The Allied Terror bombings

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#76

Post by steverodgers801 » 25 Nov 2014, 04:41

Guapoense, over a million men were used in home air defense, vast amounts of AA guns and ammo had to used to sustain that effort as well as most fighter units were withdrawn for home defense leaving the front line troops with minimal or no air support. Did the civilians of Warsaw deserve to be bombed repeatedly? what did this Polish girl do to be killed by a German strafing attack http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pol ... &FORM=IGRE

User avatar
Skyderick
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 13:59

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#77

Post by Skyderick » 25 Nov 2014, 14:59

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
ljadw wrote: A war restricted to combattants only does not exist : civilians also are combattants .
By definition civilians are non-combatants.


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#78

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2014, 15:33

This is not correct : if it was legal to kill Wittmann,it was also legal to target Müller who was making the tank of Wittmann,Schmidt who was transporting the tank from the factory to the front,Schmid who was producing food for Schmidt,Strauss who was producing electricity for Schmid,Merkel who was making cloths for Strauss,Kohl who was transporting coal for Merkel,etc,etc.

dshaday
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: 29 Dec 2013, 19:57

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#79

Post by dshaday » 25 Nov 2014, 17:15

Hi ljadw
ljadw wrote:This is not correct : if it was legal to kill Wittmann,it was also legal to target Müller who was making the tank of Wittmann,Schmidt who was transporting the tank from the factory to the front,Schmid who was producing food for Schmidt,Strauss who was producing electricity for Schmid,Merkel who was making cloths for Strauss,Kohl who was transporting coal for Merkel,etc,etc.
But is it then OK to kill Helga who is the librarian at the primary school or Bruno who runs the antique book store?
I would think the answer is - no. The problem, is how do you tell them apart from the war related workers.

Otherwise we can bomb undefended cities (with no war industry) as well. Since the population may be future soldiers who have not been called up yet.


Regards

Dennis

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#80

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2014, 19:45

Yes,it is OK to kill Helga and Bruno,as long they are not targetted intentionally,and,as in WWII,it was not possible to kill an individual intentionally by air attacks,the civilian casualties from air attacks are collateral damage .

To put it otherwise: if the RAF wanted to destroy the Krupp factories in Essen,the result would be that Essen would be destroyed and that Helga and Bruno would be killed .
: if OTOH,the RAF wanted to destroy Esse, ,the result would be that the krupp factories would be destroyed and Helga and Bruno would be killed .

As long as there was no order to kill Helga and Bruno,everything was legal :air attacks without the killing of Bruno and Helga were impossible .

In may/june 1940,21000 French civilians were killed during the German attacks .A German victory in the West without the dead of these civilians was out of the question .One can not make an omelette without breaking eggs .The US air attacks in Syria against ISIS are also killing civilians,but that is inevitable .
A war without civilian casualties does not exist .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#81

Post by wm » 25 Nov 2014, 20:23

dshaday wrote:But is it then OK to kill Helga who is the librarian at the primary school or Bruno who runs the antique book store?
I would think the answer is - no. The problem, is how do you tell them apart from the war related workers.
A battlefield is not a good place to run an antique book store, and the cities were battlefields.
It was the duty of the local authorities to evacuate all the Brunos to a safe place, as it was the duty of the military authorities to evacuate the civilians from, let's say, the battlefields of Normandy.
dshaday wrote:Otherwise we can bomb undefended cities (with no war industry) as well. Since the population may be future soldiers who have not been called up yet.
Those are different concepts - an undefended city, and a city with no war industry.
It was forbidden to bomb undefended, and without workshops or plant which could be utilized for the needs of the hostile fleet or army cities.
Even an undefended city can be bombed if there are workshops or plants which could be (not are - could be) utilized for war purposes there.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#82

Post by LWD » 30 Nov 2014, 23:49

ljadw wrote:This is not correct : if it was legal to kill Wittmann,it was also legal to target Müller who was making the tank of Wittmann,Schmidt who was transporting the tank from the factory to the front,Schmid who was producing food for Schmidt,Strauss who was producing electricity for Schmid,Merkel who was making cloths for Strauss,Kohl who was transporting coal for Merkel,etc,etc.
That confuses the issue rather than clarifying it. If someone is in uniform they are a legitimate target. Likewise industry supporting the military or logistics networks doing the same are legitimate targets any civilians killed while attacking it are considered collateral damage. Their losses should be minimized as much as is practical (which leaves a lot of lee way).

