Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. Proponents of this position argue that the devastation from firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes a prima facie case. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz. Proponents disagree that Dresden had a military garrison and claim that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre, and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.
Alaricus
Churchill was just as bad as Hitler. But given that he still is seen as the greatest Briton of all-time, it will take a while before that record is corrected.
The subject of this thread is a pretty irrelevant part of that story, although he did started bombing civilian targets before Hitler did, but the whole notion of 'civilized war' is kinda dubious.
The subject of this thread is a pretty irrelevant part of that story, although he did started bombing civilian targets before Hitler did, but the whole notion of 'civilized war' is kinda dubious.
There is no clean side in any war , specially a winning side and when the scale of war that large . But as Churchill and Stalin are at winning side they can dictate the history ...may those who died in the war soldier of civilian find peace in after life .
U might not know about Bengali and Madras famine , Churchill took almost all grain from India for war ,which results in one of the biggest famine in Indian history ,around 1 crore+ ppl died in that .
It's not strange at all ,he hate India (don't know about other colonies) When some administrator try to bring this serious situation on light ,he simply tell taht the famine is "their fault" and those beastly ppl deserve to die ...meanwhile relative of same victim(their brother/father) fighting british war in europe ,in south-east asia ...and this is well established fact that without large no of India soldier Britishers allied force could never win that war .
War crime of Churchill overlooked cause as I stated earlier ,he is in winning side . May divinity punish him for all those inhuman work .
U might not know about Bengali and Madras famine , Churchill took almost all grain from India for war ,which results in one of the biggest famine in Indian history ,around 1 crore+ ppl died in that .
It's not strange at all ,he hate India (don't know about other colonies) When some administrator try to bring this serious situation on light ,he simply tell taht the famine is "their fault" and those beastly ppl deserve to die ...meanwhile relative of same victim(their brother/father) fighting british war in europe ,in south-east asia ...and this is well established fact that without large no of India soldier Britishers allied force could never win that war .
War crime of Churchill overlooked cause as I stated earlier ,he is in winning side . May divinity punish him for all those inhuman work .
If you want to learn more about Churchill, this is worth reading:
The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career - BBC News
The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career - BBC News
This post has been deleted
what does it say about u who left ur "saint" country and moved to the USA? lol
What a hypocrite
What a hypocrite
Look we tend to look of these things through the microscope of modern day. Dresden was a tragedy, but occurred in the most brutalised of wars. Dresden was one of the centres of war in Germany at the time, i have no doubt the attacked was justified in order to cripple Nazi Germany. The loss of life was not the objective nor did Churchill fully know the loss of life that would of been cause.
It was a different time, we can't look at the past through modern standards or you'll look foolish in 50 years.
It was a different time, we can't look at the past through modern standards or you'll look foolish in 50 years.
It's not just Dresden, pal, Churchill had a whole history of using unnecessary violence to achieve its ends. Not to mention he was a diehard racist fanatic who justified the superiority of the white race to do his crimes against non-whites.
It's funny how colorful Westerners tend to be to defend their idols. If they somehow did something reproachable, we need to look at the "historical context" to comprehend their motives.
It's funny how colorful Westerners tend to be to defend their idols. If they somehow did something reproachable, we need to look at the "historical context" to comprehend their motives.
I think a bit of context is appropriate about how political leadership is conducted not only in the UK but in the international domain and during times of war as I think we're seeing quite a few posts here that are undoubtedly morally righteous but operating from a basis of flawed logic.
I think the first thing to do is to make two important distinctions. Firstly, whether the act of the Dresden bombings were a war crime and whether Churchill is a war criminal is two separate questions because the idea that Churchill solely was behind the bombings is quite frankly ridiculous. In the UK there is a cabinet and during the war there was a war cabinet of numerous people (secretaries of state, civil servants, political advisors, liaison officers, senior officers in the armed forces etc) that all had a major influence in military decision-making as a war is far too complex for one man to make all the decisions. We all like to attach ourselves to the idea of a heroic leader taking all the strain but the reality is that there was and is an entire operation dedicated to these things. Further, it was an Allied bombing, not solely a British bombing - so I don't see how Churchill can be solely responsible for the decisions taken by an Allied command and half carried out by the US Air Force. The face that the OP has entitled this thread in this war, ignored the other players and also failed to mention other events during WW2 commonly categorised in the same way (Hiroshima for example) makes me wonder if his sole intention is to be controversial or to lugubriously promote his own prejudice views :shrug:
So back to the first of the two questions, were the bombings a war crime. My answer to this is that I don't think we can ever completely know because there is always a degree of obscurity covering the bombings. By this stage in the war attacks upon civilians, either by the air, or by Axis forces on the continent had despicably become the norm (lets not forget the Holocaust here); so these bombings, though abysmal, were not out of place during this stage of WW2. It's horrific to even think about how that was the case and I'd like to think all of the measures society has in place now could mean that even in the light of terrorism we can never resort to the abyss of these events. However, it would remove it from being a war crime purely by the fact in the comparison to the war crimes that were unequivocally committed. The next argument is the view that it qualifies as a war crime because the loss exceeded the gain and I find this argument to be ridiculous. There were clear targets for industrial destruction and communicative damage. If they were not hit then enquiries as to why need to occur. If it is poor accuracy or execution of the strategy then those doing it would need to be tried, if there was a clear strategy to target civilians then it clearly is a war crime.
