Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Impact of the attack

Currently the article reads:

Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.

Can anyone provide a source for these statistics because they vary from the ones I have?

Taylor Page 408 quotes a German police report which gives figures which include:

39 schools, 19 hospitals, 11, churches, 6 chapels, 3 theatres, 50 banks and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 63 administration buildings, + 647 shops, 64 warehouses, 18 cinimas, 5 cultural buildings, 5 consulates, 1 zoo, 1 water works, 1 railway, 19 postal facilities, 4 tram facilities, 19 ships and barges. Military targets were main cammand post, Wehrmacht library, vet testing centre, and many military hospitals. The main military barracks around the old arsenal was missed.

Taylor Page 409: 200 factories damages, 136 seriously 28 medium and 35 light.

Also:

Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,70 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.[1]

Which gives a total of (78+27.7+64.5)/.8 = 212,750 not 222,000 --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed." -SV|t 01:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dragging up an old thread of conversion here - the most recent edit to the page changed "19 churches" to "18 churches". [2] As there's no sources currently cited for either claim, I've not reverted, but I'm still curious Sam Vimes 14:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As no one seems to know what the source is for the numbers given. (Stevertigo told me on my talk page he was just quoting the Wikipedia article). The earliest numbers including the 19 churcese were added 3 December 2002 by Johans. I suspect at lest some are from a German source like Bergander as initally they were put in the article with "."s in pace of ","s and the wording was unusual 6 November 2004 by NetguruDD. I think we should replace them all with the numbers provided in the sources I have given. I have not got around to it, as I was hoping someone else would volunteer --Philip Baird Shearer 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was there...

Although only eight years of age at the time, I remember seeing the firestorm and the convoys of trucks carrying charred bodies and parts after the bombing. I ws located on the outskirs of Dresden in Radebeul Zwei. I have over time wondered how the distruction was as contained as it was given the stupendous size of the fire at its nucleus. I would have thought that the whole area surrounding would have been destroyed, including my family. I have been reading the many contributions on this subject in the 'Pedia' and cannot persuade myself that the 'argument' - because that's what it is - regarding blame, serves any purpose. I just hope that we can learn from the past and try to avoid annihilating each other in the future. SASCHA

Unlikely, as we do not live long enough, and those who come after us have to learn such lessons anew. Yet we can try.

I have family who perished in and survived Dresden. The Allies don't take responsibility for their war crimes, and over punish Germany and Japan for theirs (as well as grossly exaggerating some of them). While I am not necessarily against the war in Iraq, it's the same sort of situation today. They cry about "terrorism" like September 11, don't people think that the Iraqi civillians were terrorised when missiles were blowing up their houses and soldiers were sticking guns in their faces? The West, particularly America but also Britain, have always had this notion that they can do whatever sick atrocitiy they like in the name of war, but their enemies had damn well better not fight back in any way. And when the Germans complained about their brutality and inhumane, cowardly attacks, the British pass it off as "propaganda".

Amen my brother.There were horrible Axis war crimes but also there were also horrible Allies war crimes.Atomic bombs,B52's bombing Japanese cities,internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden,assuring France that she can keep her colonies after the war,returning the 2 million people "victims of Yalya" to the mercy of Stalin who were later executed by the firing squads of NKVD.I am glad that Hitler and Nazis lost the war,I am sorry about the genocide but that doesn't mean we should not look at the war crimes of USA,UK and USSR.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.213.122.18 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Although many of our actions in Iraq may constitute war crimes, I don't think they qualify as terrorism, since the intent is not to cause terror. Abu Ghraib could be the exception. thejabberwock 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think probably the most inexcusable Anglo-American crime outside of WWII - certainly one few people ever hear about - is the blockade of Europe that the British maintained for a full year after the armistice was signed in November 1918. If you look at some of the sacrifices the Germans and Austrians were making on an everyday basis, their meager rations and the desperate attempt to get Ukraine's grain industry up in fullswing, only then can one understand the how thoroughly they must have suffered. They thought the Brits were trying to destroy their healthy gene pool. Funny, I don't see anything about this in the World War I article.--68.81.242.37 14:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Balance

The article tries (despite an apologetic bias) to give more then one point of. I like that. Why is there only one point of view i.e. about Auschwitz? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz

Auschwitz involves the Jews. To cast any doubt whatsoever on their lies is actually a crime in some countries. Auschwitz was a labour camp, nothing more. Gas chambers is absolute nonsense. This article doesn't really pose two points of view. They give the lowest possible death count as the official figure, they outright deny the eye witness accounts of mustangs stafing the survivors, and they spend three times as long arguing against it being a war crime than the reverse (including arguments which are, plainly, wrong). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.50.165 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The bombing of Dresden was a terrible atrocity carried out against civilians. The gassings at Auschwitz were also a terrible atrocity carried out against civilians. The anti-Semitic Nazi apologist who wrote the above comment can do nothing to further support for the victims of Dresden as he (or she - I note that he's too much of a coward to put his name to his twisted beliefs) can not possibly be taken seriously by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of 20th century history. Russell Shaw, London

Disgusting western revisionism

This page is rather shameful, giving the "25,000-35,000" range as the "likely" death count and no "Neutrality of this article is disputed" tag.

35,000 were IDENTIFIED, and after 2.5 thousand tonnes of explosives are dropped on a city, you'll have a hard time identifying most.

Please read the official RAF web site diary [3]. Many very large raids by the RAF "only" killed scores of people. For example the first 1000 bomber raid by the RAF on Cologne 30/31 May 1942, the number reported killed was between 469 and 486, of which 411 were civilians and 58 military casualties. This was despite 12,840 buildings being dammaged by the raid. Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Such an atrocious, cowardly and UNNCESSARY act is obviously a stain on on the Allied victory, but to make sure those they killed aren't remember you diminish the number of dead, pretend it was a "miltiary target" and leave out the details of machine gunning survivors, so that your average person on the street has never even heard of Dresden.

What is your source for so the number of dead? The article covers both the discussion on whether it was a military target or not and it covers the alleged straffing of survivors, with references to the analysis of several historians. If you have other sources which can contribute to the article then please list them and we can discuss it further. Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's supposed to be this terrible, evil thing when people challenge the traditional holocaust story, but you can all pretend only 35,000 perished in this darkest hour of the war and look the other way.

"Only" 35,000 dead is not an incosiderable number. How is it the "darkest hour of the war"? Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The saddest thing is that the moderators of page like this are NOT historians, they know piss all about history and just go with the sources or numbers they like best to reflect their Hollywood propaganda style view of WWII. Very, very sad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.50.165 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The bombing holocaust of Dresden CANNOT BE DENIED.

LOL - I just noticed you have a link down the bottom to an eye witness account of the barbaric machine gunning of civillians, but in the article proper you outright deny it based on the "research" of ONE person! How many moderators are heebs on this site? All of them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.50.165 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly please sign your comments. Use four tildes like this ~~~~. Secondly there are no moderators on this site. Articles are written by consensus. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The consensus of a bunch of Americans who'd like to think that not so many died at Dresden thank to their nation doesn't equal history. It equals denial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.50.165 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is generally considered that the RAF who caused the fire storm not the USAAF. It is undoubtably true that after bombings like that of 29 December 1940, when the Germans using the same tactics (mixed HE and incenduary bombs) almost caused a fire storm in London, that there was an element of revenge in the British strategy. "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

BTW why is it "Disgusting western revisionism" what in you opinion is the West, because most people consider that Germany is just a much part of the West as any other memeber of the EU and for example the analysis of the straffing incident is based on the primary research of German historians. Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ouch: "The memory of Dresden does ensure that the horrors of war are not forgotten, but the fact that these horrors were visited on German civilians by Allied bomber squads could have bred a desire for revenge as easily as pacifism. The pacifism and repentance that define the postwar (or at least post-1968) German discourse about World War II do not derive from the destruction of Dresden, but from a popular acknowledgement of the monumental atrocities committed in Germany's name." - Of course Germany has committed monumental atrocities, and of course every German is highly aware of that, but declaring the bombing of Dresden as an Allied contribution to general awareness of war atrocities is ridiculous, as the author himself obviously is not aware of Allied WWII atrocities! It almost sounds as if Germany should be thankful for Dresden being bombed, keeping Germany's atrocities in mind! This chapter is perfect Allied propaganda, and a neutral discussion like this shouldn't finish with such an arrogant point of view; better take historical sources, not ones from the US military. They tend to being not objective when they're involved. -- Nesehat

