Churchill´s warcrimes

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#211

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 16:33

Maple 01 wrote:No-one's denying a lot of people died - you're trying to make out its something is wasn't
I try nothing. I speak out the hangman wasn't allowed to after WW2.
In war its a crime to commit genocide and wage aggressive war
Maple is smart...
not, as POWs been told many times, bombing,
You annoy me. For the last time: Bombing for the purpose to kill civilians is a crime. Got it?
However if you’d like to condem Nazi bombing…?
What then? If I can condemn Nazi bombing you condem Allied bombing? Silly...
Starting the whole boldly mess in the first place and murdering 11 million people - you might not like it but that's what happened - and the verdict can never be changed, no matter how hard you try
I never denied the Nazis murdered a lot of people. Whats wrong with you?
International law not good enough? :lol:
Are you laughing cause you made a fool of yourself?
Where have you proved he committed any war crimes?
I don't repeat even you have trouble in understanding.
Why not ask James Bacque – you seem to have much in common when it comes to this subject
Bacque wrote a book about Allied bombing?
If you're equating Churchill to Stalin........... :roll:
I use your arguments defending Stalin. Not easy to understand he?

Slowly for Maple now: P l e a s e p o s t s o m e o f v a l u e a n d d o n' t b o r e m e t o d e a t h.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#212

Post by Maple 01 » 29 Jun 2003, 16:56

You know POW, I'm begining to think you really don't know why the moderators write this stuff to you
POW -- I have warned you on three separate occasions in this thread (on 20, 21 and 25 Jun) to avoid taunts and personal insults in your posts.


POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#213

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 17:02

Maple 01 wrote:You know POW, I'm begining to think you really don't know why the moderators write this stuff to you
You can't think!

The Hague Rules

ARTICLE XXII
Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of a military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXV
In bombardment by aircraft all necessary steps must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospital ships, hospitals, and other places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided such buildings, objects or places are not at the time used for military purposes. Such buildings, objects and places must by day be indicated by marks visible to aircraft. The use of marks to indicate other buildings, objects or places than those specified above is to be deemed an act of perfidy. The marks used as aforesaid shall be in the case of buildings protected under the Geneva Convention the red cross on a white ground, and in the case of other protected buildings a large rectangular panel divided diagonally into two pointed [sic] triangular portions, one black and the other white.

A belligerent who desires to secure by night the protection for the hospitals and other privileged buildings above mentioned must take the necessary measures to render the special signs referred to sufficiently visible.

We can prove the Nazis murdered innocent people. Holocoust deniers get banned from this forum. That is good.
We can prove Churchill murdered innocent people. You are still here. That's a pity.

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

#214

Post by Marcus » 29 Jun 2003, 17:51

POW,

You have been warned repeatedly by David for your constant insulting remarks, in this as well other threads, and yet you continue.
Mine, as well as his, patience with this nonsense is definately not unlimited, so let me spell it out for you: This is your last warning, any further violations of the guidelines will get you banned!

In short:
David Thompson wrote:POW, be civil or be gone.
/Marcus

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#215

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 18:55

Marcus Wendel wrote:POW,

You have been warned repeatedly by David for your constant insulting remarks, in this as well other threads, and yet you continue.
Mine, as well as his, patience with this nonsense is definately not unlimited, so let me spell it out for you: This is your last warning, any further violations of the guidelines will get you banned!
Marcus,
it's the task of a moderator to lead a discussion. I'm giving facts and sources but Maple is ignoring all that. He is insulting everyones intelligence by his ridiculous statements. If one wishes to discuss "wonderful" Nazi deeds a right wing forum is the right place for them. If moderator likes to create the opposite I'm not leave in a huff when getting banned. Then both wouldn't be the right place for me to discuss,

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#216

Post by viriato » 29 Jun 2003, 19:43

Hi POW

What the moderators are trying to do is to calm down some posts that are somewhat "hotter" they should have been according to the guidelines of the forum. Anyway in my humble view it would be a loss to the forum if you were to be expelled from the forum as your thoughts are always a plus to the discussion. :)

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#217

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 19:49

viriato wrote:Hi POW

What the moderators are trying to do is to calm down some posts that are somewhat "hotter" they should have been according to the guidelines of the forum. Anyway in my humble view it would be a loss to the forum if you were to be expelled from the forum as your thoughts are always a plus to the discussion. :)
Thanks Variato. I'm sure some have a very different opinion. :P

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#218

Post by Maple 01 » 29 Jun 2003, 20:21

POW quotes an interesting document but misses out one small piece of information that sinks his whole argument

The Hague convention he quotes was a draft, it was never accepted
Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, The Hague, February 1923

RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE
The Hague, February 1923

[Although drafted as the basis for an international treaty, the enactment of which was supported by the United States, these rules were never formally adopted]
So, as the rules were never adopted, how can they be used as evidence against Churchill? Unless he is supposed to be bound by agreements the country never even signed-up for.

