Terrorist act by Poles in Berlin metro

[JamesL]

The laws of war do not grant a carte blanche exception to those subjected to an "industralize(d) effort to exterminate whole nations." The attacker may ignore the rules of land warfare but the defender should still abide by them.

A troop train may be a legitimate military target but a subway carrying a majority of civilians is not. It might be of interest to note that the Friedrichstrasse station was converted to a hospital during the final days of the war.

[SashaWa]

The laws of war do not grant a carte blanche exception to those subjected to an "industralize(d) effort to exterminate whole nations.

Where does it state that [i]the laws of war do not grant a carte blanche exception to those subjected to an [i]"industralize(d) effort to exterminate whole nations?

The attacker may ignore the rules of land warfare but the defender should still abide by them.

Again misconception-a 8year old boy and his mother sent to gas chambers are not a presumed defender in those laws. Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't resist genocide on their nation.

[ljadw]

The laws of war do not grant a carte blanche exception to those subjected to an "industralize(d) effort to exterminate whole nations." The attacker may ignore the rules of land warfare but the defender should still abide by them.

A troop train may be a legitimate military target but a subway carrying a majority of civilians is not. It might be of interest to note that the Friedrichstrasse station was converted to a hospital during the final days of the war.

"A troop train may be a legitimate military target " :WRONG ,a troop train is a legitimate military target;btw :how do you discern it is a troop train ? You can't,thus all trains are military targets"a subway carrying a majority of civilians is not " :WRONG,a subway carrying a MINORITY of military is a military target .
If in an attack on a military target,civilians are killed,bad for them,but,in a war,the fate of enemy civilians is neglectable.
A military commander,who is scrupling to attack enemy civilians,to save the life of his men,should look for another job,maybe the Salvation Army?
If the attacker is ignoring the rule of landwarfare,the defender has the right to do the same . Ex :If the attacker is taking no prisonners (because it cost to much to take care of them ),the defender should be foolish not to do the same (by caring for the POW,he should waste a lot of military resources ).

[LWD]

Unlike other areas of international law, the law of armed conflict has long been one not governed by the principle of reciprocity. The only aspect of reciprocity in this body of rules is the taking of belligerent reprisals, and there is no evidence that attack falls into such a category.
....

This is not correct. In at least the section concerning the use of chemical weapons reciprocity is indeed the rule. It's also clear from trials such as Nuremberg that military expediancy was allowed to trump the rules in at least some cases.

These are immaterial however to this case as the subway was clearly a logistics target used by the German military and governement. Thus it was a legitiamate target.

[history1]

[...]
These are immaterial however to this case as the subway was clearly a logistics target used by the German military and governement. Thus it was a legitiamate target.

Source!?

[David Thompson]

An off-topic, flame-bait post from murx was removed, along with several now-unnecessary responses - DT.

[ljadw]

[...]
These are immaterial however to this case as the subway was clearly a logistics target used by the German military and governement. Thus it was a legitiamate target.

Source!?

not wanting to take away from LWD the pleasure to answer,but ,I don't think there were subways reserved to civilians,and other reserved to military .
Unless you have a source proving the opposite .

[LWD]

[...]
These are immaterial however to this case as the subway was clearly a logistics target used by the German military and governement. Thus it was a legitiamate target.

Source!?

???
Source for what?
That subways are logistics targets? That's rather obvious as anything that moves goods or people is part of the logisitcs system.
That it was used by the German military? That's clear from the discussion prior to this.
That it was a legitimate target? Look at all the laws concernig for instance merchant ships. Indeed look at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague993.asp which goes into detail about what it takes to exempt a hospital ship from attack.
Then there's http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague09.asp

CHAPTER I
Art. 2.
Military works, military or naval establishments, depots of arms or war mat riel, workshops or plant which could be utilized for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, and the ships of war in the harbour, are not, however, included in this prohibition.

One can also look at the numerous attack by both sides from early in the war at other logistics targests such as roads, bridges, railroads, commercial shipping, etc.

[JamesL]

"If the attacker is ignoring the rule of land warfare,the defender has the right to do the same ." - I disagree. The Laws and Customs of Land Warfare should be followed.

