Dresden Bombing. Holocaust?

Hi Chandernagore,

Actually, the British and French tried to get the League of Nations to oulaw the bombing of civilian areas in September 1938, but Germany, Italy and Japan did not support it. Why? Because all three were already bombing civilians as a matter of policy. Within the previous year Japan had bombed numerous places in China, Italy had bombed Barcelona repeatedly and Germany had notoriously bombed Guernica.

Furthermore, while the Anglo-French were still dropping leaflets, not bombs, on German cities, Germany had already bombed Warsaw and Rotterdam, among other places. Thus during WWII the Allies would have been deeply foolish to deny themselves a weapon that was both legal and of proven effectiveness in the hands of their enemy.

However, once the war was over, the Allies did have international law changed. It would now be illegal to use area bombing.

That the Allies were consistent is evidenced by the fact that no Germans were prosecuted after the war for bombing Allied cities. This was not a case of so-called "victors' justice".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Alexandru H.

Perhaps the most obvious Allied reaction to Warsaw and Rotterdam was Hamburg and Dresden. Nobody was tried for any of them, because they were not illegal under the international legislation of the time (see above). International legislation on the conduct of aerial bombing had not been changed since the 1899 Hague Convention - which was before heavier-than-air craft had even flown. It was therefore obsolete. There was meant to be a new international cionference in 1916 to deal with such issues, but WWI prevented it. As I mentioned to Chandernagore above, the Anglo-French initiative to get the League of Nations to address the issue in 1938 also failed.

I agree. Given the scale of largely innocent civilian losses, these subjects need light shed on them. Indeed, light was shed on them in the post war period and international law was changed as a result. (Another such case is the use of POWs to clear mines. It was legal until 1948 but illegal since).

I don't follow your analogy as to why Dresden was a war crime. The likes of Speer, Doenitz and Raeder were convicted for pursuing policies that breached the laws of war. Harris's policies, while brutal and massively destructive of human life, weren't actually illegal. The moral case against area bombing is strong, but the legal case is not.

Cheers,

Sid.

Actually the Germans only managed to prove the ineffectiveness of terror raids, not their effectiveness. Guernica didn't break the Republicans by any margin but it possibly helped fill the ranks of the international brigades. The Germans lost the battle of Britain when they shifted from military targets to terror bombing of London.

You talk like the late firebombings where huge success but they never broke the nazis will to fight. There wasn't consensus among the allies either. Harris frequently clashed with Sir Charles Portal over target selection. In september 44 the targeting of oil plants was dropped in favor of aera bombing of cities, a decision which was not optimimum in regard to accelerating final victory. Looks to me like Goring dropping the airfields & radars and going for Nottingham palace.

Chuchill himself attested in 45 :

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."

I see. In a absolute way, it was very wrong. But because we did it too, it became right. You cannot do more consistant than that. But it is still the privilege of the victor.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 01, 2005 08:24 am

Hi Chandernagore,

Guernica fell to Nationalist forces only a couple of days after the bombing, so it was not without effect. My personal feeling is that Guernica was a legitimate military target. It was a key communications hub immediately behind the front line in use by the Republicans. It became a massive propaganda issue, like Dresden, in which the true circumstances and facts have sometimes been completely overlooked.

The bombing of oil targets was not dropped in September 1944. Bomber Command also mounted a large raid on oil targets on the very same days it attacked Dresden in February 1945. 368 aircraft attacked the hydrogenation works at Bohlen.

You have failed to note that Harris protested to Churchill that Bomber Command had never "bombed German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror". Churchill, not a man who easily backed down, recognised this and withdrew the suggestion.

Not to try Germans for bombing cities was not a "privilige of the victor". They hadn't broken any law.

Cheers,

Sid.

Wether a "law" was broken isn't really what we are discussing Sid.

The Germans didn't break any German law went they sent 6.000.000 Jews to oblivion : they obeyed their law.
The US didn't break a law at Sand Creek (the law was for whites only)
Nor did Stalin at Katyn (Stalin was the law)

We're making a morale case of course.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 01, 2005 10:09 am

I doubt very much that Harris protested anything like that with Churchill. Please give me some source, if possible not Taylor again. If you can give me 2-3 sources confirming that (preferably first hand) I will gladly acknowledge that I was mistaken on that specific point. And then I will go show you that Bomber Harris was a true believer in the effectiveness of terror raids as a tool to break the enemy morale by targeting non-combattants and so bring the war to an end.

(Harris never understood why the British didn't surrender when the bombs started falling on London. It was not rational for him ).

When preparing the first large scale raid of the war , Churchill wanted Koln for it's industrial output. Harris choice fell on Hamburg for - I cite- "It's symbolical value".
What an ass...

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 01, 2005 09:16 pm

Sid, you have a strange method for deducing things. The whole Basque country was swallowed after Guernica. An effect of Guernica, perhaps ? No : a combined effect of crushing ground forces, supply, material and air superiority for the nationalists.

I believe that the Condor Legion had to hurry to insert a raid at Guernica...

I'm sure Guernica was not "without effect". But as with Dresden the real question, is "was it worth the price ?" Did it produce results that were in proportion to the civilian death toll to at least alleviate the horror. In both cases my answer is no.