In short, I think investigation would be required as to the targets, motives and a recount of how it progressed into the end result that we all know. Only from that could we ascertain whether it was a war crime. If so, then from said investigation we you could then further investigation to ascertain exactly who had what effect and influence on proceedings. To denounce Churchill at the start as a war criminal though is irrational and insane. It is HIGHLY important to consider the context of events and we should never look at the past with modern day values. In this sense I agree completely with @zebez20 , it was brutal but in a brutal war and I don't think denouncing Churchill as a war criminal is remotely logical right now. I think the OP makes a tenuous link between the PM and the bombings, like Churchill had sole authority to cause them
and Monfed seems to provide plenty of priggish criticism in direction of the West, before migrating there as @Punky rightly states!
I think the first thing to do is to make two important distinctions. Firstly, whether the act of the Dresden bombings were a war crime and whether Churchill is a war criminal is two separate questions because the idea that Churchill solely was behind the bombings is quite frankly ridiculous. In the UK there is a cabinet and during the war there was a war cabinet of numerous people (secretaries of state, civil servants, political advisors, liaison officers, senior officers in the armed forces etc) that all had a major influence in military decision-making as a war is far too complex for one man to make all the decisions. We all like to attach ourselves to the idea of a heroic leader taking all the strain but the reality is that there was and is an entire operation dedicated to these things. Further, it was an Allied bombing, not solely a British bombing - so I don't see how Churchill can be solely responsible for the decisions taken by an Allied command and half carried out by the US Air Force. The face that the OP has entitled this thread in this war, ignored the other players and also failed to mention other events during WW2 commonly categorised in the same way (Hiroshima for example) makes me wonder if his sole intention is to be controversial or to lugubriously promote his own prejudice views :shrug:
So back to the first of the two questions, were the bombings a war crime. My answer to this is that I don't think we can ever completely know because there is always a degree of obscurity covering the bombings. By this stage in the war attacks upon civilians, either by the air, or by Axis forces on the continent had despicably become the norm (lets not forget the Holocaust here); so these bombings, though abysmal, were not out of place during this stage of WW2. It's horrific to even think about how that was the case and I'd like to think all of the measures society has in place now could mean that even in the light of terrorism we can never resort to the abyss of these events. However, it would remove it from being a war crime purely by the fact in the comparison to the war crimes that were unequivocally committed. The next argument is the view that it qualifies as a war crime because the loss exceeded the gain and I find this argument to be ridiculous. There were clear targets for industrial destruction and communicative damage. If they were not hit then enquiries as to why need to occur. If it is poor accuracy or execution of the strategy then those doing it would need to be tried, if there was a clear strategy to target civilians then it clearly is a war crime.
In short, I think investigation would be required as to the targets, motives and a recount of how it progressed into the end result that we all know. Only from that could we ascertain whether it was a war crime. If so, then from said investigation we you could then further investigation to ascertain exactly who had what effect and influence on proceedings. To denounce Churchill at the start as a war criminal though is irrational and insane. It is HIGHLY important to consider the context of events and we should never look at the past with modern day values. In this sense I agree completely with @zebez20 , it was brutal but in a brutal war and I don't think denouncing Churchill as a war criminal is remotely logical right now. I think the OP makes a tenuous link between the PM and the bombings, like Churchill had sole authority to cause them
its bc Monfed is Hypocrite and fake.
notice he "forgot" to mention india war crimes in kashmir...or maybe he doesnt know
anything is possible with him :superlol:
notice he "forgot" to mention india war crimes in kashmir...or maybe he doesnt know
anything is possible with him :superlol:
Ignorant Brits who have been brainwashed by the anglocentric media need to publish the Jalianwala Bagh massacre, the single worst massacre by Brit plunderers ordered by Churchill and executed by his british thugs in India.
