No doubt Hitler was a war criminal of the worst kind, but why does Churchill escape criticism, when he too ordered mass murder of innocent civilians by giving orders to bomb the German city of Dresden in the last stages of WW-2, when it was an established fact that Dresden was not a military target?
2006-10-07 00:39:24 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He could be regarded that way, but winners are never criminals.
2006-10-07 00:56:40 · answer #1 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that a lot that is clear now wasn't nearly so clear then. Dresden was a railway town and a major stopping place for refugees from the East. It may well be that (a) they didn't realise how bad it would be or (b) thought there was more going on in Dresden that we know to be the case now or (c) thought they deserved it - it was, after all, the Germans who started bombing places just because they were in the tourist guide-books, look up the Baedeker raids.
I do hope no one is getting their facts on Dresden from the thoroughly discredited so-called historian, David Irving. His "research" on Dresden has been shown to be utterly unreliable in open court when he foolishly tried to sue another author who had called him a liar. He lost - big.
2006-10-07 02:11:07 · answer #2 · answered by Sairey G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Hitler was on the "wrong side." Germans had more troops, and better artilliery. They had taken over a lot of Europe. For UK and its allies fighting was very desperate. So there was no way that Churchill could be made a war criminal for destroying, even a small measure of german force.
2006-10-07 13:40:00 · answer #3 · answered by Dolly 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You've got to remember that WWII had been decided by early 1943. By then things were or appeared to be in rather the same condition as WWI in late 1918. It was Nazi Germany that produced two more years of pointless suffering. If those behind the bombing of Dresden honestly believed it would hasten the end of the war, then no, I can't see it as a war crime.
2006-10-07 08:35:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ask the people who died(As if you could) on the Lusitania, a passenger ship that was sunk because he knowingly placed munitions on and allowed to be saled into enemy waters in WW1 when he was the head of the British Navy.
2006-10-07 01:14:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have been hung if the germans won. It was a war crime. Read Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut
2006-10-07 07:40:57 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is hell people die. unlike the surgical precision we attempt to use in modern warfare old wars thought nothing of killing everyone and leaving it to the deity to sort them out, it is how wars were fought.
2006-10-07 07:15:27 · answer #7 · answered by janssen411 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hitkley was not churchill, churchill is an insurance company man!
2006-10-07 00:47:50 · answer #8 · answered by tariq k 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was an avenging angel
2006-10-07 00:47:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have already answered the question yourself
2006-10-07 00:47:06 · answer #10 · answered by MARS1951 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