WWII Strategic Bombing: Was it genocide?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004, 20:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

WWII Strategic Bombing: Was it genocide?

#1

Post by Uninen » 24 Jun 2005, 12:16

[This thread was split off from "Who the bad guys really were . . ." and recaptioned by the moderatorator - DT]
Beppo Schmidt wrote:I didn't say either side was squeaky clean, and by the Allies, I meant the Western Allies.
Terror bombing campaing by USAAF and RAF counts and is by all means a act of Genocide.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951. It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
But all points, not including "e" do match..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#2

Post by Larry D. » 24 Jun 2005, 13:27

Uninen -

Ah yes, wouldn't it be nice if (first) there were no more wars and life on earth was just one big affluent love-in, or (second), if there were wars, that everyone abided by all the little international agreements, and treaties, and manifests, and protocols and what have you (i.e., the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Conventions, etc.). But, sadly, that just isn't the way it works. All these rules seem to do is to give a decided advantage to those who do not abide by them (i.e., Al Qaeda, Hezbolah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.). The world, especially the Europeans, expect those who are the victims of unwarranted aggression, and are concurrently signatories to all of these conventions, to just sit back and watch their cities destroyed and their citizens murdered. This comment may at first appear to be OT but it is not. It goes right to the heart of Uninen's posting. A party attacked should not be hindered in his defense.


Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#3

Post by Dan » 24 Jun 2005, 16:09

Ah yes, wouldn't it be nice if (first) there were no more wars and life on earth was just one big affluent love-in, or (second), if there were wars, that everyone abided by all the little international agreements, and treaties, and manifests, and protocols and what have you (i.e., the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Conventions, etc.). But, sadly, that just isn't the way it works. All these rules seem to do is to give a decided advantage to those who do not abide by them (i.e., Al Qaeda, Hezbolah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.). This comment may at first appear to be OT but it is not.
It is off topic, because it is an opinion post. Specifically when you write
The world, especially the Europeans, expect those who are the victims of unwarranted aggression, and are concurrently signatories to all of these conventions, to just sit back and watch their cities destroyed and their citizens murdered.
This is just a political opinion that you hold, and you state it without giving any proof. The last time a European country had it's territory attacked was Spain last year, on an island that a north African country sent some soldiers to. The Spanish immediately sent a military force to reclaim the island. And off the top of my head, I can't think of any European city that has been destroyed by any of the groups you mention.

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

#4

Post by David Thompson » 24 Jun 2005, 16:55

I'd like to see some proof on this element of genocide:
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#5

Post by Larry D. » 24 Jun 2005, 17:21

Dan -
The world, especially the Europeans, expect those who are the victims of unwarranted aggression, and are concurrently signatories to all of these conventions, to just sit back and watch their cities destroyed and their citizens murdered.
In the above sentence, the pronoun "their" is the object of the subject, "those who are the victims of unwarranted aggression", and is a reference to 9/11 and all of the flak the U.S. has taken from the world media and public for its armed response to this attack. But this is REALLY OT now so I have no more to say, except that this forum (Axis History Forum) is a mixture of quoted facts and opinion. My point was to support the strategic bombing campaign as one of the measures taken toward winning the war in Europe and that it should not in retrospect be viewed as an act of genocide as some would have it.

Klar?

User avatar
DXTR
Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 21 Jun 2005, 20:29
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

#6

Post by DXTR » 24 Jun 2005, 17:39

Genocide is a very delicate word to use. First of all it has nothing to do with just bombing civilians. The intent cannot be just to break a nations spirits or forcing them to accept a political demand. When you commit genocide you are seeking to destroy that group of people . It has not been proved that allied bombings had nothing to do with the allied intent of removing the german nation (people) from existence. Maybe killing a couple of hundred thousands germans is close to the amount of people being killed in a confirmed genocidal act somewhere else in history. But whith out the intent of destroying that nation (people) it cannot constitute genocide, regardless of the amount of suffering. Maybe to some its just a question of semantics. But in the laws of war we accept that innocent people can get killed due to military actions if the result is justified. I know that this sounds absurd to some, and it would be hard to explain to a german familily that all their relatives were 'legally' killed in a military justified operation (whether bombing of cities were justified is another discussion). Bombing the german cities was regarded as necessary to win the war, and through that their lives spent served a purpose. Genocidal acts do not serve a legal purpose in international law. But since world war II the rules have changed a bit. The Geneva convention of 49 as well as the protocols of 1977 have tightened the use of 'the military purpose' since it is in no doubt a slippery slope towards all out and unregulated war. On the bottom line war in western culture is regarded as a political tool, that we are prevented from using unsparingly. But when national security or peace is at risk, nations are allowed to use it according to the Kellog Briand agreement as well as the UN pact. War causes suffering no matter what, but if we limit the use to what is necessary to win the war it is a legal tool. As I said before genocidal acts are not regarded as a legal tool, and that has all to do with intent. But offcourse intent does not change anything for a person who is dead but it introduces morale to international affairs.