Of course he was a criminal pig. A white supremacist who killed millions of brown people, a bloodthirsty man who didn't hesitate in bombing German cities even when the war was pretty much won. A truly disgusting character in every way.
It's a pretty clear sign of Western bias that he's regarded as some sort of saint. I'd be baffled if only I weren't used to see so much Western hypocrisy.
It's a pretty clear sign of Western bias that he's regarded as some sort of saint. I'd be baffled if only I weren't used to see so much Western hypocrisy.
I can only speak for myself and what I have heard so this may not be factual, and let's be honest, it doesn't take much to build a historical figure up as a hero or break him down as a war criminal. All it takes is hearsay, random googled articles and terrible Hollywood flicks.
He's considered a hero and that's how he has always been projected to us. How people are projected becomes who they are in the eyes of society, and more often than not, there is much more to the story than meets the eye.
His radical acts are rarely spoken about today (not going to go into it, plenty spoken about it here already), and by today's definition the guy was pretty much a bigot at best. By today's definition, yes he would most likely be considered a war criminal. Not sure about yesterday's definition.
Not going to go into the good/bad guy debate, but as Chris Kuerten said, from what I've heard of his 'achievements', he does have a at least a few things in common with Hitler. Moreover, his stated opinions on race and 'the mentally degenerate' would be considered appalling today.
As an off-topic aside, I do, however find it interesting that both he and Gandhi are generally considered hero's. Churchill I understand disliked him and considered him somewhat of a threat to British rule. Saying he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."
Sounds like a solid guy.
He's considered a hero and that's how he has always been projected to us. How people are projected becomes who they are in the eyes of society, and more often than not, there is much more to the story than meets the eye.
His radical acts are rarely spoken about today (not going to go into it, plenty spoken about it here already), and by today's definition the guy was pretty much a bigot at best. By today's definition, yes he would most likely be considered a war criminal. Not sure about yesterday's definition.
Not going to go into the good/bad guy debate, but as Chris Kuerten said, from what I've heard of his 'achievements', he does have a at least a few things in common with Hitler. Moreover, his stated opinions on race and 'the mentally degenerate' would be considered appalling today.
As an off-topic aside, I do, however find it interesting that both he and Gandhi are generally considered hero's. Churchill I understand disliked him and considered him somewhat of a threat to British rule. Saying he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."
Sounds like a solid guy.
Alaricus, this is an interesting topic, but why are you such a consistently argumentative and antagonistic poster? TopFedFan has made a good and thoughtful contribution to this thread, and deserves to be treated with a little more respect.
He definitely wouldn't have been a saint, I don't think many military commanders with as much power and foresight could ever be completely clean in such a massive war. The tricky bit as some mentioned is the difference between the winning side and the losing side, and particular a winning side with 'ideals'. It would have been a case of arguing 'the ends justify the means' especially seeing how critical it was at that point of time to press the advantage.
The death toll suggests about 25000 casualties from Dresden. Interestingly the Blitz where the Germans dropped bombs over London for almost 2 straight months suggests 40,000 civilians were killed. The only difference would have been the concentration of attack in Dresden over a very short period of time compared to the London raids and I think the focus is largely on this, even though more casualties were incurred from the London attacks although I presume the Dresden attacks left more widespread damage in its wake.
The death toll suggests about 25000 casualties from Dresden. Interestingly the Blitz where the Germans dropped bombs over London for almost 2 straight months suggests 40,000 civilians were killed. The only difference would have been the concentration of attack in Dresden over a very short period of time compared to the London raids and I think the focus is largely on this, even though more casualties were incurred from the London attacks although I presume the Dresden attacks left more widespread damage in its wake.
On a similar note, would many of you consider President Harry Truman a war criminal as he authorised the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?
Here is what he wrote in his diary about it:
https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...said-yes-to-the-bomb-truman-s-diaries-reveal-no-hesitation-some-regret-1.360308
Diary entry of Harry Truman, July 25, 1945:
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world …”
“This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
“He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that but we will have given them the chance. “
“It is certainly a good thing that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb,” Truman said. “It seems to me the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.(i.e. to save more lives in the long run by stopping the war rather than require a frontal assault)”
Unfortunately, for all the right intents and purposes, he could not have foreseen just how devastating the bombs were, because nothing the scale had preceded it before.
