16
   

Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?

 
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 03:41 am
Ramble or rant
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Paaskynen wrote:
I am very allergic to Germans complaining about the allied terror bombing of German cities



Sorry, I've never intended to complain.


I am sorry too, Walter. I did not mean to attack you personally, I just wanted to point out how the war still colours our perceptions even in the second and third generation. In fact, I believe we understand each other better through the experiences of our respective families. My father's side of the family lived through the Finnish war experience, but my father was too young to be enlisted and my grandfather was too old and since they lived away from the front, on Åland for part of the time, the did not see much action and my father was not evacuated to Sweden like some 70 000 other Finnish children, and when they moved to the Oulu area the Russian bombardement of that town had long since ceased, because a squadron of Swedish (bi-plane!) fighters protected the area.

But my mother's family lived in Rotterdam throughout the war and although they all survived the war, I grew up with the stories, walking through the now modern heart of the city with my uncles pointing out that one day there was church here and three girls were burned alive inside the rubble, and that over there a shelter suffered a direct hit killing everybody inside, etc. Americans do not have that experience walking through their home towns (not until 9/11 at least). My eldest uncle was a medic at the time of the German invasion and assisted in evacuating wounded from a Rotterdam hospital before it was engulfed in the flames. Two of his comrades were shot to death by the Germans when they tried to help a wounded German (!) paratrooper. The Jewish ladies living in the same appartment block as my mother were taken away never to return. The whole family balanced on the brink of starvation during the last war winter when the Germans cut off all food transports to the West of the country, except for an aunt who walked hundred of kilometres in the freezing cold and was taken in by farmers in the East who had food and one uncle who was sent to the town of Vlissingen in the south and was liberated by the British, while floating in a flooded cellar (because the allies had bombed the dikes and flooded the countryside in preparation for their invasion). And my two eldest uncles had been taken away to Germany as slave labourers, one was simply picked off the street in a so-called razzia, while the other, the medic, did not want to let his younger brother go into captivity alone and volunteered to come along. Together they suffered every imaginable hardship, but were quick to point out that the Russian prisoners were treated even worse. They survived months of allied bombings of the town of Düsseldorf and the gas works where they had been put to work. Once the allies had bombed away the gates that kept them prisoners, and the guards had fled, they escaped and wandered through the south of Germany towards the American lines, helped by some Germans and chased by others, captured once again and forced to dig tank traps and escaped again at night, helped by a German family living nearby with food and clothes and they reached the Americans near Mullhouse on the Rhine. After which they had to hitch rides with allied convoys back to the Netherlands, questioning sessions, the first train riding in the liberated part of the country to the river that formed the border between the librated sounth and the still occupied north, where my eldest uncle took the risk of crossing at night the river and the minefields, because he longed to see his wife and his child that had been born in his absence. A couple of days later, on the fifth of May in fact, the German surrender in Holland was signed.

So in one sense, through the stories told by my uncles and aunts, I can begin to understand what German civilians suffered during the allied bombings and the following grond war, and when I walked through Berlin just after the fall of the wall, I was aghast at seeing how literally every single old building in the centre was still riddled with (patched up) bullet holes! But at the same time I have an instinctive reaction of indignation whenever a German brings it up. Like some time ago when I visited Leipzig for a conference and was offered a tour of the old town and the guide kept mentioning what a crime it was of the allies to have bombed such a beautiful and historical city (town of Bach, etc.) and all the time I had to struggle to hold in the cynical remarks about his countrymen doing exactly the same thing to the city of Erasmus, thank you very much!

Still, after this long ramble, what I meant to point out initially is that bombing of civilians is a crime at any time and that one crime does not excuse another. But of course the victors of the second world war don't want to hear that since they have been doing it again in Afghanistan and Chechnya, in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, etc. and many have followed their example. However, somehow my point got lost along the way in the terrors of war in general and in the history of my family in specific.

War is pure hell for everyone and in a way it is good that these days of commemorations help to keep that realisation alive!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:43 am
Set I have that Tom Lehrer record. Best track is about the pope...about to play it. Very very funny.

The V2 was supersonic so the sound of the missile arrived after impact. The explosions were completely without warning, at random and devastating.

A friend of mine who is really into these things, recently came back from a tour of the Pas de Calais region and inspected the remains of the V3 weapon.

It consisted of 5 or so huge multistage gun barrels built underground and pointing at London. Between them they could have bombarded the target area with one tonne projectiles at a rate of at least 1 per minute.

Had it been used at full capacity, it would surely have made London uninhabitable. It was never commissioned but eye witness accounts of a strange explosion in Kent might have seen a test firing.