edited to fix poor grammar
Best regards

David
Last edited by DXTR on 02 Jul 2005, 14:23, edited 1 time in total.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#7

Post by Dan » 24 Jun 2005, 21:37

Klar?
Nein
"those who are the victims of unwarranted aggression", and is a reference to 9/11 and all of the flak the U.S. has taken from the world media and public for its armed response to this attack. But this is REALLY OT now so I have no more to say, except that this forum (Axis History Forum) is a mixture of quoted facts and opinion. My point was to support the strategic bombing campaign as one of the measures taken toward winning the war in Europe and that it should not in retrospect be viewed as an act of genocide as some would have it.
The Europeans were very sympathetic to us, and sent soldiers from many of their countries to help in Afghanistan, as long as we were targeting the Taliban. They were against us in Iraq, since only stupid and/or uninformed people ever thought Iraq had anything to do with what happened during 9/11. Therefore your post was just an opinion, and an uninformed one at that.

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

#8

Post by David Thompson » 24 Jun 2005, 22:51

Let's move on.

User avatar
keg007
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 24 Jun 2005, 05:55
Location: USA

#9

Post by keg007 » 25 Jun 2005, 05:11

The allied bombing of German and Japanese cities was not and can not be considered genocide because the purpose of the bombing was to bring and end to the war. As soon as they stopped shooting at us, we stopped dropping bombs on them.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#10

Post by Andy H » 25 Jun 2005, 12:39

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
mmm does war constitute Genocide then?

Surely the answer is yes then since the aim(s) of most wars however limited, fit this statement.

Andy H

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#11

Post by WalterS » 25 Jun 2005, 17:24

It is a perversion of the term "genocide" to apply it to the Allied bombing campaign of WWII. The Allied bombing campaign was aimed at destroying the capabilities of the Nazi government to wage war and commit genocide against others.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#12

Post by Andy H » 25 Jun 2005, 18:07

It is a perversion of the term "genocide"
It seems to be all the rage nowadays to throw the word at any and every scenario at see if it sticks.

No doubt that because civilians were unarmed & defenceless as were merchant seamen, will see the UBoat campaign labelled as Genocidal in nature in the not to distant future.

Andy H

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#13

Post by Larry D. » 25 Jun 2005, 18:55

It seems to be all the rage nowadays to throw the word [genocide] at any and every scenario a[nd] see if it sticks.
It is so, Andy H., it is so. And the leftist, politically correct crowd is doing exactly the same thing with the word "torture." That word has now been redefined to include speaking harshly to someone or failing to tuck them in at night. But, alas, we'd better stop this or "Dan" from California will be after us for expressing "uninformed opinion" that he disagrees with, and we can't have that. Not even when the opinion he opposes was splashed across the pages of America's newspapers the same day (June 24, 2005) in an article by Will Lester of the Associated Press, datelined Washington, "Poll: U.S. image battered abroad - Wariness of Washington is so deep in many countries that China is more popular." The article then goes on to say in detail exactly what I said in a foregoing post in this thread about European opinion that caused Mr. "Dan" to start hurling insults. So even when we document our statements, it just isn't good enough for some.

Auf Wiedersehen.....

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#14

Post by Marcus » 25 Jun 2005, 18:59

Let's get back to discussing the bombings please.

/Marcus

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004, 20:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

#15

Post by Uninen » 25 Jun 2005, 19:27

Target of allied bombing in Germany and in Japan was to destroy the cities, dehouse the population or kill them or otherwise make life unbearable to them so to break their "fighting spirit", and this according the standing treaty constitutes Genocide.

Also the number of unarmed victims of these bombings more than 1 million in both Germany and Japan tells a tale of Genocide.

Of Current Genocides still underway one is happening in Checnya and that has some 300 000 victims over 11 years, and this still is genocide and internationaly classed as such. Just to give you something to compare.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”