Most heinous British war crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bloody Sunday wasnt a war crime, it was merely self defence.
d0d4622c141683358246907179_700wa_0.gif
 
If not, it was certainly close to one.

It was fueled by retribution rather than strategy. Which is a pretty dark way to kill 20 thousand civilians.

It wasn't, though. The RAF had spent the last two years conducting what were essentially area bombing raids (which were all that Bomber Command as a whole could realistically achieve, though individual squadrons were capable of precision attacks) on German cities, killing more people before (at Hamburg in 1943) and almost as many after (the Pforzheim raid of February 1945) in attacks that receive nowhere near the criticism that Dresden did. As Harris said (from the Wikipedia page on the raid):

"I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."
 
Not officially, but the victors are very rarely accused of such things I'm afraid.

Dresden had very little strategic value, yet was decimated. I think it was a war crime. Indeed, it was the sole unjustified action from British forces I can think of in that war - everything else at least had a logic behind it when set against what it was trying to achieve or at the very least a just cause for retaliation. Or in the case of British rape of German civilians in 1944/45, it's a very unfortunate thing that happens with every invading army to a new territory, so it isn't unique to Britain.

There were many of these types of bombings, not just Dresden... Unfortunately it had to be done though
 
There were many of these types of bombings, not just Dresden... Unfortunately it had to be done though

Nothing quite like Dresden. Most other bombings had a tactical reason, or were lesser in intensity. Dresden just seemed to be done out of pure spite, and the issue with it was that it didn't have to be done, as it was late in the war and of notably minor tactical value.
 
They don't call it the Butchers apron for nothing, Take your pick. Over the last few hundred years we've invaded or been at war with over 200 countries or around 90% of the world. No wonder everyone thinks we're bad bells.

chartoftheday_3441_countries_never_invaded_by_britain_n.jpg
 
It wasn't, though. The RAF had spent the last two years conducting what were essentially area bombing raids (which were all that Bomber Command as a whole could realistically achieve, though individual squadrons were capable of precision attacks) on German cities, killing more people before (at Hamburg in 1943) and almost as many after (the Pforzheim raid of February 1945) in attacks that receive nowhere near the criticism that Dresden did. As Harris said (from the Wikipedia page on the raid):

I can see that side of the argument.

However the scale of what happened in Dresden was not targeting the munitions plants - it was simply levelling the city. At that point in the war Bletchley had broken nearly all the German ciphers. British/American intelligence could absolutely have targeted militarily significant targets without the widespread destruction.

They did not. Whether that's a war crime is an issue of semantics and cultural values more than anything. Obviously it is not legally a war crime, but that's almost certainly because of the side that won.


That said, what happened in South Africa around 1900 was definitely a war crime and is my contribution as the most 'heinous' war crime. (How does one quantify 'heinosity' in regards to indiscriminately and systematically murdering thousands of people?)
 
It wasn't, though. The RAF had spent the last two years conducting what were essentially area bombing raids (which were all that Bomber Command as a whole could realistically achieve, though individual squadrons were capable of precision attacks) on German cities, killing more people before (at Hamburg in 1943) and almost as many after (the Pforzheim raid of February 1945) in attacks that receive nowhere near the criticism that Dresden did. As Harris said (from the Wikipedia page on the raid):

Sorry, but the words of Arthur Harris on this come from an inherent position of bias. Dresden hadn't been touched prior to that raid because it was not of particular strategic value - it was terror bombing, pure and simple, and acknowledged as such by Churchill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top