Here is what he wrote in his diary about it:
https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...said-yes-to-the-bomb-truman-s-diaries-reveal-no-hesitation-some-regret-1.360308
Diary entry of Harry Truman, July 25, 1945:
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world …”
“This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
“He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that but we will have given them the chance. “
“It is certainly a good thing that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb,” Truman said. “It seems to me the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.(i.e. to save more lives in the long run by stopping the war rather than require a frontal assault)”
Unfortunately, for all the right intents and purposes, he could not have foreseen just how devastating the bombs were, because nothing the scale had preceded it before.
The firebombing of Dresden was a crime, yes, and it was rightly opposed on moral, tactical and legal grounds at the time by the more honourable members of the British establishment (e.g. Bishop George Bell). Theee were loud and accurate warnings, made by people who have been vindicated by history. It is hard to have one's voice heard in the midst of jingoism, however, and especially against such a barbaric enemy.
It's quite ironic that the very people who are arguing to look at context and background to judge Churchill, are the same people who want to ignore the context and background of Churchill's deeds and attitude outside Europe.
:lol:
Hi there, interesting debate indeed guys, I have to admit and appreciate mainly TopFedFan and Pratik and some others for worthy contribution and polite discussion with many arguments and views. Truly enjoyable!
I rarely post in the non-tennis topics, but I am interested in history, reading truly a lot of books and other sources, so I want to contribute to this topic. Firstly, I really do not think we have a chance to agree on some "final" result, because this isn't an exact science like physics or chemistry and it very much depends on the background of the discussing members.
It is necessary to point at the differences in the point of views. People from other countries will rate the historical figures in a different way, not only due to the different cultural background, religion, different values, but also due to the affiliation to the different nationalities and states, that significantly influences the view. Therefore it is pretty much obvious that people from India will have totally different opinion about Churchill than people let's say in the central Europe. The same thing can be applied for other historical figures like Hitler, Roosevelt, Bismarck, Napoleon, etc. etc. I suppose that people in India were not significantly influenced by Hitler's crimes (I mean directly), but try to ask Polish people and you will get totally different answer. Just remember how quite popular was Stalin in USA during WW2 - "uncle Joe" and similar stuff, but in the same time people in let's say Baltic republics hated him like hell for his actions. Then why many French people admire Napoleon as one of the greatest leaders and at the same time Russians hate him? The influence of your country, family and all those "cultural values" that are given from generations to generations cause those different opinions on many historical topics. It means that it is unlikely to hear the same opinion on Churchill from Indian and from Slovak (me). That isn't necessarily wrong, it is natural, but one has to understand the arguments of the other person and try to look at it from his point of view, just to take into account his arguments. Then we might agree to disagree, but everything in the polite way.
Secondly, the history and our views aren't and actually shouldn't be black and white. Many historical figures, but also events like wars, revolutions or politics in general can't be evaluated like bad/good only. If I consider the Soviet victory at Stalingrad as rather positive, it doesn't make me a communist. Many figures considered as good in general, committed actually some bad things and vice versa, but unfortunately I feel that the ideologies and tendencies in our society (let's say political correctness, etc.) simply do not allow to speak loudly the opinion that is not considered generally as correct. It's like debating about Spanish or English overseas expeditions or about campaigns of Alexander the Great or Caesar and so on. I have the experience that some people simply condemn everything connected with Columbus like inhuman without taking into account the context of that epoch and overall conditions, the state of knowledge in that epoch, etc.