on 'The case against the bombing as a war crime', the sixth point While I agree that the memory of the Dresden bombings may have had some long term benefits, this is not at all an argument against it being a war crime. By the same rationale, Joseph Mengele's experiments on concentration camp prisoners would not be a war crime because the medical knowledge gained later saved many lives. I personally do not accept that a crime with postive side effects is no longer a crime. Furthermore, these long term positive side effects were probably not foreseen at the time, and therefore have no bearing on the decision to bomb the city in the first place. - ovvldc 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

It seems to me that Bombing of Dresden would make a more fitting title. I looked quickly through the archives and didn't see anything on this subject, so just thought I'd field some opinions. When discussing a battle or event (Rape of Nanking), we don't normally add "_in_such_and_such_war" to the end of the title. I'm not aware of any other times Dresden has been bombed, so I'm strongly in favour of a rename. Sherurcij 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against it. The redirect is there for anyone who needs it. A more formal name would be the "aerial bombardment of Dresden", but as the other towns have been bombed at other times the convention has developed for the bombing of German towns in World War II to have the name eg Bombing of Cologne in World War II. I do not know if there have been any (political) bombings in Dresden, for example during the unrest in the 1920s, but by defining the title this way there is no chance that someone will wish to add any such events. -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Crime against humanity

Yesterday someone removed the comment that the bombing could be seen as a crime against humanity. As this was used in the Nuremberg trials in order to be able to judge the horrific crime of the holocaust it is obvious that the killing of thousands of civilians by air raids could have been tried as crimes against humanity, too. google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [4], [5] [6] Many of them appear to be Nazi pages, but there are reasonable people making the case, too. 84.59.76.132 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a crime against humanity, because the legal definition of such was not met as it was not: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and another inhumane act committed against any civilian population (from the London Charter). No one on the Axis power's side was ever tried by an international court for crimes against humanity for areial bombardment of enemy occupied territory, because it was within the law of war as defined at the time by all civilised nations. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of civilians get killed, Churchill himselfs writes "simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts", but it is neither murder nor extermination nor an inhumane act committed against any civilian population? Only by winners' standards I would say. If people like you do not stand to the fact that the allied forces resorted to inhuman measures in order to stop inhuman acts you support the cause of sick people like the one above who resorts to denying the holocaust. 84.59.83.159 13:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The point was that thousands of Allied civilians were killed in an equally "inhumane act committed against [a] civilian population", yet no Axis leader was tried for such alleged crime. Because it was not then considered a crime, but just an ugly part of war. We must be careful to not allow modern standards to color our view of how earlier acts were judged. Rmhermen 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition of crime against humanity was made and interpreted by the allies after the war in order to try the Nazis for certain crimes in connection with the holocaust. It is rather obvious that the aerial bombardments of both sides were not tried because both sides would have been found guilty and governments do not like to imprison themselves. 84.59.83.159 14:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You argument does not hold up. The Allies were quite capable of being hypocritical in this area. For example Karl Dönitz found guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare, something the U.S. Navy had practiced in the Pacific against the Japanese. There were treaty obligations in the area (the cruiser rules), but as Javier Guisández Gómez pointed out in the International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998):

In examining these events [aerial area bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.[7]

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As was already explained, the definition of crime against humanity was made and interpreted by the allies after the war and would have been easily applied on the atrocious murder of tens of thousands of civilians. I furthermore see no reason to suppress the information that there has never been a trial. 84.59.88.9 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You argue that area bombardment was not a crime against humanity because the Allies did not define it as such, then it was was not a CAH. Calling it a CAH is just something you think "would have been easily applied on the atrocious murder of tens of thousands of civilians" what is your source that it was murder to kill enemy civilians in enemy held territory during World War II? Given that the Allies did try Dönitz for the war crime of ordering unrestricted submarine warfare (as it was against the customs of sea warfare and specific treaty obligations), if area bombardment was a war crime than why did the Allies not try any member of the Axis armed forces for the crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see it as murder to kill people in order to spread terror. Churchill himself said it was done in order to spread terror. Whatever your or my opinion is, the opinion that it could have been defined as a crime against humanity but just was not is held by many. And no trial has ever decided on it, that is not controversial. So stop deleting facts.