Paaskynan, thanks for your family story. I notice you wave the EU flag. Anyone who understands a little of the history of this continent should do so imo.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:28 pm
setanta : i stand corrected. von braun did not receive the congressional medal of honor as you correctly pointed out but national medal of science; it was presented to him by president ford - still kind of amazing considering ...

trying to post a picture of von braun and dr dornberg sharing a laugh after having received the german "war merit cross". the picture must be protected i assume, because i can't get a transfer (it's posted on the german google site).

btw the V1 was called "doodlebug" by the british because of the motorcycle like sound it made. i'd already heard that a number of years ago from a good friend of my brother. this fellow had been a soldier in the canadian army and was stationed near london when the "doodlebugs" started flying.

he later was transferred to holland, and my brother and he figured out that they were probably taking potshots at each other during the last weeks of the war when my brother was also sent to holland - but on the other side ! they were the best of friends despite - or perhaps because - having fought on opposing sides. hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 03:14 am
I visited the War Museum in London and the History Museum in Berlin during the past two weeks, and they are both great places to see in pictures and words the history of world war II. The museum in Berlin reflects the general mood of the German People towards the atrocities committed against Jews, but more importantly, it shows how far back the Jews goes back in the history of Germany. The learning ezperience at both museums were wonderful.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 12:04 pm
from today's Newstatesman magazine by A C Grayling

quote

" If we did anything questionable in the ar, we should have the maturity to admit it and learn from it. The area bombing of civilians by the Allies in the lead up to 1945 went beyond the limits of a just war. If historians refuse to accept this, they are irresponsible and wrong."
0 Replies
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 02:16 pm
Hear hear!
By now both my uncles, of whom I spoke in my earlier post, have died, the younger one one in September the other, the Medic, recently in December. Time goes by.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 04:03 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
from today's Newstatesman magazine by A C Grayling

quote

" If we did anything questionable in the ar, we should have the maturity to admit it and learn from it. The area bombing of civilians by the Allies in the lead up to 1945 went beyond the limits of a just war. If historians refuse to accept this, they are irresponsible and wrong."



Just war. No such thing. IMO, and I know this will sting some the Germans got back what they visited on the rest of Europe.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 04:20 pm
au1929 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
from today's Newstatesman magazine by A C Grayling

quote

" If we did anything questionable in the ar, we should have the maturity to admit it and learn from it. The area bombing of civilians by the Allies in the lead up to 1945 went beyond the limits of a just war. If historians refuse to accept this, they are irresponsible and wrong."



Just war. No such thing. IMO, and I know this will sting some the Germans got back what they visited on the rest of Europe.


So both sides were criminal. I defy anyone to give me a sensible reason as to why Dresden was anihilated...apart from the fact that allied bombing techniques were so refined by that stage of the war as to make it possible.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 04:37 pm
The claim is advanced, although first adduced much after the fact, that Dresden was bombed as a crucial crossroads in the communications net upon which the Wehrmacht depended for its defense against the Soviet advance--and that the Soviets specifically requested that attack. I don't buy that, because a rolling barrage of standard HE's, followed by incendiaries, followed by "block-busters" is a specific technique developed during the night-time bombing of Hamburg and other industrial cities. It is an area effect technique, and one which only incidentally clogs roads--it is certainly not a technique intended to bust bridges and shut down rail yards. German railroads had virtually ground to a halt by that stage of the war, at all events.

The particular technique used was certainly anti-personnel, and the only "personnel" present in any siginificant numbers, other than Allied POWs, were the German civilians.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 03:36 pm
Churchill himself was troubled by the logic of bombing Dresden. They knew damn well by that stage of the war that destroying Dresden served no real purpose. But the military men said they could do it...and the momentum was with them.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 07:20 pm
As I read the views of people on this thread I often wonder if they are seeing the events through hindsight 20/20 vision, if they are putting todays morals and values on yesterdays events, or if the understand the aspects of warfare as it occured during that time.
The total deystruction of Dresden can be compare to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When we look back we can say that it shouldn't have happened, that it was excessive. However, the view of war during that time was that if the spirit of the civilian population was deystroyed, then the power of the military would fail faster. And, the only way to get the morale of the people to fall is to deystroy their cities. Isn't that too what Germany and Japan did? I feel no remorse for a country that starts a global war and then is pounded into complete and total submission.
But then, that's just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 02:19 am
Re: Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war cri
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Was the deliberate targeting of German civilians a crime, or just another horrific act of war?


