The Politics Thread

[Montreal Wanderer]

While I understand the points of view offered, we do need to clarify certain things. The Geneva Conventions then in force deal with belligerents. The uniformed military forces of the enemy wedre fair game (even to snipers) and if captured had to be treated in an appropriate way according to certain standards. Civilians are not legitimate targets. Auschwitz and Belsen (not to mention several others) were civilian death camps, not prisoner of war camps, so did not fall under the Geneva Convention per se. What went on in these were crimes against humanity, leading to the coining of the word genocide. German POW camps, while not Butlin's, were not that bad and were inspected by the Red Cross. It is true some prisoners were executed as spies after escaping and dressing as civilians - this was a known risk. POWs were probably very badly treated prior to getting to the camp and no doubt ruthlessly interrogated. The British did the same. There is a house in London where German officers were 'guantanomoed' and Red Cross access blocked until the facility was closed. It was not all 'have a cup of tea'.

The military industrial complex was also fair game in WW2 as bombing targets. I agree with Worthy that precision bombing was neither precise nor effective, so the switch was made to saturation bombing and 1000 bomber raids once the allies had sufficient aircraft and pilots. However, this does not change the fact that Dresden specifically targeted civilians and was intended to sap the will to fight as well as show the Russians certain things (that a) we were helping them and b) our bombers could reach Eastern Europe). I'm not full of moral outrage about it but, on the other hand, it was not our finest hour.

[Worthy4England]

If I may interject here, you seem to say that this was the only strategy considered. It most certainly wasn't, nor was it the best. It was vehemently opposed and criticised at the time of its inception, and continued to be so during and after its execution. The forcefulness of Harris's personality is one starting point, the other is the need to be seen doing something. The sad truth of it is that we wanted to avoid First World War level casualties (both ourselves and the Americans), and put simply we allowed the Russians to bear the brunt of the casualties whilst the bombing campaign was used as a propoganda weapon. It was already accepted that it was both obsolete and a waste of resources in military circles, and a needless extention of war to the civillian population.

You don't need to interject LK - thought you were part of what is an interesting debate

I didn't say (or didn't intend) that dehousing was the only Air strategy. I just pointed to the fact that Dresden was at the tail end of a strategy that had been operational for a number of years. It was criticised at its inception and subsequently. Criticising something doesn't mean the critics have a better response, just that they don't like the thing being proposed. The forcefulness of Harris personality had nothing much to do with its inception, the dehousing paper was presented to Churchill by Lindemann and supported by Portal. Harris was installed as C-in-C after this to execute the strategy.

During late 41 and early 42, the Russian front was far East @ Novgorod in the North and Kharkov in the South, I'm fairly sure that the max range we had at the time was insufficient to head there and back in a Wellington...

You say it was already accepted that it was obsolete and a waste of resources in military circles - happy for you to cite any sources for this. There was plenty of debate as to whether it was obsolete and/or a waste of resources, there was plenty of debate as to the accuracy of the figures contained within the Dehousing paper, there was plenty of opposing figures, it was no more "accepted" as obsolete than it was supported as being the way forwards - notably much of the opposition came from the other two Service arms that were similarly competing for resources.

As to it's obsolesence, when launching ground campaigns in todays conflicts, the first thing we do is bomb the crap out of strategic targets and weaken the infrastructure - the principle is still used today.

[Lord Kangana]

The obsolecence was exactly as your last sentence puts it. Accepted military doctrine has been for centuries that the taking of geographical areas is as nought, the overriding factor is to take on and defeat the enemy forces in the field. As such, the argument has raged as to the use of the word "strategic" when referring to the 42-45 bombing campaign. The Tactical Air Force that operated over Western Europe from June 1944 onwards was effectively fulfilling the aforementioned criteria, as were Bomber Command in the few months surrounding D-Day (something that p*ssed Harris off no end, he saw it as a distraction from razing Germany to the ground). As an aside, German industrial output continued to grow at a rate of knotts during the onslaught.

Don't get me wrong, targets such as the Ploesti Oil Fields and the French Marshalling Yards I find to be fair game (they are of strategic benefit), but the deliberate act of crossing Cities off a list to be destroyed has stirred controversey since its inception, since it appears to suit no military end, it specifically (not accidentaly, the major significant difference) targets civillians, and the consequences are akin to mass murder of defenceless people. The fact that the Germans were doing it is neither here nor there, as we were (purportedly) fighting an unrivalled tyranny.

[Worthy4England]

While I understand the points of view offered, we do need to clarify certain things. The Geneva Conventions then in force deal with belligerents. The uniformed military forces of the enemy wedre fair game (even to snipers) and if captured had to be treated in an appropriate way according to certain standards. Civilians are not legitimate targets. Auschwitz and Belsen (not to mention several others) were civilian death camps, not prisoner of war camps, so did not fall under the Geneva Convention per se. What went on in these were crimes against humanity, leading to the coining of the word genocide. German POW camps, while not Butlin's, were not that bad and were inspected by the Red Cross. It is true some prisoners were executed as spies after escaping and dressing as civilians - this was a known risk. POWs were probably very badly treated prior to getting to the camp and no doubt ruthlessly interrogated. The British did the same. There is a house in London where German officers were 'guantanomoed' and Red Cross access blocked until the facility was closed. It was not all 'have a cup of tea'.