The Laws of Naval Warfare or aerial warfare do not apply to the Berlin terrorist bombing. It is a stretch to try to include them in a discussion about a subway bombing.

It is easy to determine if a train is military or not. Walk up to it and look at it. The terrorists obviously had the opportunity to do so in the subway station while standing on the platform, bomb in hand.

If the terrorists wanted to kill SS men there were many nearby targets chock full of SS men. Those SS men were probably armed, in uniform, and could defend themselves and their post. I suspect that it was much safer for the 'brave' terrorists to kill Frau Freida who was using the subway to take her 8 year old son Hans to school. I see no evidence to the contrary.

My summary: the bombing of the Friedrichstrasse station was a terroristic, murderous act. It was unnecessary and did not hasten the end of the war nor change German practices in the East.

[SashaWa]

The Laws of Naval Warfare or aerial warfare do not apply

What laws apply to industrial mass extermination campaign against every women, child and man by Nazi Germany in WW2?

[David Thompson]

SashaWa -- You asked:

What laws apply to industrial mass extermination campaign against every women, child and man by Nazi Germany in WW2?

You can read them in the reports of the trials of German officials held by the IMT and by a large assortment of countries following the German defeat. The laws are specified in the indictments.

Now let's drop the arm-waving rhetoric and discuss the topic rationally.

Does anyone have more sourced, factual details on this metro attack?

[LWD]

... The Laws of Naval Warfare or aerial warfare do not apply to the Berlin terrorist bombing. It is a stretch to try to include them in a discussion about a subway bombing.

Don't they? They are the closest analog I could find. Do you have one that shows attacks on the log system were prohibited? Certainly they took place in WWI as well as WW II and I've yet to see them declared war crimes by any authorative source.

It is easy to determine if a train is military or not. Walk up to it and look at it. The terrorists obviously had the opportunity to do so in the subway station while standing on the platform, bomb in hand.

Wrong. Or perhaps right. They knew that German military and SS were using the subways. That means they are military targets. However in planting the bombs ahead of time they could hardly examine the train being hit. Your declaring them "terrorist" is at this point unwarrented and conjecture on your part.

If the terrorists wanted to kill SS men there were many nearby targets chock full of SS men. Those SS men were probably armed, in uniform, and could defend themselves and their post. I suspect that it was much safer for the 'brave' terrorists to kill Frau Freida who was using the subway to take her 8 year old son Hans to school. I see no evidence to the contrary.

Conjecture and opinion.

My summary: the bombing of the Friedrichstrasse station was a terroristic, murderous act. It was unnecessary and did not hasten the end of the war nor change German practices in the East.

Conjecture and opinion with little support in fact or logic.

[ljadw]

Did the Germans knew who where the authors ?
If so,were there any reprisals ?
When ,where,against whom?
Of the victims,how many were military,how many civilians ?
Were there material damages ?
For obvious reasons(preventing the Gestapo becoming risible),the German authorities would suppress the news of the bombing,but,what was the reaction from the Polish government ? Were they spreading the news? And if not,why ?
Were there other bombings ?And,if not ,why ?

[Ypenburg]

"A troop train may be a legitimate military target " :WRONG ,a troop train is a legitimate military target;btw :how do you discern it is a troop train ? You can't,thus all trains are military targets"a subway carrying a majority of civilians is not " :WRONG,a subway carrying a MINORITY of military is a military target .
If in an attack on a military target,civilians are killed,bad for them,but,in a war,the fate of enemy civilians is neglectable.
A military commander,who is scrupling to attack enemy civilians,to save the life of his men,should look for another job,maybe the Salvation Army?

In other words, the Nazi's did nothing wrong bombing Warschau in 1939 since it was full of Polish troops, trains, lorries, etc.etc. and during the Warschau uprising since they were saving the lifes of their men???

Something tells me you're replies do not add anything to this interesting discussion.

[Baltasar]

In other words, the Nazi's did nothing wrong bombing Warschau in 1939 since it was full of Polish troops, trains, lorries, etc.etc. and during the Warschau uprising since they were saving the lifes of their men???

The same rethoric would apply to the Allied bombardment and often destruction of German cities. Now that doesn't seem to be an issue for most people but when the Germans were doing the same on a much smaller scale, that's wrong?

It either works both ways or not at all.