So, let's get to the point. I see this topic quite complicated. If we take only the bombing of Dresden itself, without discussing any historical context, then we might label it as a war crime. It was the attack against mostly civilians, therefore it should be condemned as a negative act. However, we are maneuvering on a thin ice, because we can condemn also the bombing of Tokyo, both nuclear bombs or the "transfer" of the Germans out of Czechoslovakia after WW2 (so called Benes' decrees) and many other actions. If we use the actual values, opinions and moral attitudes and opinions what we have today, we would condemn many and many things that happened then. However, if we look at the bigger picture, then we can the somehow different scene. It is obvious that politics of appeasement (Chamberlain, Daladier) didn't stop Hitler, moreover, it allowed him to be more and more greedy and expansive and make more and more demands. The result was sad - Hitler directly or indirectly controlled almost the whole Europe and for the moment it seemed that the fate of the continent is sealed. During the summer 1940, Britain was the only piece of democracy in Europe (Hitler and Mussolini controlled everything from France to Poland and Stalin was actually their ally) and Churchill decided against all odds to resist and not surrender, despite the fact that significant group of politicians inclined towards peace with Germany. From this point of view Churchill is one of the most important people (if not the most important one) that eventually secured the victory over such diabolic regime like Nazism. People tend to forget how evil that regime was, it was simply bad of his principle. Nazi regime killed hundreds of thousands handicapped people in its euthanasia program. Historians estimate that Einsatzgruppen SS murdered up to 2 millions of Jews, gypsies, communists, commissars and partisans during the war in Russia. Finally, there are millions of dead Jews in all concentration camps. And we can continue in this horrible list. In Czechia and Slovakia, where I live, and generally in central and eastern Europe, those crimes are still in the memories of the people and many wounds still aren't fully healed. I don't know the exact number, but thousands of people died in Britain due to Hitler's Blitz in 1940. So if we want to look at Dresden without any further context, then yes, it was a war crime. But if we look at the overall picture, Churchill was the main fighter against maybe the most evil regime in the history and the one who saved Europe from the total extermination of Jews and the enslavement of many other nations. War times were more cruel than we all can imagine and those times needed the uncompromising leader. Just imagine Hollande or Merkel as British PM in 1940. They would have expressed their condemnation of Hitler's crimes, they would have illuminated Big Ben by flags of countries occupied by Hitler, they would have made some television statements about their deepest concerns and expressed their deepest support to all the victims....that would be all. And Hitler would have died from laughing.
So if I have to express my opinion to Churchill from what I have read and heard....he made some huge mistakes during his career, it would be along list. From our point of view he was a racist, he made some terrible decisions both in military and political field, his generals hated him due to his permanent involvement in the military issues that were beyond his understanding. Do I condemn the bombarding of Dresden? Definitely yes. However, if I look at the overall picture, I simply cannot condemn him as a war criminal. I gave already some reasons for my opinion, but finally, I have to say - labeling Churchill as a war criminal would make him equal to Hitler and Stalin. From my knowledge of history and taking into account my values, that would be wrong.
Generally, it is very dangerous to judge historical figures from our point of view, using our actual values and moral opinions and ethics. In that case, we should condemn everything in the past, because there was a different ethics, rules and laws back then. Using this logic, we should condemn every king, caesar, tsar or president in the history. Somebody could say that Alexander the Great is far more despicable than Breivik, because he killed definitely more people and there might be many similar examples. I think we should take into account the ethics and laws that were actual for that epoch, if we want to judge the historical figures.
I hope I haven't outrage anyone. After all, I do not try to persuade anybody, just offering my views.
All the best!
I rarely post in the non-tennis topics, but I am interested in history, reading truly a lot of books and other sources, so I want to contribute to this topic. Firstly, I really do not think we have a chance to agree on some "final" result, because this isn't an exact science like physics or chemistry and it very much depends on the background of the discussing members.
It is necessary to point at the differences in the point of views. People from other countries will rate the historical figures in a different way, not only due to the different cultural background, religion, different values, but also due to the affiliation to the different nationalities and states, that significantly influences the view. Therefore it is pretty much obvious that people from India will have totally different opinion about Churchill than people let's say in the central Europe. The same thing can be applied for other historical figures like Hitler, Roosevelt, Bismarck, Napoleon, etc. etc. I suppose that people in India were not significantly influenced by Hitler's crimes (I mean directly), but try to ask Polish people and you will get totally different answer. Just remember how quite popular was Stalin in USA during WW2 - "uncle Joe" and similar stuff, but in the same time people in let's say Baltic republics hated him like hell for his actions. Then why many French people admire Napoleon as one of the greatest leaders and at the same time Russians hate him? The influence of your country, family and all those "cultural values" that are given from generations to generations cause those different opinions on many historical topics. It means that it is unlikely to hear the same opinion on Churchill from Indian and from Slovak (me). That isn't necessarily wrong, it is natural, but one has to understand the arguments of the other person and try to look at it from his point of view, just to take into account his arguments. Then we might agree to disagree, but everything in the polite way.
Secondly, the history and our views aren't and actually shouldn't be black and white. Many historical figures, but also events like wars, revolutions or politics in general can't be evaluated like bad/good only. If I consider the Soviet victory at Stalingrad as rather positive, it doesn't make me a communist. Many figures considered as good in general, committed actually some bad things and vice versa, but unfortunately I feel that the ideologies and tendencies in our society (let's say political correctness, etc.) simply do not allow to speak loudly the opinion that is not considered generally as correct. It's like debating about Spanish or English overseas expeditions or about campaigns of Alexander the Great or Caesar and so on. I have the experience that some people simply condemn everything connected with Columbus like inhuman without taking into account the context of that epoch and overall conditions, the state of knowledge in that epoch, etc.