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#83

Post by Guaporense » 19 Dec 2014, 05:41

No civilians are not combatants. Or one could argue that the jews in occupied territories were enemy combatants that should have been exterminated because they were a danger to national security. Also, Poland and the USSR, where 90% of the holocaust victims came from, never surrendered formally to Germany so they were officially at war, by your logic, the extermination of their civilian population was perfectly valid.

I will not discuss philosophy of war here. I don't think it's moral to draft individuals and force them the pain of war because some stupid politicians/dictators started it. That's my personal view (I am a classical liberal).
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#84

Post by Guaporense » 19 Dec 2014, 05:41

dshaday wrote:Hi ljadw
ljadw wrote:This is not correct : if it was legal to kill Wittmann,it was also legal to target Müller who was making the tank of Wittmann,Schmidt who was transporting the tank from the factory to the front,Schmid who was producing food for Schmidt,Strauss who was producing electricity for Schmid,Merkel who was making cloths for Strauss,Kohl who was transporting coal for Merkel,etc,etc.
But is it then OK to kill Helga who is the librarian at the primary school or Bruno who runs the antique book store?
I would think the answer is - no. The problem, is how do you tell them apart from the war related workers.

Otherwise we can bomb undefended cities (with no war industry) as well. Since the population may be future soldiers who have not been called up yet.

Regards

Dennis
Or a better example: Germany was at war with Poland and the USSR, since all civilians are potential combatants it's perfectly moral to exterminate the civilian population of the occupied territories of those countries by ljadw's logic. You don't know who will be drafted so you cannot control that, hence, it's perfectly legal do kill'en all. :D

The Allies are supposed to be so morally superior but actions such as dropping atomic bombs on towns in Japan to test drive the bombs by killing a couple hundred thousand civilians over a country which did not surrender yet because they though unconditional surrender was too strict (they were prepared to surrender on less absurd terms at any point my mid 1945) do not show absolutely any regard for civilian life outside the border of their countries. The Allies did not make any attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

Well, the Allies were fighting a total war and wanted victory at all costs, therefore minimizing the human cost was out of the question, forcing their enemies into unconditional surrender was the only thing under consideration. I am not a fan of fascist dictatorships neither of the soviet regime but the degree of barbarity in WW2 exhibited by all major players (except France and Italy who didn't do much) is appalling. The US and Israel today in fighting limited wars uses precise bombing to minimize civilian casualties, but they are fighting limited wars, in total wars the value of civilian life to strategic planners goes to zero.
Last edited by Guaporense on 19 Dec 2014, 05:56, edited 2 times in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#85

Post by ljadw » 19 Dec 2014, 08:54

1)First sentence is a strawman

2)Second sentence is nonsense :it was not the duty of the Allies to minimize enemy civilian casualties. Besides,although it was not their duty,they tried to minimize enemy civilian casualties

3) I oppose totally the usual attempt to put the Allies and the Axis on the same level :the Allies did not exhibit a degree of barbarity .the only barbarians were the Axis who deliberatedly tried to exterminate specific population groups


4)About the air attacks : in WWII military targets were attacked by aircraft,in these military targets were living civilians,the result was civilian casualties:it was impossible to attack military targets without likking civilians,even by ground attacks .In may 1940,the Germans systematically attacked Belgian railway stations,as these were located in the inner cities,the result was civilian casualties .

5)About precise bombings of today : this is a fable : there is not such a thing as precise bombing by missiles/aircraft : the Israeli air attacks on Gaza were not precise.It was even worse in WWII : in 1940,the Germans bombed Dublin,thinking it was Belfast,in 1944 the US bombed liberated Belgian and Dutch cities .But,today it is not better.

history1
Banned
Posts: 4095
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 10:12
Location: Austria

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#86

Post by history1 » 19 Dec 2014, 09:06

Guaporense wrote:[...] Also, Poland and the USSR, where 90% of the holocaust victims came from, [...]
Your source for this claim, please.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

the only true humanity

#87

Post by wm » 19 Dec 2014, 10:08

The German War Book, 1914:
[..] the tendency of thought of the last century was dominated essentially by humanitarian considerations which not infrequently degenerated into sentimentality and flabby emotion there have not been wanting attempts to influence the development of the usages of war in a way which was in fundamental contradiction with the nature of war and its object. Attempts of this kind will also not be wanting in the future, the more so as these agitations have found a kind of moral recognition in some provisions of the Geneva Convention and the Brussels and Hague Conferences.
[..] the officer is a child of his time. He is subject to the intellectual tendencies which influence his own nation; the more educated he is the more will this be the case. The danger that, in this way, he will arrive at false views about the essential character of war must not be lost sight of. The danger can only be met by a thorough study of war itself. By steeping himself in military history an officer will be able to guard him-self against excessive humanitarian notions, it will teach him that certain severities are indispensable to war, nay more, that the only true humanity very often lies in a ruthless application of them.
American rules of land warfare, 1914:
The object of war is to bring about the complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible by means of regulate violence.
Military necessity justifies a resort to all the measures which are indispensable for [securing the object of war].
Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and of every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property and obstruction of ways and channels of traffic, travel, or 'communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#88