The military industrial complex was also fair game in WW2 as bombing targets. I agree with Worthy that precision bombing was neither precise nor effective, so the switch was made to saturation bombing and 1000 bomber raids once the allies had sufficient aircraft and pilots. However, this does not change the fact that Dresden specifically targeted civilians and was intended to sap the will to fight as well as show the Russians certain things (that a) we were helping them and b) our bombers could reach Eastern Europe). I'm not full of moral outrage about it but, on the other hand, it was not our finest hour.

Sorry Monty, some important distinction here. Dresden did not specifically target civilians no more than the bombing of Cologne had nearly three years earlier. It was viewed by some (not all LK ) as being the last place that the Germans could set up as an administrative centre - they'd moved some stuff to Breslau by that time (- see next para), with the 6 more populous/larger German cities having already been made inoperable over time and in stages. the attack did target amongst other things houses (not specifically civilians although the distinction is somewhat moot), I'm not trying to say we didn't. We also targetted the station, Carola and Augustus bridges, The Law Courts and the Carola Ministry (containing the MoJustice, MoFinance and MoCulture)

On 13th February, Russia were targetting Breslau (around 70 miles? from Dresden). Low estimates have 50,000 troops in Breslau, high estimates have three times that number. On the 15th February, the Luftwaffe started trying to airlift troops out. Their logical fallback position was to Dresden. The civilians had been evacuated unsuccessfully by some accounts, about a month earlier. As crippled as they were, the Luftwaffe still managed an estimated 2,000 sorties.

[Worthy4England]

The obsolecence was exactly as your last sentence puts it. Accepted military doctrine has been for centuries that the taking of geographical areas is as nought, the overriding factor is to take on and defeat the enemy forces in the field. As such, the argument has raged as to the use of the word "strategic" when referring to the 42-45 bombing campaign. The Tactical Air Force that operated over Western Europe from June 1944 onwards was effectively fulfilling the aforementioned criteria, as were Bomber Command in the few months surrounding D-Day (something that p*ssed Harris off no end, he saw it as a distraction from razing Germany to the ground). As an aside, German industrial output continued to grow at a rate of knotts during the onslaught.

Don't get me wrong, targets such as the Ploesti Oil Fields and the French Marshalling Yards I find to be fair game (they are of strategic benefit), but the deliberate act of crossing Cities off a list to be destroyed has stirred controversey since its inception, since it appears to suit no military end, it specifically (not accidentaly, the major significant difference) targets civillians, and the consequences are akin to mass murder of defenceless people. The fact that the Germans were doing it is neither here nor there, as we were (purportedly) fighting an unrivalled tyranny.

I'm not doubting for one minute the controvesy surrounding the policy, and as an aside regarding German industrial output, if I have one factory that can produce "X" and I come and occupy yours that can also produce "X" it's no great surprise if the total output becomes 2X...

We could argue all day about the "strategic value" of adminstrative centres, but I doubt we'd agree.

The strategy did not specifically target civilians. It specifically targeted the properties in which they lived - as I said moot, but important. As to it efficacy, it worked very effectively for the Germans as part of Blitzkrieg and and although better targetted in todays operations as part of Shock and Awe.

[Lord Kangana]

Bu the Germans didn't use it strategically - they never had a strategic heavy bomber force capable of it. In the main they used it tactically, bombing sites of potential resistance close to their main thrust of attack. In essence the word "Blitzkrieg" has become bastardised, particularly by the British. Its actual doctrine is close air support of a strong armoured fist advocated primarily by Guderian et al. There only real deviation from this was the bombing of British cities, as a "revenge" against the bombing of Berlin . But they never used it on such an unimaginable scale as we did, c. 33% of our war effort (men, macines, money, materials) being devoted to it. They very much reaped the whirlwind.

Edit:As an aside, I'm not referring to extra output in occupied countries, I'm reffering to German output. As I recall one of the major players in German armamnets (Krupp springs to mind, but its definitely one of'em) ne're had so much as an incendiary dropped within a mile of them the whole war.

[Worthy4England]

Bu the Germans didn't use it strategically - they never had a strategic heavy bomber force capable of it. In the main they used it tactically, bombing sites of potential resistance close to their main thrust of attack. In essence the word "Blitzkrieg" has become bastardised, particularly by the British. Its actual doctrine is close air support of a strong armoured fist advocated primarily by Guderian et al. There only real deviation from this was the bombing of British cities, as a "revenge" against the bombing of Berlin . But they never used it on such an unimaginable scale as we did, c. 33% of our war effort (men, macines, money, materials) being devoted to it. They very much reaped the whirlwind.

Edit:As an aside, I'm not referring to extra output in occupied countries, I'm reffering to German output. As I recall one of the major players in German armamnets (Krups springs to mind, but its definitely one of'em) ne're had so much as an incendiary dropped within a mile of them the whole war.