Furthermore, your Dönitz argumentation is ridiculous. You are effectively saying: "The Allies did use victors' justice, so they could have used it to try the Nazi bombings without trying their owns, too." Even if one agrees with this - which I do not as for the bombings many more people would have been to be tried than for the submarine warfare and it would have caused an uproar - you cannot prove by the fact that one injustice was done that another injustice cannot be an injustice because otherwise it would have been done. Get-back-world-respect 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For members of an armed forces to kill the enemy within the law of war is not murder. Spreading terror amoung the enemy within the laws of war is a legitimate tactic in warfare. It is ofen more efficient and effective than killing the enemy. Please supply a reputable source with says that aerial bombardment in World War II was a crime against humanity. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Killing civilians is not "the enemy". Killing tens of thousands atrociously in fire storms does not have to be seen as "within the law". Spreading terror among civilians is not a legitimate tactic. Some sources are cited above, there are thousands of others available online. Stop wasting our time. Get-back-world-respect 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop arguing morally when you mean the British warfare only. Enact a law that forbids aerial bombing. And when you achieved that, write into the article: "At that time aerial bombing was not illegal yet." Jesusfreund 10:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a law that explicitely defined warfare against civilians as a crime against humanity at that time and still is in use up to now. Source: [8]

the La Haague landwar treaty, which was signed by France, GB, Germany, USA, Belgium and Russia on October 18, 1907.

It was valid in WWII already as international accepted law even without ratification by all states.

Germany accepted it 1929 again by signing the Geneva convention which was a concretion of the La Haague treaty.

All states who signed it were obligated to give their armys norms of behavior according to the basic principles ligned out in the treaty.

These basic principles were defined (in German, sorry I can't translate) as

"wie sie sich ergeben aus den unter gesitteten Völkern [civilized peoples] feststehenden Gebräuchen, aus den Gesetzen der Menschlichkeit [laws of humanity] und aus den Forderungen des öffentlichen Gewissens" [demands of public conscience] (Präambel).

Article 23 basically forbid targeting and killing of civilians which were clearly distingueshable from combattants.

But the treaty did not oblige states who participated in a war to punish crimes against humanity according to these principles and did not establish an international court to apply these laws after a war. Only nowadays there is at least a slight chance this might change because of the International court for crimes against humanity in Straßbourg (is it? I believe so). Jesusfreund 11:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia article which covers this is the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) which links to an external document IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land . There are more details on this subject Area bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law (that particular section was in this article but was moved because of size constraints in this article). The section you are referring to is in the preamble:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

As all sides targeted enemy civilian property in enemy held territory during World War II one can conclude that "civilized peoples" considered it to be within the "laws of nations". The British for example were careful to state that they were bombing houses not the people in them. I suspect that the subtlety of this distinction was lost on those inhabiting the houses, but the British government thought that they were acting within international law of the time as did every other belligerent nation which cared about such things as international law.People such as Bishop George Bell condemned the strategic bombing as morally repugnant, but I have not read anything to say that they thought that nations which participated in such actions were breaking international law.

As for Article 23 there is nothing in that which makes aerial bombardment illegal. The clause "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" as aimed at dum-dum bullets and the like. Incendiary and high explosives were and are lawful weapons. The clause "To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;" is covered by the fact that all the parties to the war considered the destruction of enemy civilian property to be "imperatively demanded by the necessities of war", and as Javier Guisández Gómez pointed out in the International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998):"there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property".[9]

The problems with interpreting the Hague convention on 1907 is that as they had not been updated, when WWII started. Treaty obligations which had been up to date in 1907 could not cover or anticipate the development of the strategic bomber that would place civilian property and populations far from the front line in range of an enemy who thanks to industrialisation and concept of total war would be subject to attack. Most international regulations covered issues of what were the obligations of belligerents to enemy civilians in occupied territories not while they were in enemy controlled territory. That enemy civilian's were a legitimate target was not a new concept, the use of blockades targeted at food supplies and other economic assets of an enemy has always been part of warfare. What was new was the ability to target civilian property hundreds of kilometres behind enemy lines, which by 1945 would include strategic bombers flying at a hight of around 10 km, armed with nuclear weapons. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for translating the preamble for us, Philip, I was too lazy to look up the english article myself... ;-) As far as I understand the problem by now - I'm not a lawyer - there was already a law of nations which focussed on protection of enemy civilians not only in occupied zones. The preamble seems to anticipate future developments of warfare which were not forseeable then - at the end of WWI I think aerial bombing behind the frontlines came in sight. For such cases it demanded the basic obligation to respect the principles of the law of nations even if these nations did not agree on its details and application yet.