Post by David Thompson » 19 Dec 2014, 20:36

Guaporense – You wrote: (1)
Or a better example: Germany was at war with Poland and the USSR, since all civilians are potential combatants it's perfectly moral to exterminate the civilian population of the occupied territories of those countries by ljadw's logic. You don't know who will be drafted so you cannot control that, hence, it's perfectly legal do kill'en all. :D
You are incorrect. See the 1907 Hague Convention annex:
SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

* * * * *

Art. 46.

Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected
* * * * *
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

You also wrote: (2)
The Allies did not make any attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

At that time, international law did not impose any minimization requirement. To have a productive discussion, it is necessary to look at the history of that concept.

In the 19th century the laws and customs of land warfare permitted the bombardment of cities and towns which were under siege or assault. When explosive shells replaced solid projectiles in bombardments, the number of both military and civilian casualties increased. The Declaration of St. Petersburg (29 Nov 1868) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/decpeter.asp attempted to limit the size of explosive shells, but in practice, no nation was prepared to run the risk of having smaller explosive shells than their potential enemies. That Declaration states:
* * * * *
(2) that the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;

(3) that for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

(4) that this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

(5) that the employment of such arms would therefore be contrary to the laws of humanity."
Note that the Declaration does not mention minimization, civilian casualties or aerial bombardment.

The publication of Jules Verne's work Robur the Conqueror (in 1886) popularized the potential menace of aerial bombardment, and at the turn of the last century there was an effort to treat it as a special class of warfare. In 1899, just before the invention of heavier-than-air flying machines, a number of nations signed a declaration agreeing to prohibit the use of aerial bombardment by balloon for a five year period. The treaty was renewed for 5 more years in 1907 after the original test period expired, but it was not renewed thereafter,

Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons (Hague, IV); July 29, 1899
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague994.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-01.asp

probably because no one envisioned what new forms of destruction WWI and WWII would bring, The Reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1917) don't even mention types or applications of weapons which distinguish between the targeting of soldiers and civilians.

When WWI started the laws and customs of land warfare had been codified in the 1907 Hague Convention. The section on bombardment did not discuss any difference between artillery and aerial activity:
Hague IV
Annex to the Convention
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND


CHAPTER I

Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments


Art. 22.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden --

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 24.
Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.

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.

Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

During WWI, both sides did not respect several of these articles, and there was disagreement over the meaning of "unnecessary suffering," which referred to physical pain rather than the number of deaths:
(a) Unnecessary suffering[/b]

21.
The principle that weapons causing unnecessary suffering must be avoided is set forth in the Hague Regulations, Art. 23, sub-para. (e). However, the authentic French version and the English translation of this Article differ in some respects: the French text provides that "il est ... interdit ... d'employer des armes, des projectiles ou des matieres propres acauser des maux superflus", while the English version reads "it is forbidden... to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (emphases added). The English version would be the narrower if its contents were taken to add a subjective element to the original rule. In conformity with the authoritative French text, the principle must be stated to be that -- irrespective of the belligerents' intentions -- any means of combat are prohibited that are apt to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. While the authentic French text uses the term "superfluous injury" (maux superflus), the phrase "unnecessary suffering" used in the English translation has acquired a relevance of its own through the practice of States. Hence, both concepts are of importance for the assessment of whether particular weapons shall be deemed prohibited for use.
International Committee of the Red Cross, Weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects (1973), pp. 11-12.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... eapons.pdf

To be a war crime, an act had to be specifically prohibited. See the comments in ed. James Brown Scott, The Reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1917), p. 145:
Article 23 begins with the words : ' In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it is especially forbidden . . . .' These special conventions are first the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, which continues in force, and then all those of like nature that may be concluded, especially subsequently to the Hague Conference. It seemed to the subcommission that the general formula was preferable to the old reading which mentioned only the Declaration of St. Petersburg.

http://www.archive.org/details/reportst ... u008427mbp and "the necessities of war."