I could, if I so wished, for example, find draft rules that would ban the use of artillery, tanks and the shot-gun, but because they were never implemented they are worthless, as is the draft convention POW quoted

You could try
Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.
Unfortunately Germany had withdrawn from the league by them......

And all that came out of that was:
Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:
So that never came into force either. You could try the following: definitions
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
but that's drawn from
Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945

CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
AUGUST 8, 1945
So its post-war and not retrospective it doesn’t count for the purposes of this, nor did Germany sign up for it. And anyway, with so many members objecting to anything to come out Nuremberg it would be hypocritical to latch onto this, especially as it would destroy all that ‘victors make the rules’ rhetoric that’s been flying about of late

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#219

Post by David Thompson » 29 Jun 2003, 20:35

For readers who want to check this out for themselves, the text of the 1907 Hague Convention, with its annex, is available at:

The Avalon Project Text at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

and

Global Alliance for Preserving the History of WWII in Asia text at:
http://www.gainfo.org/SFPT/HagueConventionIV_1907.htm

The text of the "Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare," proposed at the Hague in Feb 1923 but never adopted, is available at:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#220

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 21:27

For readers who don't know after February 1923 were still negoations:
Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, (Part IV, Art. 22, relating to submarine warfare). London, 22 April 1930.

First draft Convention adopted in Monaco (Sanitary cities and localities), 27 July 1934.

Draft International Convention on the Condition and Protection of Civilians of enemy nationality who are on territory belonging to or occupied by a belligerent. Tokyo, 1934.

Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). Washington, 15 April 1935.

Procès-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930. London, 6 November 1936.

The Nyon Agreement, 14 September 1937.

Agreement supplementary to The Nyon Agreement. Geneva, 17 September 1937.
Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938.

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#221

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 21:32

Maple 01 wrote:Unfortunately Germany had withdrawn from the league by them......
A withdraw from a treaty which was never convicted? Please tell us more.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#222

Post by Maple 01 » 29 Jun 2003, 21:57

If you re-read my post you'll see I said
Unfortunately Germany had withdrawn from the league by them......
So I don't see how you managed to misunderstand it as this:
A withdraw from a treaty which was never convicted? Please tell us more.
Yes, Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations, so even if the League had had accepted the draftit wouldn't apply to any attacks on Germany (in the same way Germany decided they didn't have to abide with the rules of the Geneva convention when they attacked Russia because the Soviet union hadn't ratified the agreement.

Now, do you accept that the 'The Hague Rules ' you quoted never came into force and are therefore irrelevant?

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#223

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 22:32

Maple 01 wrote:If you re-read my post you'll see I said
Unfortunately Germany had withdrawn from the league by them......
So I don't see how you managed to misunderstand it as this:
A withdraw from a treaty which was never convicted? Please tell us more.
Yes, Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations, so even if the League had had accepted the draft

Was the league of nations a bridge club?


it wouldn't apply to any attacks on Germany
When one decide to leve the League of Nations it doesn't mean that the rest who agree to the rules are allowed to ignore them.
(in the same way Germany decided they didn't have to abide with the rules of the Geneva convention when they attacked Russia because the Soviet union hadn't ratified the agreement.

Are you saying there are common arguments in Germany's attack on Russia and Allied actions? Well, I don't know if you are aware but Germans were sentencend for that.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#224

Post by Maple 01 » 29 Jun 2003, 22:40

Are you saying there are common arguments in Germany's attack on Russia and Allied actions? Well, I don't know if you are aware but Germans were sentencend for that.
I was just preparing for your complaints of unfair treatment of German war criminals - seems I was right.....
Was the league of nations a bridge club?
Don't think so........
When one decide to leve the League of Nations it doesn't mean that the rest who agree to the rules are allowed to ignore them.
The point is your 'Hague rules' were never adopted

so for the second time of asking

Now, do you accept that the 'The Hague Rules ' you quoted never came into force and are therefore irrelevant?

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#225

Post by POW » 29 Jun 2003, 23:56

Maple 01 wrote:
Was the league of nations a bridge club?
Don't think so........
What do you think to what rules the league of nations agreed?

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”