In practice, the criteria "laws of humanity" and "dictates of public conscience" were

not defined precisely enough,
not updated and applied to new weapons and tactics of warfare,
and the general obligation to protect enemy civilian inhabitants in carrying out war to their countries was more-or-less ignored:

first and totally by Germany, then also partially by the allies. I do not think if asked public conscience would have called aerial bombing a crime which broke the law of nations, especially when this law seemed to be defined by "usage" of these nations itself. So I have to admit that the Hague treaty is probably not appliable to aerial bombing in WWII.

But I do think nevertheless with these international treaties there already existed a sufficient level of conscience among those nations that called themselves "civilized" about what is right or wrong in war. If they defined civilized warfare as protection of civilians, you might draw the opposite conclusion: They defined themselves as inhumane criminals and stepped out of civilization when targeting civilian populations in cities of the enemy.

This was probably exactly the point that Bishop Bell hit in his speech on February 9, 1944, in the House of Lords. Again sorry, I can only quote him in my own translation, hoping to come close to the english original:

I demand to hold the government accountable for its policy of bombardement of enemy cities in its actual dimension, especially refering to civilians, which are non-combattants, and of nonmilitary and nonindustrial targets. I am aware attacking centers of the arms industry and military transportation systems means that death of civilians is inevitable... But there must be an equivalence of the means used and the goals to be reached by them. To annihilate a whole city only because there are military and industrial facilities in some of its areas denies this equivalence.

I think this clearly refers to the basic principles of the Hague treaties (with the church criteria of a just war in his mind also). Then Bell continued with what you might call moral objection on the grounds of public conscience:

The Allied stand for something greater than power. The main inscription of our flag is "Justice" (law). It is of most importance for us, as we are the liberators of Europe together with our allies, to use our power under the control of justice (law). I am refering to the bombardement of enemy cities, to carpet bombing!

Yet, since public opinion about warfare was distorted by collective hatred everywhere in 1945, this voice of conscience was lonely and unheard at that time. No reason to overtake the wartime measures of majority to define right from wrong. Jesusfreund 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is just that crimes against humanity were defined ad hoc by the Allies in Nuremberg. They chose not to try aeria bombing. So no trial ever decided about the question. There are people who see it as a crime against humanity. Nothing else needs to be noted. Get-back-world-respect 02:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesusfreund many people of the civilized nations tired to update the laws on aerial warfare after World War I as the Area bombardment article documents in detail. But for a number of reasons these treaties were never came into force, so during World War II there was a legal vacume into which, as the war progressed, brutal expediancy and base human emotions such as revenge gained assendency over the high moral position taken by many people between the two world wars. If in 1935 at the height of apeasment one has suggested to the British people that by 1945 they would have been engaged in a toatal war in which a large part of their national output would be used to reign death down on German cities killing tens of thousands of children, the majority would have bene appauld. By the winter of 44/45 the attitudes were very different. It is for this reason that the United Nations and the gradual building of a web of International obligations in this area has since the End of World War II has been such a benefit to mankind.

My concern with the use of terms like "war crime" and "crimes against humanity", is two fold:

The first is that if Dresden was not a war crime then placing it in this article merely debases the article and Wikipedia in the eyes of the majority of informed people. This is not a problem restricted to this article but is a problem of credibility which Wikipedia has in general. For example I read in this article "Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls: Dresden" "NOTE: The most commonly cited death toll [for Dresden] is 135,000, but not among scholars." The very next line says "Wikipedia: 135,000 ("Aerial bombing of cities" 5/04)". This has long since been fixed but if I did no know Wikipedia and what is was that would make me leery of using it as a source.
If the terms are used too widely and often, then the terms get debased and loose their ability to affect people. There is the danger whether accidentally or by design that the loose use of these terms, benefits Holocaust deniers as the article on Historical revisionism (political) makes clear in the section Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists.

