Posted on 02/23/2009 9:50:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When discussing war crimes during World War II, two events usually get thrown out as indictments of the Allies: dropping atomic weapons on the Japanese and the raid of Dresden, in which 25,000 people died mostly of the raging fire that swept the German city. Critics accuse the Allies of deliberately attacking a civilian population center with little military value as a payback for Nazi attacks on Britain. This perception gained a lot of credence through Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5, his autobiographical tale inspired by his eyewitness experience at Dresden as a POW.
Interestingly, though, Germans apparently tend to view it differently, especially since one particular group has seized on Dresden as a means of rehabilitating Hitler. Der Spiegel interviewed historian Frederick Taylor and revealed the much more complicated role of Dresden in the war than the post-bombing spin credits, and still calls into question the Allied strategy in its bombing campaign late in the war:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Still, there was certainly more to the Dresden air raid than a desire to destroy civilian morale, wasn’t there?
Taylor: Certainly. The Dresden attack was directly linked to the conduct of the war elsewhere — in this case on the Eastern Front. In Feb. 1945, Dresden was a major transport and communication hub less than 120 miles from the advancing Russians. The aim of the bombing was quite deliberately to destroy the center of the city, thereby making the movement of German soldiers and civilians impossible.
Nor was Dresden uninvolved in war production:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The inflated casualty figures have proven quite resistant to academic research. The myth of Dresden as a victim of Allied aggression is one that refuses to go away. How innocent was Dresden really?
Taylor: Dresden was undeniably a beautiful city, a center of the arts and a symbol of all that was great about pre-Nazi German humanism. It was also quite strongly Nazi and a major industrial center. Its light industries, ranging from factories producing typewriters and cigarettes to furniture and candy, had overwhelmingly been converted to war use after 1939. Around 70,000 workers in the city are thought to have been involved in war-related work. Its regional railway directorate was heavily involved in the war effort on the eastern front and also in the transport of prisoners within the concentration camp system. The question therefore is not whether Dresden contained legitimate bombing targets, but whether the method and intensity of the February 1945 bombing was justifiable.
But in questioning the Allies’ strategy, who benefits now?
Taylor: The neo-Nazis use the anniversary in two ways. First, as a straight propaganda bludgeon against the victors of World War II, an exemple of the Allies’ allegedly criminal conduct of the war against Germany. Second, more subtly, as a tool to relativize Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. They refer to a “bomb holocaust” of the Allies against the civilian inhabitants of German cities, wildly inflating the figures involved and, of course, underplaying the number of Jews, Sinti, Roma, homosexuals and political prisoners, and other millions of victims of the real Holocaust. It is this two-fold advantage of the Dresden anniversary protests that is especially attractive to the neo-Nazis and their associates. Plus, many otherwise respectable people in Dresden and elsewhere, many of whom grew up with the post-war myths, continue to believe in the inflated casualty figures and in the criminality of the Allied bombing campaign.
The methodology can certainly be criticized without making it an argument for “war crimes”. The Germans manufactured arms in Dresden, and by their own conduct of the war, made that a permissible target for Allied bombers. The use and intensity of incendiary bombs could certainly be questioned; the resultant firestorm literally sucked the oxygen out of the city and asphyxiated thousands, which Vonnegut saw first-hand.
But the use of incendiary bombs on factories and railheads was not a war crime, nor was particularly controversial during that war, as the Germans had been dropping them on London for years by that point. The Allies had a right to destroy the Nazi war production system, including in Dresden. They had a limited number of options for bombing targets, and the intensity can reasonably be assigned to an accuracy that had eluded the Allies on their night bombing runs for most of the war.
And let’s not forget that at the same time as the Allies raided Dresden, the Germans were launching rocket attacks with only marginal thoughts of accuracy against the British civilian centers. If Hitler had the ability to create a Dresden in London, he would not have hesitated to wreak it.
I give Der Spiegel credit for getting past the slogans and confronting history as it happened. Be sure to read the entire interview.
See here :
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2005/04/26/dresden-peeling-back-layers-of-revisionist-history/
Every time the Germans bring up Dresden, we should shove the 20 million Russians, the blitz, and V2’s over London in their faces. It was war. It’s over. Deal with it.
So it goes.
End of conversation.
dresden wasn’t a war crime any more than coventry was, or london, or for that matter, auschwietz, treblinka, coldiz, etc...
Hitler killed millions in the camps. It was terrible. The German government, after WWII, should have persecuted nazis for their terrible deeds. You don't have to call it war crimes for that to occur.
They bombed us? Well, we bombed them. It's war. It's terrible. You win when you make it more terrible for the other guy than he can make it for you. I just don't see war crimes as a sensible designation.
