Okay, now that's a useful reply! And it even solves the bombing issues. Thanks.

Edit: but it seems you did kind off kill the topic with it...

I'll ask the mean question again to everyone:
Do you think that killing civilians to spare combatants is the right thing to do?

technically the bombings would of been war crimes because they were aimed at civillians, but they would of been allowed because of the hague convention of 1910.

"This allowed for armys to retaliate in a like way if the opposing army did things like killing off the population, shooting prisoners and the like.
So if germany started the bombing of civillians in cities then that would of meant the the oposing forces could retaliate in a like way.
(was really a way of making it leagal to fight dirty if the other side did it first)"

this was taken from a disscussion on SBS tv on the 8th of june 2004. The topic being discussed was to do with what was has been happening over in iraq in the military prison, Abuilgra.


as for the other question i think that once a country is in a war everyone is a target.

The bombing of German cities were not war crimes. This issue has cropped up because apologists on both sides have sought to claim that each side in WW2 committed crimes.
Lets gets some issues straight: The Nazis practised genocide - the deliberate, intentional, pre-planned slaughter of entire races and religions.
When the allies attacked German cities, they were merely targeting valid military targets. These cities consisted of factories, war installations, economic institutions and rail junctions. The Nazis deliberately moved in extra workers to support the war effort.
Let us not judge the bombing campaigns of the forties with the ethical, PGM minded attitudes of the current era

Originally Posted by spymaster

When the allies attacked German cities, they were merely targeting valid military targets. These cities consisted of factories, war installations, economic institutions and rail junctions. The Nazis deliberately moved in extra workers to support the war effort.
Let us not judge the bombing campaigns of the forties with the ethical, PGM minded attitudes of the current era

You do not appear to know true history. Just the cleaned up version. Dresden was 100% intentional with no military target to speak of. Hamburg was also more or less intentional, and the firebombing was set off nowhere near "military targets".

A little disappointing that you chose to use the "do not appear to know true history" argument. You always know when someone is losing an argument when they resort to casting vulgar doubts on ones knowledge rather than arguing a case with reason and examples.

Note that I disagreed with you previously but didnt stoop to claiming you know nothing etc etc.

The bombing of German cities, Dresden, Hamburg may seem unpalatable by todays modern ethics but this was an era of total war, where the German state was geared to supporting the German machine. German morale had been identified as a centre of gravity and German cities were targeted in an attempt to undermine morale (not too successful though) as well as engaging German military, economic, and industrial facilites.

Dresden was an integral part of the Nazi military-industrial complex, and the fourth largest centre of armaments manufacture in Nazi Germany. Dresden was also an important centre of communication and lay across the Red Army's line of advance. The city was in all respects a legitimate target. Hamburg was an another important industrial centre.

As far as I am aware, the fire-storm was not originally expected. It was a by-product of the bombing that occured. Yes, the bombing was not accurate but accurate precision bombing had not been totally developed (the Dambusters was an exception rather than the rule).

Well, when you said this,

When the allies attacked German cities, they were merely targeting valid military targets. These cities consisted of factories, war installations, economic institutions and rail junctions.

it gave me the impression that you had no idea what you were talking about. The US and UK intentially terror-bombed Germany throughout the war. There were LOTS of intentional targets that were not "valid military targets". At Dresden, the RAF and US intentionally lit the air on fire. It was their intention to kill civilians en mass. It couldn't have been more deliberate. What they had figured out from Hamburg was that you could ignite a massive fire with careful PLANNING and PREPARATION. It required, among other things, the dropping of copius amounts of unlit petrolium jelly to prep the target for ingniting. Then you follow with incendiary bombs to light the whole thing off. The result was a giant pillar of fire that literally sucked people into it, kicking and screaming. Some totals for the deaths at Dresden put the total number of dead well above Nagasaki.

Here's a link discussing the Allied Bombing Campaign in general:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...x?PostID=61013

Here's some more info on intentional firebombing, and intentional targeting of non-military, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...g_justified.3F
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

Arthur Harris was an unwavering advocate of targetting civilians throughout the war, but drastically edited the whole thing after the war, making it fit for reading without making him look like a monster. He is foremost of Allied commanders that probably ought to have been tried as war criminals (in conjunction with the bombing of Germany). His writings are an excellent example of the "cleaned up" version of the war.

Obviously the US and UK did not come anywhere close to equalling Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union in war crimes during World War II, but we ought to be willing to admit to those that did happen.

"it gave me the impression that you had no idea what you were talking about"

Sigh, you have used the "I know more than you" argument before and it still doesnt convince.

Harris wasn't a war criminal and not only is it crass to suggest so but it is also insulting to my nation. Every German city was a valid military target, every German civilian who worked in a industrial capacity in support of the war effort was a valid target. You cant have it both ways in total warfare. You cant claim to be a civilian non-combatant and then go to work in a facility that supports the war effort. The Germans went to considerable length.

You may not like it, society today may not like it, but the rules of war permitted the bombing of the German cities. The use of the phrase "terror-bombing" is an emotive and biased-laden phrase. The German war machine had to be bombed to force Germany to her knees. It may not have been entirely effective with the glorious benefit of hindsight but it was entirely right that we did so. The will of the nation is a centre of gravity and we applied the correct strategic lever against it.

You can insult me all day long and post links to tenuous articles on the net but I can equally post references (Middlebrook, The Battle of Hamburg, Cassel 2000) but I wont resort to "I am cleverer than you" tactics

If the statement can be made - "Civilians are legitimate targets no matter who they are." then I guess I'm not sure what a war crime is. I've always been under the impression that deliberate targetting of civilians is a war crime.

Please drop the "oh I'm a victim of your overinflated ego, you think you're so much smarter" crap, it makes discussing anything just plain irritating.

I'm willing to go with another word for the RAF and USAAC deliberately setting cities on fire with the intent to destroy houses and kill civilians. You don't like the word "terrorbombing". You pick the alternative then.

It is important to realise that the bombing of conurbations in WWII came from a mis-understanding. Hitler had banned his bomber crews from threatening London or any other city for that matter. Unfortunately, one or two German Bombers were lost one night and decided to jettison their bombs and go home - they were over London. Our government were horrified at this and Harris was ordered to retaliate. Berlin was on the target list the following night. Hilter - was equally horrified at this audacity and put London on the target list and the rest, as they say, is history.

I don't think that these are the acts of criminals - both sides accepted that the morale of the enemy were a legitimate target.

As an aside...
The Dam raid, has since been deemed illegal and according to the Geneva Convention - 'no structure that contains a large natural force may be attacked' (paraphrase). For this, read dams and nuclear powerplants etc.

Hate to sound like a traitor but yeah it is often true.
Not anymore it seems but definately so back then.
The strategic bombings did kill enough civilians for them to be classified as war crimes to today's standards. Dunno about then. The convicting of Nazis for "war crimes" on bombing London was definately double standard... though I am not 100% sure if anyone was charged on that account.
Personally I don't really believe in a lot of this "war crimes" nonsense. The only one I believe is a true war crime is genocide of civilians. When the war ends, you lock up and hang the losers. Losing is the ultimate war crime really.

Originally Posted by 1217

There's a discussion on my TV set right now, and I was wondering what you people would think.
The statement is roughly: only the losers are war criminals, the winners are judges.
The massive bombing of Berlin and other german cities are war crimes, but because the UK and the USA won that war, nobody was ever charged with them.
By the way, I don't understand that if they call the bombardments in Germany war crimes, they don't mention Heroshima.

Now I'm not saying this is my opinion, just asking for yours for now.