•
•

Honest questiom (self.ShitWehraboosSay)

Epicsharkduck が 投稿

Why wasn't Dresden a war crime? I'm not brigading from another sub to say that it isn't, I'm just genuinely curious

全 6 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]yousaydumbthings 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because why would it be? The Nazis were using the Marshaling Yards in Dresden to set up the Ardennes Offensive which was a pretty brutal battle. So we bombed out the railroads and industry supporting that battle. It's not the allies fault that the Nazis put that industry in the middle of big cities.

War Crimes have specific definitions in the geneva conventions and other conventions. So Pearl Harbor was a war crime but Dresden was not.

[–]Epicsharkduck[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry, I'm very uninformed on the subject

[–]captainthirsty 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There was no international agreement that comprehensively covered how the laws of war such as the Hague Convention of 1907 and the First Geneva Convention would apply to the use of Air Power in war. The use of air power in strategic bombing campagins and in deploying the atomic bombs was very new, and as such there weren't comprehensive laws against their use.

A good analogy would be the use of gas weapons in WW1. Since it was the first instance of widespread use in combat, it would be impossible to ban its use before deployment. After the war, however, people had seen it's effect and were able to draft and ratify international laws and conventions regulating its use.

TL DR; you can't have laws regulating things and activities before they exist.

[–]Crag_r1 Train loading = 5 burning Panthers [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not quite. It was established that the Hague convention would cover bombardment through what ever means. Dresden just didn't break it.

The second part isn't quite accurate either. The Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention of 1907 both make mention of any use of poison or poisoned weapons in warfare. The Declaration even went into a bit of depth about the use of shells and asphyxiating gas.

The notion of chemical warfare in the modern sense had been tossed about since the the Crimean war and American civil war.

[–]Crag_r1 Train loading = 5 burning Panthers [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So first off; its important to separate what seems morally wrong or maybe questionable; and war crime. The latter needs to break international law to be relevant. The term tends to get used on the intent to just say something is naughty, this is not the case. People (or political parties) didn't get ambiguously charged with war crimes, they broke a specific international law or convention.

Contrary to what you might see on the internet. Bombing civilians (with provision) didn't actually break international law. The specific laws you would be looking at is the Hague Convention, 1907; Article 25, 26 and 27. Now this governs the laws on land and made before the time of air-power, but it covers the action of stragic bombing enough for the discussion. Specifically; http://www.opbw.org/int_inst/sec_docs/1907HC-TEXT.pdf It was only during the Korean war that we see today's restrictions but in place.

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

So breaking them down

  • Article 25: Dresden was defended, from interceptors, AA, radar, fire-control systems, search lights and a sizeable garrison and military units in transit.

  • Article 26: Germany radar stations, spotters, aircraft and radio traffic made it apparent there was an incoming air attack. This was well known to the allies. In addition, air raid sirens informed civilians of the incoming attack.

  • Article 27: The closest we get to been sketchy, but not quite breaking anything. Dresden had over 100 war production factories, had one of the main means of transport of goods via road or rail to the western front from German heartland. In particular it was set to be a fall back capital if Berlin fell (with all the command and control that came with that). Plus also had everything from chemical weapons storage to military garrisons present. All within the target areas.

Long Story short, a war crime breaks international law. Dresden didn't break international law.