


Morals can be and have been suspended as necessary to obtain an objective. If that is right or wrong still remains a moral issue not a military strategic or tactical one necessarily viewed as important given the national or allied objectives in defeating a foe....unless they choose it to be.




Dresden was a perfectly legal military target. Terror bombing had not been proscribed hence the decision made. As I noted previously earlier and on other threads... this after the fact moralization is essentially an exercise in self gratification of an opposing interp and agenda.....nothing more...and nothing new. Feel free to do it. Be prepared to be rejected. As noted...all opinions are welcome. All experience or lack thereof the same. But don't be prepared to receive undue accolades and an automatic position of support and agreement.

To some, war is seen as an engine of progress.  Take a look at the tech. advancements  made in WW I and II.

Originally posted by red clay .......There were no "cheap excuses".  They didn't need any.  But the casualty rate from Okinawa gave them a realistic idea of what the Invasion of the Jap. homeland would cost.

Niemitz and MacArthur estimated a quite low figure for the invasion, 23-49,000 for the first month. But it is questionable a) whether the japanes had defend themselves that desperately at on Okinawa, b) and how long japan would have been able to resist, cos the allies had superiority of everything and japan was lacking ressources and c) was Japan willing to surrender, the question was just how. And a word to Okinawa. The japanese soldiers had a tradition of no surrender. But as we can see did they surrender en masse in the end of war. We should think about the question, whether the desperate defense on Okinawa was a result of deliberately and excessive killing of japanese POWs and trophy hunting and mutilation!

Beorna wrote-

Edited by red clay - 27-Apr-2013 at 10:39

Originally posted by red clay Beorna wrote-   We should think about the question, whether the desperate defense on Okinawa was a result of deliberately and excessive killing of japanese POWs and trophy hunting and mutilation! Than think again.  Okinawa was a desparate fight.  It was larger than D Day.  You might read a little before you make a statement as uniformed as that one.   My father's flotilla was involved in the landings at Okinawa.  He will tell you "The 120,000 Japanese troops on the Island were told to die fighting, they did that well". The Japanese soldier didn't surrender, so how do you get POWs?  Unless they were wounded or in shock most either died in a Banzai charge or simply blew themselves up rather than surrender.    Some reacted in strange ways, like attempting a suicide charge with a 2 man Tank, on a group of LSTs in the unloading process.  They died well.

American soldiers deliberately executed japanese POWs and were as well trophy hunting in a way, that the US administration was even worried and offered ice cream for GIs to stop it!
So why did japanese soldier not surrender? Why did they fight desperately?

Originally posted by beorna I suppose niemitz and macarthur are some unknown, bloody amateurs!?

Yes, the japanese did really behave bad against allied POWs. Does this excuse deliberately killings of japanese POWs. is trophy hunting not barbaric?

The attitude of Americans towards "japs" was not really different to that of germans towards slavs.
[/QUOTE]



The 500,000 figure was the conservative estimate from the planning staff respo0nsible for OPERATION OLYMPIC, the invasion of the Japanese home islands.  Take it or leave it, but they were there and you weren't.

The Japanese murdered and raped entire populations, not just POW's, and they used live POW's and civilians for their germ warfare experiments at Unit 731 in Harbin, China.  Read your history.

The Americans did not treat enemy POW's or civilians in any way that resembled the barbaric behavior of the Japanese.  Post reliable, verifiable sources and figures if you believe otherwise.

You're not interested in either a discussion or in historical reality - you're trolling, and your anti-American bias is there for all to see.  Looks to me like you suffer from major guilt over the history of your own nation's mistreatment of prisoners, civilians and all those you labeled as "subhumans".



Edited by Mountain Man - 27-Apr-2013 at 18:58

German soldiers didn't mistreat allied POWs, They killed them.  Malmedy is just one example.  Round them up and machine gun them, no mistreatement. 

Originally posted by red clay German soldiers didn't mistreat allied POWs, They killed them.  Malmedy is just one example.  Round them up and machine gun them, no mistreatement.

Oh, come on. Yes, there were a few examples. But generally were western allied POW held according to the convention about POWs. The greatest complaints were in the last two years about about a shortage of food. All in all a just a few thousands died, especially during marches in the last days of the war. far less than the number of german soldiers in western allied captivity. If you look above, you can see an example of allied murders of german POWs in my region, a small area, for a few days. In every village were was resistance POWs were executed and most of those soldiers were boys.