So, let's get to the point. I see this topic quite complicated. If we take only the bombing of Dresden itself, without discussing any historical context, then we might label it as a war crime. It was the attack against mostly civilians, therefore it should be condemned as a negative act. However, we are maneuvering on a thin ice, because we can condemn also the bombing of Tokyo, both nuclear bombs or the "transfer" of the Germans out of Czechoslovakia after WW2 (so called Benes' decrees) and many other actions. If we use the actual values, opinions and moral attitudes and opinions what we have today, we would condemn many and many things that happened then. However, if we look at the bigger picture, then we can the somehow different scene. It is obvious that politics of appeasement (Chamberlain, Daladier) didn't stop Hitler, moreover, it allowed him to be more and more greedy and expansive and make more and more demands. The result was sad - Hitler directly or indirectly controlled almost the whole Europe and for the moment it seemed that the fate of the continent is sealed. During the summer 1940, Britain was the only piece of democracy in Europe (Hitler and Mussolini controlled everything from France to Poland and Stalin was actually their ally) and Churchill decided against all odds to resist and not surrender, despite the fact that significant group of politicians inclined towards peace with Germany. From this point of view Churchill is one of the most important people (if not the most important one) that eventually secured the victory over such diabolic regime like Nazism. People tend to forget how evil that regime was, it was simply bad of his principle. Nazi regime killed hundreds of thousands handicapped people in its euthanasia program. Historians estimate that Einsatzgruppen SS murdered up to 2 millions of Jews, gypsies, communists, commissars and partisans during the war in Russia. Finally, there are millions of dead Jews in all concentration camps. And we can continue in this horrible list. In Czechia and Slovakia, where I live, and generally in central and eastern Europe, those crimes are still in the memories of the people and many wounds still aren't fully healed. I don't know the exact number, but thousands of people died in Britain due to Hitler's Blitz in 1940. So if we want to look at Dresden without any further context, then yes, it was a war crime. But if we look at the overall picture, Churchill was the main fighter against maybe the most evil regime in the history and the one who saved Europe from the total extermination of Jews and the enslavement of many other nations. War times were more cruel than we all can imagine and those times needed the uncompromising leader. Just imagine Hollande or Merkel as British PM in 1940. They would have expressed their condemnation of Hitler's crimes, they would have illuminated Big Ben by flags of countries occupied by Hitler, they would have made some television statements about their deepest concerns and expressed their deepest support to all the victims....that would be all. And Hitler would have died from laughing.
So if I have to express my opinion to Churchill from what I have read and heard....he made some huge mistakes during his career, it would be along list. From our point of view he was a racist, he made some terrible decisions both in military and political field, his generals hated him due to his permanent involvement in the military issues that were beyond his understanding. Do I condemn the bombarding of Dresden? Definitely yes. However, if I look at the overall picture, I simply cannot condemn him as a war criminal. I gave already some reasons for my opinion, but finally, I have to say - labeling Churchill as a war criminal would make him equal to Hitler and Stalin. From my knowledge of history and taking into account my values, that would be wrong.
Generally, it is very dangerous to judge historical figures from our point of view, using our actual values and moral opinions and ethics. In that case, we should condemn everything in the past, because there was a different ethics, rules and laws back then. Using this logic, we should condemn every king, caesar, tsar or president in the history. Somebody could say that Alexander the Great is far more despicable than Breivik, because he killed definitely more people and there might be many similar examples. I think we should take into account the ethics and laws that were actual for that epoch, if we want to judge the historical figures.
I hope I haven't outrage anyone. After all, I do not try to persuade anybody, just offering my views.
All the best!
An amazing post 
Probably summarises my own views in a better way than I've been able to! you've got the context spot on there though, it's all I've been asking for in this thread really!
You do risk irritating Alaricus with this post though as it crosses his viewpoint... be warned that rather than debate the topic with you he'll just quibble over technical details; starting with the fact you haven't provided a source, Harvard referenced of course and there's no footnotes in your text :haha:
You do risk irritating Alaricus with this post though as it crosses his viewpoint... be warned that rather than debate the topic with you he'll just quibble over technical details; starting with the fact you haven't provided a source, Harvard referenced of course and there's no footnotes in your text :haha:
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
