War crimes WWII? - Page 6




 
--
 
October 23rd, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
just like thru out history the winners recorded the great victory to them selves, the winners do not become war criminals
October 23rd, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
Dresden was only included in the RAF target list after the British Air Minister Sinclair sent a minute to Churchill stating that after consultation with the Allied Joint Intelligence Commmitee " That available effort should be directed against Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig or against other cities where severe bombing would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the East, but would also hamper the movement of troops from the West"

That's the reason Dresden was bombed. not some Cold war myth about trying to 'scare' the Soviets.
That may have been the 'official' line but be honest, all 3 of the Allies knew the war was virtually over. All 3 were posturing for position when the fighting eventually finished. IMO the military value of bombing Dresden was questionable no matter what anyone says. And the Western Allies were concerned with the Red Army machine that was driving back what was left of the Wehrmacht. You can be sure of that.
October 23rd, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
That may have been the 'official' line but be honest, all 3 of the Allies knew the war was virtually over. All 3 were posturing for position when the fighting eventually finished. IMO the military value of bombing Dresden was questionable no matter what anyone says. And the Western Allies were concerned with the Red Army machine that was driving back what was left of the Wehrmacht. You can be sure of that.
The IMO is the important part here.
That's your view, but do you have any historical sources to prove that this was indeed the case.
--
October 23rd, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
That may have been the 'official' line but be honest, all 3 of the Allies knew the war was virtually over. All 3 were posturing for position when the fighting eventually finished. IMO the military value of bombing Dresden was questionable no matter what anyone says. And the Western Allies were concerned with the Red Army machine that was driving back what was left of the Wehrmacht. You can be sure of that.
The IMO is the important part here.
That's your view, but do you have any historical sources to prove that this was indeed the case.
Right. I wanted to put the IMO there because I am stating my own opinion based on years of reading various books and articles on WW2. Of course I can't give you a source that conclusively proves that my opinion is truth if the official line disputes it. What I can give you is numerous links (if you want them) that all say that the firebombing of Dresden had no military value which I think is more in keeping with this thread.

Let me ask you some questions.

Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden had no military value?
Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden did not bring around a quicker end to WW2?
Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden ended up killing thousands of innocent civilians, many burned horribly to death?
Don't you think the 3 Western Allies realised in 1944 that Germany was defeated and their main focus now was what would happen after the fighting had ended?

You seem like a sensible, intelligent guy. Surely you don't believe the 'official' line all the time do you?
October 24th, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Right. I wanted to put the IMO there because I am stating my own opinion based on years of reading various books and articles on WW2. Of course I can't give you a source that conclusively proves that my opinion is truth if the official line disputes it.
So, you have no historical evidence then.
Quote:
What I can give you is numerous links (if you want them) that all say that the firebombing of Dresden had no military value which I think is more in keeping with this thread.
I don't want other peoples opinions, I want some evidence that what you stated was the actual truth and not a biased opinion.
Quote:
Let me ask you some questions.

Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden had no military value?
Yes I do. Dresden was a vital communications hub for South East Germany. Bombing it helped the Soviet forces.
Quote:
Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden did not bring around a quicker end to WW2?
Dresden was just one of a number of targets bombed by the Western allied airforces at this time in support of the Soviets. It might or might not have ended the war any quicker, but I consider it probably did help reduce Soviet casualties.
Quote:
Do you dispute that the firebombing of Dresden ended up killing thousands of innocent civilians, many burned horribly to death?
Of course not, 35-50,000 people did die in this raid. But hundreds of thousands of people had already died in bombings by both sides. What I dispute is that Dresden was anything 'special'
Quote:
Don't you think the 3 Western Allies realised in 1944 that Germany was defeated and their main focus now was what would happen after the fighting had ended?
No their main focus was on defeating an enemy who still had armed forces numbering in millions. After the shock of the Battle of the Bulge, the Western Allies were taking nothing for granted.

Quote:
You seem like a sensible, intelligent guy. Surely you don't believe the 'official' line all the time do you?
No I don't, but I also don't believe in conspiracy theories without any evidence either.

Might I suggest you read Frederick Taylors book 'Dresden, Tuesday 13 Febuary 1945'
It explains how German black propaganda of WW2, Soviet propaganda of the 50's, and Irvings neo-nazi propaganda of the 80's have built up the many myths that surround the bombing of Dresden.
Its also a very good read
October 24th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
No their main focus was on defeating an enemy who still had armed forces numbering in millions. After the shock of the Battle of the Bulge, the Western Allies were taking nothing for granted.

Quote:
You seem like a sensible, intelligent guy. Surely you don't believe the 'official' line all the time do you?
No I don't, but I also don't believe in conspiracy theories without any evidence either.

Might I suggest you read Frederick Taylors book 'Dresden, Tuesday 13 Febuary 1945'
It explains how German black propaganda of WW2, Soviet propaganda of the 50's, and Irvings neo-nazi propaganda of the 80's have built up the many myths that surround the bombing of Dresden.
Its also a very good read
Well as you probably know most of the Wehrmacht was deployed on the Eastern front facing the Red Army. After Operation Bagration destroyed Army Group Centre in mid '44 it was just a matter of when and not if the Soviets would enter Berlin. Coupled with D-Day and you have an enemy that was for all extents and purposes defeated. True there was an initial surprise shock factor to the Battle of the Bulge but it was a wasted last hurrah that achieved nothing.

You know that I can't provide any conclusive historical links that support my opinion as for the reasons for the firebombing of Dresden. I explained that in my last post.

Perhaps I will pick up that book when I get some spare time. I appreciate that there has been a lot of myth and propaganda spouted over this subject. I don't believe that Dresden was bombed just for the hell of it or to kill innocent Germans. What I do believe is that it did very little to affect the military situation. What I also believe is that had they wanted to, the Red Army could have driven to the Atlantic, Western Allies in the way or not. The Western Allies were rightly concerned about the Soviet juggernaut heading their way and all the Allies were posturing and pushing for post war influence over Germany and Europe as a whole.
October 24th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Redcoat, the only way that we can come to any conclusive decision as to whether any of the items we refer to as warcrimes actually were criminal is to have some sort of working definition. You have more than once said that Dresden was not against the "rules of war", so obviously you must be very familiar with what the "rules of war" were at the time. Please do share.
October 25th, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Redcoat, the only way that we can come to any conclusive decision as to whether any of the items we refer to as warcrimes actually were criminal is to have some sort of working definition. You have more than once said that Dresden was not against the "rules of war", so obviously you must be very familiar with what the "rules of war" were at the time. Please do share.
I am more than happy to.
Go to this site
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
It lists, and has the text of every international agreement on warfare , from the pre 17th century
October 26th, 2004  
craig
 
here is a good site covers atrocities on all sides

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

I do agree with the term and history speaks for it self how many People were charged with war crimes that were on the victorious side