Deliberately targeting civilians is always a crime.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 02:34 am
Setanta wrote:
As regards specifics of bombing policy, it is important to make distinctions about what goals were pursued. Our English correspondents may not like this. Americans attempted (and largely succeeded, despite the heavy-handed attempt of Anti-war, Vietnam era historians to claim otherwise) to practice a day-light precision bombing against Germany and Austria. This cost the United States, in casualties in the air, the equivalent or more than two full infantry divisions. Since the victors don't always write history, i'd like to refute the claims made by historians in the late 1960's and early 1970's (who opposed bombing North Vietnam) that American bombing in the second world war was ineffective. Albert Speer, after surveying the bombing damage done at Schweinfurt (the ball- and roller-bearing center in Germany at the time), grew very pessimistic about the likely results if such bombing continued. He estimated on his first inspection tour that 65% of Germany's ball- and roller-bearing production had been lost for at least three months. He was greatly relieved--at first--as the Americans did not immediately renew the attack. American casualties were very heavy on that raid, and policy makers were considering abandoning the daylight, precision bombing doctrine for the English policy--night-time area bombing.

Churchill and the RAF's Harris had decided that factory workers who could not sleep could not work effectively the next day--that, at least, was the very flimsy fig leaf with which they covered what looks very much to me like revenge bombings against the monsters who had almost destroyed Coventry. "Arthur Harris and Sons, House Removers" was the grim joke the air crews made about what was an undisguised attack on civilian areas. Bomber Harris pursued this policy right into the final days of the War.

Setanta wrote:
The greatest "war crime" in terms of a bombing raid against Germany in the second world war was the bombing of Dresden. The Germans had tried very hard NOT to make this beautiful city a target. The Americans and English bombed it to hell, just for spite. They methodically chose a method which would assure maximum destruction. First, large incendiary bombs were dropped. This was followed by "block" busters, to spread the initial fires, and to destroy the water mains which would be needed to fight the fires. This was followed by lots of small incendiaries to spread fires over a wide area--and finally, specific pattern-bombing with 500- and 1000- pound bombs to start the "fire storms" which had so devasted Hamburg.


My understanding is that even at Dresden the American bombers were trying to confine the bombing to legitimate targets (namely the railyards outside town), and it was only the UK bombers that caused the firestorm.

This page breaks down what was targeted by the various raids on Dresden:

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 02:51 am
Re: Alleged guilt for civilian casualties prior to 1948-49.
Asherman wrote:
Prior to 1948-49, the destruction of enemy property and civilians was not a crime.


The prohibition against targeting civilians had become part of customary law long before it was enshrined in treaties.

But I think even the Hague treaties from 50 years before had protections for civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 03:05 am
Asherman wrote:
The size of the weapons likely to be used in the southwestern Asian theater are relatively small, much closer in size and effect to those used in Japan than to the refined weapons in the Soviet and United States arsenals.


Well, India allegedly has 200 kiloton warheads. I don't know how refined they are though.

http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19980523/14350684.html



Asherman wrote:
The Soviet's, who hold the record for above ground testing of super large weapons, once detonated a 100 megaton hydrogen device. The effects went unnotice by the average person anywhere in the world.


Actually the yield of the test was only 50 megatons, because they substituted lead for the DU around the fusion fuel.

Plus, being a test, it didn't burn lots of stuff like it would if it had been used on a city, and it is the soot from burning cities that causes nuclear winter.

However, I agree that a war between India and Pakistan would not cause nuclear winter.



Asherman wrote:
No, I don't believe that any nuclear exchange likely to occur in the foreseeable future would threaten human extinction by changing climate.

Climate change MAY threaten our existence, but the factors driving those changes are not entirely understood and other human activities almost certainly are more massive and likely to affect climate than the explosion of a small number of little atomic bombs.


Nuclear winter is not really climate change. It would only last one or two years.

The problem is that it would prevent anyone from growing any crops in a world where humans only have a few months supply of food stored.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 03:25 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Towards the end of the Japanese war, there were hardly any cities left to use as targets for the atomic bombing. (That is virgin targets, where the full affect of the atomic bomb could be measured).


Well, we were saving some (like Hiroshima). And others (like Nagasaki) were supposed to have been hard to find using radar guidance and so were unlikely to be hit with the nighttime napalm raids.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
This leads to two related questions - Would atomic weapons have been used against Germany if they had been produced a bit earlier?


Probably. American bombers did do area bombing in the central Berlin area.

I would guess we would also have dropped an A-bomb on central Berlin.


However, since Americans didn't do area bombing elsewhere in Germany, I think that we wouldn't have nuked any other urban area in Germany.

But there was always tactical use to overcome enemy soldiers and fortifications. They were doing serious thinking about using A-bombs to clear the way if we had to go forward with the invasion of Japan. I suspect they would have considered the same use if A-bombs had been available for D-Day as well.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Was the atomic bombing of Japan (in particular Nagasaki) a war crime?