Of the 20 million dead Russians, over half of them were killed by their own government (That would be Josef Stalin), so let’s be truthful to history.
War is hell, people.
No.
“Every time the Germans bring up Dresden...”
You’re nobody in today’s world unless you can claim victimhood. If the Germans hadn’t started WWII, there would have been no Dresden.
The ironic thing to me is that both sides gassed each other in WWI without repercussions, but dropping bombs on cities was considered the war crime. In WWII, what was considered a war crime was exactly reversed.
Yes. And if the Germans won the war, our generals would have been on trial.
No it was not a war crime!! The horrors and destruction that Nazi Germany inflicted upon the world required a special type of warfare by special, fearless, “get it done” type fighters and warriors who knew how to win a damned war against the ruthless, evil villains who would have prospered with and been contemptuous of any show of weakness or discretion showed by the Allied powers they were at war with. The British High Command deemed it necessary to “twist the blade” a bit during the decisive end stage of the war, when the enemy was defeated for the sake of “Poetic Justice”.
It depends on whether we fight to fight or fight to win.
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” Reality is harsh; “War is hell.” You do what you have to do to win, otherwise you lose.
War reduces all parties involved to savages at some level; some are just more noble savages than others.
This reminds me of the story of the British Airways pilot who had to frequently contact the tower at Frankfort to find the correct ramp. The tower operator became impatient and asked “is this the first time you’ve ever flown to Frankfort?”. “No” replied the Brit. “I flew here twice during 1944. But, it was dark and we didn’t land.”.
Kurt Vonnegut's famous novel Slaughterhouse-Five was inspired by his experience as a prisoner of war in Dresden and the aftermath of the bombing raid. After the war he found it very curious that nobody he spoke to in the U.S. military would even acknowledge that the bombing raid ever took place.
my father in law was on a ship headed for the invasion point when the bomb was dropped....he was slated for the first wave, and was told he was basically going to die...
bump
War crimes is a redundant term. I’ve never bought into the idea that there is a “civilized” way to kill people and destroy their property. Why does it matter how or when or where you do it, the results are the same.
I believe that it is more moral that when you get involved in a war you go all out, hold nothing back, make it as terrible as possible for the other side that the war will come to a quiker end. Total war, do or do not, there is no try.
Note to Germany:
If you don’t start a war then you don’t have to worry about being a victim of war crimes.
Our Generals would have been executed in the field and buried in a mass grave with all the others.
The war is over...move on!
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.”
Agreed. Fair fights are for sports. Anything else is for survival and hence any tactic is fair to ensure survival.
I doubt it. The Germans generally followed the Geneva Convention/Hague Rules of War with the captured military forces of the West. Russia was a different story.
There was a wonderful book written about this. I believe that it was named “Code Name: Downfall” The Japaneese were waiting for us with chemical and biological weapons as well as mass suicide attacks. There were few options as to where the Allies could land and the Japaneese knew them all.
By then the cities were burned out and the remaining production had shifted to underground caves.
No. Next question.
And many of those "Russians" were Ukrainians.
But civilians suffered much more in WWII.
Very true. Seven million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin and his boys.
Bring up Auschwitz, Trblinka, Dachau, and Belsen. Oh yeah, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Chelmno. How about Babi Yar? Get lost Nazis.
Dresden became a symbol of Vietnam-era historical revisionism about the “Good War” among the counterculture in the 1970’s, thanks to Kurt Vonnegut. It’s been tough to shake that label, and the inflated chain of propoganda of the Nazis and their East German successors as well, in assessing the reality of Dresden.
I've always felt that Russians are basically a bunch of savages, but consider how you'd feel if this country were invaded and whole cities wiped out. I, for one, who not be too concerned with abiding by the Geneva Conventions. I would be out for blood and revenge!
Tell that to the guys at Malmide (sp?). I think you have watched too much Hogan's Heroes.
The German Luftwaffe generally attempted to follow some of the rules on captured allied airmen who they were charged with holding, but only because they had thousands of their own airmen in Allied POW camps.
On the Western front, any GI caught by the SS had little chance of surviving. And on the Eastern front from day one, the Germans followed no civilized rule. They raped and butchered indiscriminately. Soldier or civilian, men, women or child... the best any could hope for was the slow death of slave labor camps.
Every time the Germans bring up Dresden, we should shove the 20 million Russians, the blitz, and V2’s over London in their faces. It was war. It’s over. Deal with it.
The Germans didn't kill 20 Million Red Army Communists during WWII.
Even if they did, we should have thanked them.
We destroyed any city of consequence or size in Germany. How is Dresden any different? It wasn’t a war crime. Its silly to evaluate it through modern eyes. Germany fell through thousands of body blows, and this was just one of ‘em. Any one of which was “un-needed” when examined alone.