Some people think the world is flat and supported by turtles all the way down. That does not mean every Wikipedia article on orbital mechanics or satellites needs to mention this or include a link to the flat earth society. To be included on a Wikipedia page something has to be relevant, If you can find reliable sources like the Javier Guisández Gómez published in International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998) Which contradicts that point of view and says that area bombing in cases like Dresden was a crime against humanity, then all well and good. If you could come up with a reliable relevent source which says that no one who participated in, or planned, an act of aerial bombardment in World War II was ever tried in a court of law, then it should go into the "Area bombardment" and "Terror bombing" articles, and possibly into this one if it mentions Dresden as an example. At the moment a controversial statement is being made with no reliable verifiable source and as the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page says:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having forgotten to log in before. Fixed the signature. I already gave several sources for the claim that the bombing was a crime against humanity. As you know very well and as I have repeatedly explained, the definition of crimes against humanity was made ad hoc by the Allies after WWII and it can be interpreted to include aerial bombardment of civilians. Whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime or not is an important part of how it is reflected and it needs to be noted. Get-back-world-respect 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Two of articles you presented as sources are flawed only the Simon Jenkins one is usable and it is only the opinion of one journalist not someone who specialize in international law:

APOCALYPSE AT DRESDEN Esquire 1963. When Richard Crossman wrote his article in 1963 he probably based his article on the writings of the discredited self taught "historian" David Irving book which came out earlier that year "The Destruction of Dresden". Much of what he has to say we now know was wrong, for example: Whether measured in terms of material destruction or by loss of human life, this "conventional" air raid was far more devastating than either of the two atomic raids against Japan that were to follow it a few months later. Crossman was a British politician most famous for the Crossman Diarys, he was not a professional historian or an expert on International law. As he died before Irving was exposed as a Holocaust denier it is not possible to know what he would have said if he had had all the facts.
Preventing and Prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity in the 21st Century by Richard J. Goldstone | Monday, May 02, 2005. The preamble to the article describes him as "former Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa". The article is interesting but he does not describe areal bombardment as a Crime Against Humanity what he says is "In the old fashioned days of World War I, armies fought armies. During that war, the number of civilian deaths and injuries was about one-tenth of that suffered by soldiers. In World War II, the ratio had risen to 1:1. That should come as no surprise when one thinks of the blitz bombing of London and Coventry and the reprisals in the fire bombing of Berlin and Dresden." Further he wrong in dogmatically stating "Winston Churchill decided that the war criminals should face summary execution by firing squad. It was the United States that insisted on a trial, fair by the standards of the times." At the Tehran Conference When Stalin proposed executing 50,000-100,000 Germans staff officers, Roosevelt who not realizing that Stalin was serious joked that perhapses 49,000 would do. It was Churchill who denounced the idea to "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country. He said that war criminals must pay for their crimes and individuals who had committed barbarous acts, and in accordance with the Moscow Document, which he himself had written, they must stand trial at the places where the crimes were committed. He objected vigorously, however, to executions for political purposes." (Source Tehran Conference: Tripartite Dinner MeetingNovember 29, 1943 Soviet Embassy, 8:30 PM)
Dresden: Time to Say We're Sorry by Simon Jenkins, September 1995. This one is usable and I have included it as a reference in the article. But it is only the opinion of one journalist not someone who specialize in international law and it seems to be specific to Dresden not a general comdennation of all areal bombardment.

The further issue that you keep presenting that bombardment from the air was a crime against humanity is not born out by any legal challenge (that I know of) that it should be so categorized in any war let alone World War II. You have not presented one example of legal opinion which states that a case against the perpetrators of such an action would probably succeed in an international court finding someone guilty of such a crime. If you did then we could look at the case and see if it involves new treaty commitments or if it is based on law as would have existed during World War II.