There was further disagreement over the concept of "necessities of war." Massive artillery bombardments of cities and towns, as well as the first "strategic" bombing raids by airships and multi-engine aircraft, were customary by the end of the war in 1918.

Following WWI, there was an effort to augment the 1907 Hague Conventions with an additional agreement on aerial warfare. Unfortunately, the agreement was never formally adopted by the international community.

Rules for Aerial Warfare (1923 Hague Rules, etc.)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=71763

Further efforts to draw up more humane agreements in the 1920s and 1930s were unsuccessful. When WWII broke out, the only applicable laws of land warfare were the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1929 Geneva Convention on POWs. The bombardment provisions of the Hague Convention had been broadly construed by the signatory powers to permit attacks on civilian populations, because neither artillery fire nor aerial bombardment was sufficiently accurate to avoid that result. Aerial bombardment, in particular, was notoriously inaccurate:

US Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe) on bombing accuracy
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 939#395939

and there was no legal basis for a distinction between shelling by artillery and bombing from aircraft.

At the outbreak of WWII on September 1, 1939, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent an appeal to the British, French, German, Italian and Polish governments on the subject:
"The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply. Franklin D. Roosevelt."
The replies were favorable, but the belligerents didn't abide by them. The correspondence can be seen at Foreign Relations of the United States 1939, vol. 1, pp. 541-558, online at http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... RUS1939v01

Partly as a reaction to the wholesale destruction of cities and towns in WWII, the international community tightened up the rules with the passage of the 1949 Geneva Convention, but did not ban bombings of towns and cities:

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 Aug 1949)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva07.asp

Even with that step forward, it wasn't until 1968 that the United Nations General Assembly tried to introduce a general minimization principle in the use of weapons in warfare.
Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts. Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 19 December 1968.

Resolution

The General Assembly,

' Recognizing ' the necessity of applying basic humanitarian principles in all armed conflicts,

' Taking note ' of resolution XXIII on human rights in armed conflicts, adopted on 12 May 1968 by the International Conference on Human Rights,

' Affirming ' that the provisions of that resolution need to be implemented effectively as soon as possible,

1. ' Affirms ' resolution XXVIII of the XXth International Conference of the Red Cross held at Vienna in 1965, which laid down, inter alia, the following principles for observance by all governmental and other authorities responsible for action in armed conflicts:

(a) That the right of the parties to a conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited;

(b) That it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian populations as such;

(c) That distinction must be made at all times between persons taking part in the hostilities and members of the civilian population to the effect that the latter be spared as much as possible;

2. ' Invites ' the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other appropriate international organizations, to study:

(a) Steps which could be taken to secure the better application of existing humanitarian international conventions and rules in all armed conflicts;

(b) The need for additional humanitarian international conventions or for other appropriate legal instruments to ensure the better protection of civilians, prisoners and combatants in all armed conflicts and the prohibition and limitation of the use of certain methods and means of warfare;

3. ' Requests ' the Secretary-General to take all other necessary steps to give effect to the provisions of the present resolution and to report to the General Assembly at its twenty-fourth session on the steps he has taken;

4. ' Further requests ' Member States to extend all possible assistance to the Secretary-General in the preparation of the study requested in paragraph 2 above;

5. ' Calls upon ' all States which have not yet done so to become parties to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts. Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 19 December 1968.
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf ... CD0051D3BC

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#89

Post by Guaporense » 31 Dec 2014, 00:34

David Thompson wrote:....
I see, so it was ok to kill enemy civilians if they are inside territories controlled by enemy armies but it's not ok to kill enemy civilians inside the territories you control. Makes sense since you control the territory so the enemy cannot draft these civilians into the war effort. Hence, strategic bombing was perfectly legal, the holocaust, was not.

Now it's clear to me. Thanks for the references.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: The Allied Terror bombings

#90

Post by wm » 31 Dec 2014, 14:11

Not quite, killing enemy civilians was/is expressly forbidden. For example a patrol deep into enemy territory couldn't just mowed down with machine guns every enemy civilian their encountered, even if he/she was working in an armament factory.

And many of the killed, maybe even majority, weren't Germans but slave workers from the East, or the French workers/POWs.
Some of the bombed cities weren't even in Germany - French, Czech cities were bombed, Warsaw was bombed indiscriminately (by the Soviets), and other Polish cities. So frequently, they weren't killing enemy civilians, but their own people.

The laws of war simply allowed to ignore any people present on the battlefields: children, pregnant women, your own soldiers taken prisoner, be it on the battlefields of Normandy or German cities. According to the rule only enemy soldiers were there. On the battlefield you are not responsible for their lives, your enemy is.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”