Yes, because the weapon was too indiscriminate for the target.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I don't know if bombing Nagasaki was a crime, but it was most certainly an experiment. It was a test of the new implosion plutonium device on a real live city under wartime conditions. It provided an opportunity to compare and contrast its affects with the uranium bomb of Hiroshima.


There was no need to do such an experiment. They knew the yield of the bomb already from the trinity test.

The reason for the bomb was simply to try to make Japan surrender.

That said, when they use weapons in combat for the first time, they do try to observe the results to see how it works.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
And it also demonstrated to the USSR that they need not bother picking a fight with the US. (Until of course they were able to make use of all the information supplied from Los Alamos to Moscow by Klaus Fuchs and others).


Icing on the cake.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 04:49 am
blacksmithn wrote:
If you kill my child and then say "Sorry, it was a terrible thing. She was just caught in the crossfire," do you think that makes any difference to her that you hadn't coldbloodedly blown out her brains? The fact is, by firing the bullet in her direction, you created the situation whereby her lifeless body lies in the dust.

By the same token, if a bomb dropped from 30,000 ft. obliterates an Iraqi family, do you suppose it makes any difference to the survivors that we come as "liberators not conquerors?" Yet again, we set the situation in motion by deciding that the bombs needed to be dropped.

Deliberately shot or not, dead is dead and maimed is maimed. The intent behind the bullet or bomb is rather immaterial.


It is material to the question of what kind of blame is placed on the person who did the killing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 06:01 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
(Dresden's only conceivable military target - its railroad yards - was ignored by Allied bombers.)


My understanding is that the American bombers were trying to hit the railyards, and only the railyards.

However, the sky was overcast that day so the bombing was done with radar guidance instead of with the much more accurate Norden bombsight.

But while the American bombers missed the railyards, I don't think the off-target bombs were part of the cause of the firestorm that killed so many civilians.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 01:20 pm
Setanta wrote:
As regards specifics of bombing policy, it is important to make distinctions about what goals were pursued. Our English correspondents may not like this. Americans attempted (and largely succeeded, despite the heavy-handed attempt of Anti-war, Vietnam era historians to claim otherwise) to practice a day-light precision bombing against Germany and Austria. This cost the United States, in casualties in the air, the equivalent or more than two full infantry divisions. Since the victors don't always write history, i'd like to refute the claims made by historians in the late 1960's and early 1970's (who opposed bombing North Vietnam) that American bombing in the second world war was ineffective. Albert Speer, after surveying the bombing damage done at Schweinfurt (the ball- and roller-bearing center in Germany at the time), grew very pessimistic about the likely results if such bombing continued. He estimated on his first inspection tour that 65% of Germany's ball- and roller-bearing production had been lost for at least three months. He was greatly relieved--at first--as the Americans did not immediately renew the attack. American casualties were very heavy on that raid, and policy makers were considering abandoning the daylight, precision bombing doctrine for the English policy--night-time area bombing.

Churchill and the RAF's Harris had decided that factory workers who could not sleep could not work effectively the next day--that, at least, was the very flimsy fig leaf with which they covered what looks very much to me like revenge bombings against the monsters who had almost destroyed Coventry. "Arthur Harris and Sons, House Removers" was the grim joke the air crews made about what was an undisguised attack on civilian areas. Bomber Harris pursued this policy right into the final days of the War.
Oralloy quoted you here Set but just for the record, as an "English correspondent" I agree with you entirely. Early British attempts at daylight "pricision" bombing were a disaster. The RAF therefore concentrated on night time bombing as the only way of hitting directly back at Germany. As the war progressed and technology advanced (in particular ground definition radar) they got quite good at it. Hence imo the raid on Dresden was the culmination of this technique. It was destroyed not so much because we had to do it, (and the USAF were involved too) but because we COULD. Was it criminal? Impossible to answer. But it was certainly nothing to feel good about.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 03:14 pm
I don't know personally about such documents re Dresden, but I've some written orders (in copy) to noth British and American bomber squadrons (although mostly British) - and Steve did so as well - from 1944 and 1945, where explicite civilian targets like cloisters and hospitals were named as targets (Münster/Westphalia; documents on exhibit in the city museum).

Still remembering what a British pilote wrote in 1945: "We bombed like at the training ground: 1,600 bombs within 16 minutes. Münster can be etched from all maps."

"That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy, they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories." Arthur Harris, October 25,1943


On his way to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in
Quebec, FD Roosevelt told reporters on August 26, 1944: "We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis.
We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat
them in such a manner [so that] they can't go on reproducing people
who want to continue the way they have in the past."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 10:44:39