Hi Chandernagore,

We aren't discussing law? To be a criminal one has to break a law. Everybody is agreed that the bombing of Dresden was rutheless and brutal, but if you want to prove that it was also criminal, you have to first to produce the law that was broken. I have asked you to produce this several times. You still haven't. You haven't even got a base for discussion until you do, let alone a proven case.

So, it was legal to kill 6 million people in one's protective custody under German, let alone international law? Are you seriously making this proposition? The Germans sending these people to their deaths were obeying authority, not law. Germany was a civilised country run by barbarians. It had perfectly sound laws against murder that the barbarians chose to ignore.

Ah, yes, the old deniers ploy of refusing to accept a contradictory source as evidence without giving a reason and then demanding several more sources instead! Sorry, but unless you can give a reason for not using Taylor, (the most recent and a fully footnoted source), I see no justification for disqualifying him as a source - especially as you have not yet read him even though his book has been out for over a year. If you won't even read this most important and widely available of books on the subject, why on earth would anyone believe that you would follow up more obscure ones?

(Anyway, if anyone who is actually likely to follow up sources is interested, Harris's reply to Churchill was transmitted by Deputy Chief of Air Staff Norman Bottomley. More details are on p.322 of Henry Probert's book on Harris. The original memorandum is in the Public Records Office in file CAB 121/3)

And exactly what is your source for the proposition that "Harris never understood why the British didn't surrender when the bombs started falling on London. It was irrational to him."? Harris had actually concluded that "The Germans again and again missed their chance, as they did in the London Blitz......" (p.83 of Harris's own autobiography). He understood perfectly well why the British didn't surrender under German bombing - it was never concentrated enough to do the necessary damage.

Do facts not matter to you at all? Hamburg was always the easiest major target in Germany because it was relatively close to Britain, so more bombs and less fuel could be carried, no intermediate flak defences had to be overflown and fighter defences would have less time to react. It was also, in case you hadn't noticed, Germany's major port - reason enough alone to bomb it. But in fact Hamburg was not really heavily bombed until July 1943. Why? Because the weather over Hamburg was poor when it was first suggested in May 1942 as a target for the first 1,000 bomber raid and so Harris himself ordered that Cologne be bombed instead.

No, you didn't "cite". You put "quotation marks" around some words without giving a source. You could at least try to live up to the standards you are demanding of others.

Please clarify your position. In your post of 1 June 07:46am you wrote "Actually the Germans only managed to prove the ineffectiveness of terror raids, not their effectiveness. Guernica........" However, by 09:37am on the same day you write "I am sure Guernica was not "without effect""?

OK. Let us assume that Dresden and Guernica "did not produce results that were in proportion to the human death toll". Exactly how many civilian casualties would have been "worth the price" for the results achieved at Dresden and Guernica and why? What is the official exchange rate of civilians per railway station, barracks or war factory?

Cheers,

Sid.

- double post - sorry

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 02, 2005 11:57 am

i agree with the fact that in front of divine law, the murder of one man is equal to 6 million.

Hi Chandernagore,

As you have refused to address almost any of the substantive points I raised in my last post, I think it will be obvious to any third party that you are unable to answer them.

For the sake of your own reputation, I would strongly suggest that it might be advisable to do so.

I will answer your last post when you have done me the courtesy of addressing the points in my previous one.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hello Sid

You're becoming a little silly here.

But to be a monster you need only to do monstruous things.

Under what law ? Under God's law it was certainly criminal.

I don't need that to make an absolute morale judgement.

Authority was law in nazi Germany. Don't you understand ? They didn't give a damn about your western democrat concepts of law.

Taylor tries hard to be a historian, he's not yet a primary source. I don't have to agree with his analysis if his arguments are not convincing.

Oh man don't give me the page in the book. Cite him. Do your try to impress with your data storage skill or what ?

The source is me. I'am saying that.

===>

In friendly terms it'sa gentle mockery.

And you ? Is there a single stinking fact going toward a condemnation of this atrocity that is of any interest to you ? Or, like Taylor, are you only interested into looking after excuses for loosy morale decisions ?

But, Sid I completely agree with this. Did I say that Hamburg was not a major port ? Did I say the weather over Hamburg was good ? Did I say I didn't agree with targeting Hamburg. Why do you play the straw man strategy with me ? Do you have an answer to that ?

I will clarify : the raid was ineffective in a military sense but the killing of woman, cildren and elders can be called an "effect".

None. These cities should not have been targeted at all.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 02, 2005 11:31 am

Sorry Sid, but I'm not your dog, jumping when you call.

I have a job.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 02, 2005 11:56 am

Chandernagore, as you know very well now, insults and personal remarks are not allowed in here.

Dragos, as you well know I only answer on the same tone that is used with me. There was a good deal of agressive tone and personal attack in Sid Post that you naturally choose to ignore. I just give as good as I take.

But everybody knows that you're after me anyway.

Sid,

I could fill a page with stuff like this but here are a couple of things of interest to you :

You never answered this. Did you simply elude the question, because the answer would have weakened you case, or do you simply ignore the answer ?

Holy Molly, it seems that you never answered ! It is interesting that you didn't bother to discover this.. It was supposedly the main objective of the raid. But nobody seems to care. Everybody count civilian bodies. Strange.