Sort of half true. They didn't use the principles from long range particuarly, but the objective (that they used on Weilun) - day one of WWII was not dissimilar, although you could call it tactical. Over 1,000 bombers bombed the crap out of Weilun leaving less than 25% of it standing by many accounts.

[Lord Kangana]

That wiki article is strewn with errors I might add

[Worthy4England]

That wiki article is strewn with errors I might add

I haven't looked at Wiki, so couldn't possibly comment

Edit: establishing "facts" with lots of things in relation to WWII is not a guarantee that they're remotely correct.

[InsaneApache]

Ah the good old 'Dresden was a war crime' thingy. Revionist claptrap. We were at war. Civilians had been and still are a legitimate target. If you go to war, people die. Lots of them.

What was it that Churchill said about adopting Nazi tactics when he became PM? I'm glad we won and beat the bastards. How you win is irrelevent.

"It does not matter who is right but who wins". A quote from Temüjin, I believe.

[TANGODANCER]

" War does not determine who is right - only who is left." ~Bertrand Russell

Says it all really.

[William the White]

Ah the good old 'Dresden was a war crime' thingy. Revionist claptrap. We were at war. Civilians had been and still are a legitimate target. If you go to war, people die. Lots of them.

What was it that Churchill said about adopting Nazi tactics when he became PM? I'm glad we won and beat the bastards. How you win is irrelevent.

"It does not matter who is right but who wins". A quote from Temüjin, I believe.

do crawl back under your stone.

[InsaneApache]

Ah the good old 'Dresden was a war crime' thingy. Revionist claptrap. We were at war. Civilians had been and still are a legitimate target. If you go to war, people die. Lots of them.

What was it that Churchill said about adopting Nazi tactics when he became PM? I'm glad we won and beat the bastards. How you win is irrelevent.

"It does not matter who is right but who wins". A quote from Temüjin, I believe.

do crawl back under your stone.

I see. Nice of you to indulge in an ad hominem attack.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Ah the good old 'Dresden was a war crime' thingy. Revionist claptrap. We were at war. Civilians had been and still are a legitimate target. If you go to war, people die. Lots of them.

What was it that Churchill said about adopting Nazi tactics when he became PM? I'm glad we won and beat the bastards. How you win is irrelevent.

"It does not matter who is right but who wins". A quote from Temüjin, I believe.

I'm not sure where this legal interpretation comes from but let me quote from the Protection of civilian populations against bombing from the air in case of war, a unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, September 30, 1938.

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence

Britain was party to this, though it is true Germany and Genghis Khan were not.

Then there is article 24 of the 1923 Hague Convention:

ARTICLE XXIV

(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.

(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.

(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population.

I believe Germany was a signatory to this.


Dresden may be justified for military or even philosophical reasons as has happened on these pages, but not for legal ones IMHO.

[Prufrock]

That's were I was coming from. I'm 99% sure Germany were a signatory to the Geneva convention because I'm sure I read somewhere, old history book maybe, that Goebbels wanted to use Dresden as an excuse to jack in said convention.

[Worthy4England]

So, in the spirit of the debate...

1) There wasn't intentional bombing of civilian targets, they were targeting the last "Command Centre" that Germany had (Dresden) as it was airlifting military personnel out of Breslau and into Dresden

2) The objectives were identifiable (and identified in Cabinet papers)

3) Civilians were not bombed through negligence - the combined effects of the Germans evacuation both Civilian populations and Military ones from Breslau to Dresden made it unavoidable, as did the "lay-out" of Dresden itself. Strangely enough, Germany didn't put up signposts that could be seen from the air, slearly identifying which were important "military" buildings and which were purely "civilian" - had they have done so, I'm sure we'd have made much more effort - maybe they could have been even more considerate and grouped all the military buildings at one end of the town whilst moving all the civilians to the other...

[TANGODANCER]

Somewhere there's a song. American Civil War ballad by Tom Jones, years back. The words go something like (from memory):

A cannon ball don't pay no mind,
If you're gentle or if you're kind,
Or care about the folks behind,.......

Sort of sums up how much conventions actually mean once the guns start firing.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[Montreal Wanderer]

That's were I was coming from. I'm 99% sure Germany were a signatory to the Geneva convention because I'm sure I read somewhere, old history book maybe, that Goebbels wanted to use Dresden as an excuse to jack in said convention.

Germany pulled out of the League in 1933, so not party to the unanimous resolution. Geneva Convention (fourth) protecting civilians was not signed until after the war (and written because of the war). Goebbels may have claimed allies guilty of war crimes because of Dresden, but it would have been on the basis of what Britain agreed to not what Germany was not a signatory to (though Germany was party to the Hague Convention of 1923).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Sort of sums up how much conventions actually mean once the guns start firing.

Nonetheless, if you ignore the rules specified in said conventions, you are guilty of a war crime. If you win the war, however, you seldom face charges.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Reminds me of the joke that, when Jesus uttered these words, a stone whizzed past his ear and struck the unfortunate condemned woman. Jesus then said: Oh, are you here Mother?

[Verbal]

Purnell resigns from the cabinet, calls for Brown to go.

75 names back Brown to go apparently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... wn-cabinet

He'll do well to survive Friday. In fact, if he lasts past Monday I will be amazed.