The bomber forces needed targets in an increasingly smaller Germany. Our men in those bombers and fighters were unmitigated heroes, no matter what that Vonnegutt guy thought.
That's right, Billy.
Yup. They need to just put some ice on it.
The Germans generally following the Geneva Convention in the treatment of our downed airmen when it was professional officers in charge of the POW camp. It was a much different story for our POW’s when they were guarded by ardent Nazis.
Check out “My Private War: Liberated Body, Captive Mind: A World War II POW’s Journey” by Norman Bussel. As a 19 year old, he was a POW for 13 months. He says that the treatment of POW’s in Germany was beyond brutal. Denied medical care, denied food, denied warm clothes, along with witnessing the murder of some prisoners. And a few beatings thrown in for good measure. Bussel lost 65 pounds during his imprisonment, weighing only a bit more then 100 pounds when the camp was finally liberated by the American army.
Yep, no war crime. Everyone acts like its was a done deal. That they couldnt win. The Battle of the Bulge was a whole 5 weeks behind us then. They needed to be wiped out,,and FAST, V2s were raining down, Their Jets were whizzing around too.
We were working on our A-bomb, hoping they wouldnt surprise us with one first. We were pretty sure they werent going to beat us, but we also were caught flat-footed in the Ardennes when we thought they had nothing.
Good for our Generals and crews and shame on the hitler loving apologists who want to cast our men in a bad light.
Killing non-combatants is a war crime. The fact that the non-combatants are living in a city which has transportation significance does not excuse mass murder.
This was an allied war crime; the other side had theirs, too, in abundance.
Murdering civilians in Hiroshima to save soldiers who might otherwise have had to fight was also a war crime. Maybe what some are saying here is that war crimes are sometimes excusable. I don’t buy the idea that Japan could not have been easily defeated without use of the A-bomb. One bomb could have been used as a demonstration in an uninhabited site. Then Japan could have been blockaded.
The fact is, that as usual we were already tired of the war, and wanted to “bring the boys home.” We can’t take a war lasting more than a few months, and that may be prove ultimate undoing.
Killing non-combatants is a war crime. The fact that the non-combatants are living in a city which has transportation significance does not excuse mass murder.
This was an allied war crime; the other side had theirs, too, in abundance.
Murdering civilians in Hiroshima to save soldiers who might otherwise have had to fight was also a war crime. Maybe what some are saying here is that war crimes are sometimes excusable. I don’t buy the idea that Japan could not have been easily defeated without use of the A-bomb. One bomb could have been used as a demonstration in an uninhabited site. Then Japan could have been blockaded.
The fact is, that as usual we were already tired of the war, and wanted to “bring the boys home.” We can’t take a war lasting more than a few months, and that may be prove ultimate undoing.
Killing non-combatants is a war crime. The fact that the non-combatants are living in a city which has transportation significance does not excuse mass murder.
This was an allied war crime; the other side had theirs, too, in abundance.
Murdering civilians in Hiroshima to save soldiers who might otherwise have had to fight was also a war crime. Maybe what some are saying here is that war crimes are sometimes excusable. I don’t buy the idea that Japan could not have been easily defeated without use of the A-bomb. One bomb could have been used as a demonstration in an uninhabited site. Then Japan could have been blockaded.
The fact is, that as usual we were already tired of the war, and wanted to “bring the boys home.” We can’t take a war lasting more than a few months, and that may be prove ultimate undoing.
But I was also referring to the losses by Ukrainians serving in the Red Army, and Ukrainians who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
Of course, not all Ukrainians were saints, they were used as guards in the Nazi Concentration camps, and the UPA killed a lot of Polish civilians as well.
One word, "Malmedy."
German forces (both regular army and SS) routinely tortured, starved, and executed captured Allied soldiers, especially during 1944-45. Some have tried to explain or even justify these murders as the understandable consequence of limited food supplies, inadequate means of transporting captured soldiers to POW camps, or simply the brutality of war.
I agree. Dresden was simply a prop in an anti-Vietnam screed by Vonnegut.
You do realize that American Forces also murdered captured German POWs on a frequent occurrence? I have read of dozen of accounts with the most famous being in the book of "Band of Brothers." It is not really talked about too much. Both sides were wrong, POWs are supposed to be protected from harm. But in a big picture, it was the exception and not the rule for both sides on the western front.
“I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?” - Josef Goebbels 1943.
The lesson. “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”
Screw a whiney sensitive author. Maybe nobody, wanted to talk about ANY of it after he got home. People were slow to chat about things because everyone suffered somehow.
People wanted to think about a house, getting a family running, and enjoying life. Just because nobody wanted to sit around while Vonnegut talked about how being bombed made him feel, doesnt make it morally suspect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.