If the Allies had thought it a crime why did they not prosecute any of the Axis forces? The could have done this quite easily because in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals it was stated: "from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity" Therefor area bombardment could quite easily have been defined as a crime against humanity when committed in execution of an aggressive war if the Allies had considered it to be a crime against humanity. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No one wrote there was a legal case made for the bombings to be crimes against humanity. To the contrary, it was written there never was a trial. Who would have been interested in a trial if both sides were to be found guilty? As to your critique of the sources, I chose them randomly out of the thousands you find with google, and I do not care if the authors made misjudgments in other areas. They are only to illustrate that the opinion is widely held. Nothing else needs to be noted. Get-back-world-respect 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My argument above was that, IF the Allies had thought that aerial bombardment was a war crime, they could have tried members of the Axis Powers for committing a war crime with aerial bombardment by linking it to a war of aggression without needing to put Allied personnel on trial. To answere your question: One can not be sure that anyone would have been found guilty of a crime if put on trial, it they had, I for one and I presume you for two would have been interested in the outcome as this conversation would not be necessary. War crimes were committed on both sides in World War II and people on both sides were tried and found guilty of war crimes.

You write above "No one wrote there was a legal case made for the bombings to be crimes against humanity", yet you wrote in the article "A judgment on the case has never been made." What is "the case" you are referring to which has never been judged? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't play stupid. There are people who say now that it was a crime but at the time no one started a trial. Easy thing, nothing to argue about. I already explained why I think the Allies did not want to make a trial, and it is irrelevant anyway. If you want to exchange case with question go ahead. Get-back-world-respect 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of any trial for any aerial bombardment in any war which has accused the defendant(s) of crimes against humanity, or war crimes? Can you find one treaty which makes such an action a "crime against humanity? If not what makes you think that such a crime exists?
Are you saying that the sentence can be re-written: "A judgment on the question has never been made."? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of any trial, and this reflected by the text. You know the definition of crime against humanity as used for the Nuremberg Trial. It can be argued that area bombing putting up with the death and misery of hundreds of thousands is a crime against humanity by that defintion. You may disagree, but you cannot deny that there are people who hold the opinion that it was a crime against humanity. If you say that there was no trial you also say that there was no judgment. As judgment is not necessarily a legal term I regard it as less accurate. Get-back-world-respect 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you reply:

"It can be argued that area bombing putting up with the death and misery of hundreds of thousands is a crime against humanity by that defintion." Who's argument who's definition?
"If you say that there was no trial you also say that there was no judgment." who do you mean when you write "you" do you mean "one"?
"As judgment is not necessarily a legal term I regard it as less accurate." But is is you who added to the article "A judgment on the on the case has never been made." You went on to write on this page "If you want to exchange case with question go ahead". If I do that I end up with "A judgment on the question has never been made." Are you now saying that judgement should not be used? If so are you suggesting that the sentence can be re-written "An answer to the question has never been made."? If so it does not make sense to me. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1: It can be argued that by the Nürnberg War Crime Tribunal definition area bombing was a war crime.

2: Yes.

3: New version in article "There has been no trial on the case." I am pretty sure you would have been clever enough to understand what I meant. Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Interchanging "question" for "case" as you said was possible still does not make sense to me "There has been no trial on the question." So what is the case? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd that people on this talk page want to decide in a trial like manner if bombings have been war crimes or not. There was no case for war crimes and there was no trial. The legal framework was fuzzy at the time and still in development. That's the fact. Everything else is personal opinion. The discussion if there should have been a trial is a personal question. Some people consider killing hundreds of thousands of civilians amoral and a crime, others think it's acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians during a war. StephanSchmidt 10:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"vicarious act of retaliation"

"As acts of retaliation, they were at best vicarious (even if entire nations are seen as morally competent agents)." Can someone explain this sentence? My understanding was that a vicarious act was one undertaken on behalf of another? I don't understand how this applies here? Cheers, User: Badgerpatrol 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Passing By

This article has greatly improved since the time of my last visit several months ago. There seems to be a more effective balance between the two sides and I'm especailly pleased with the plethora of footnotes. Kudos to all who participated in the effort.--68.81.242.37 09:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What military straregies helped the allies win WW2

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II INSTEAD.

the same one that helped them lose Vietnam. Carelessly plastering the countryside with a sh!tload of bombs.--68.81.242.37 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives