Dresden Bombing? & Post Liberation Eastern Euro gas Cham

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

An interesting development

#151

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 02:17

This is almost beyond belief. I was shopping tonight, and when I picked up a loaf of Munich Rye (Roggenbrot Muenchener Art), I heard a voice say "Gutes deutsches Brot." It was a gentleman of about 70, so I said, "Ja, stimmt! Ausgezeichnetes Brot!" What he said was "Good German, Bread." What I said was "Yes, I agree! Excellent Bread." So we started chatting.

It turns out he was a survivor of the Red Army attacks on Upper Silesia. His grandparents were from Danzig. Here is the kicker. He was one of the 200,000 Silesian refugees that were streaming through Dresden on 13 February 1945. At the risk of sounding cliche, he caught the last train out, along with his mother an father...about 15 minutes before the Bombing began. He says he remembers looking out the back of the train at the planes dropping Christmas Trees and asking his mom what they were. As the train sped away, the bombs began falling, and he said that the passengers could feel the bombs shaking the rails through the train.

I am going to interview this guy for my book. His aunt was one of the 2 million rape victims of the Red Army advance. His uncle was tied down, naked to a chair, and forced to watch as five men took turns on his wife.

There are other things he has to tell about being reunited with his father three years after the war after being separated. Etc. Etc. Etc. I'll keep you all posted. Unless he agrees, however, I won't share his name.

Charles.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

#152

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 02:24

WalterS wrote:
(it was, and all of WalterS's Kruschev like smashing of shoes on imaginary tables will not prove it wasn't
Sorry, you're the one who has to show that Dresden was a war crime. You haven't.
OK.
I have shown rather conclusively why Dresden is not a war crime.
No, You haven't....there, see how annoying shoe smashing really is?

You still haven't answered questions about other raids that I and others have asked.

For the sake of our discussion, let's make things more succinct.

TheKurgan, please answer the following:
The Allied bombing of Dresden was a war crime because _____________
The city was of dubious military value, the British technique of bombing didn't care if it wounded civilians, it was pitifully defended, if at all, and most of the military targets were totally missed by the bombers, all the Christmas Trees notwithstanding. In contrast, they were all right on target in creating the firestorm in the middle of the city.
The RAF attack on Hamburg in 1943 was/was not a war crime because __________
OK, honestly, I am still researching Dresden. When I research Hamburg more fully, I'll make an assessment of that.
The Luftwaffe raid on Coventry was a war crime because _____________
Because of the same reasons Dresden was. Hitler sent slightly over 500 bombers to Coventry. It matters not that the Germans simply misread the instruments and bombed the wrong place. It matters not that only around 600 were killed (in contrast to the tens of thousands in Dresden). The Germans bombed civilians instead of military targets. They were as guilty in Coventry as Harris was in Dresden.

You forget, sir...I NEVER SAID THE GERMANS WERE GUILTLESS!
The Luftwaffe attack on Stalingrad in Aug 42 was/was not a war crime because ________________
Again, not enough information yet to make a decision. I have opinions about Stalingrad (like, that it was defended HEAVILY), but I have seen how you treat opinions, so I'll refrain from espousing them as strong, fact based opinions yet. When I get more info, I'll post something more concrete.

To quote Jack McCoy on Law and Order, Asked and Answered, Judge.

Charles
Last edited by TheKurgan on 29 Dec 2004, 05:17, edited 1 time in total.


xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 16:12
Location: Pennsylvania

#153

Post by xcalibur » 29 Dec 2004, 02:57

Ok. Honestly I'm still researching Dresden.
In which case woud you please provide a bibliographical list of the books, articles, monographs, etc. you have read and intend to read. Might be helpful to the readers here.

Please don't include anecdotal stories from folks in grocery stores. If I tried to get away with, "Gee, I met a guy called Hymie the other day at the deli while ordering a pound of lox and he told me his dad was made into soap at Dachau", I'd be laughed outta here. And rightly so.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

#154

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 04:46


In which case woud you please provide a bibliographical list of the books, articles, monographs, etc. you have read and intend to read. Might be helpful to the readers here.

Please don't include anecdotal stories from folks in grocery stores. If I tried to get away with, "Gee, I met a guy called Hymie the other day at the deli while ordering a pound of lox and he told me his dad was made into soap at Dachau", I'd be laughed outta here. And rightly so.
OK, Books that I'm starting with to do research my book...

Alperovitz, Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
Beschloss, The Conquerors
de Zaya, A Terrible Revenge

This is not an exhaustive list, by any means...My book project will likely take me years, and I'll be using dozens of cites, if not hundreds.

And if I want to include information from people I've met who I can interview, that's my business. If you want to laugh, go ahead. That's your business. Your insinuation that I'm "trying to get away with something" is insulting. I'm not going to perjure myself as a researcher or as a poster simply to make myself appear "right." If I did, I'd be no better than David Irving, whom we all know is a denier and fraud.

Here is an "anecdote." I knew a fellow in Germany when I was living in Ansbach. Drove a cab. His name was Fritz Duerr. He was 57 and had been THIRTEEN when he was sent to the East to hold the Oder. I was in Germany from 1988-1991 with the 1st AD Band, not counting the time I spent in the first Desert Storm. To know what it was really like, you can't really read a book, no matter how well researched. He told me what it was like to BE there. The same as this fellow whom I met today. Is he full of crap? I don't know. I've only known him one day. I'm going to interview him, however, to find out. If he were really in Dresden on 13 February 1945, then he is a better source than all the USAAF Strategic Reports, British Bomber pilot logs, learned discourse, or arguments any of us can dream up. Since he was on a train out of the city when the attack began, he'd probably be a better source of information on the Expulsion than Dresden, but that's not the issue.

I DO know, however, that Fritz was telling the truth. He marched in the German Memorial Day Parade one year (we had to play for the Memorial Service). Fritz didn't quite fit into the uniform he wore when he was 13, but he did still squeeze into the pants with the jacket undone. This was not a Nazi. In 1945, he was a scared teenager. In 1989, he was a mourner at the memorial to the German War Dead. It was quite moving. We played an old war song called "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden," which translates as I once had a comrade. Our drums were dressed in black, along with the drum major's baldric.

Anyway, that's beside the point. I want to get the perspective of people who were actually there at the points in history I want to discuss at length in my book. Their veracity will be checked. If I decide they're full of crap, then so be it. I have good friends and acquaintances then who like to tell tall tales about the war. If they're not, then I have indispensible sources.

In any event, please do not assume I am some crackpot or apologist out to prove Germany's guilt is lessened. I am nothing of the sort. Had I been on the deciding panel at Nuernberg, I would have voted to convict those who were convicted. They deserved punishment. I am seriously pursuing a book to outline the War Crimes of ALL the major parties in WWII: America, Japan, Germany, Britain, and Russia. I am beginning with those of my countrymen, the Americans.

I now pose serious questions to all of the members of the forum. Do you really think that the Germans were the only ones who begot war crimes on a large scale? Do you think the Allies incapable of them? Are you afraid of national shame if it's proven that your countrymen and ancestors committed large scale crimes? Do you even want to KNOW if crimes were committed? Or is it more conveniently left under the rug where no one will get hurt?

I want to know the answers to the War Crimes question. To me, WWII, however just the outcome, was the ultimate question of "do the ends justify the means?" The barbarity and inhumanity to man exhibited by ALL sides led to the death of at least 80 million people. THREE % of the world's population at the time. It is a hugely dark chapter in human history that I want to explore.

I see that there are preconceived notions on both sides of the Allied War Crimes argument. One side is personified by WalterS, who believes the Allies incapable of war crimes. The other side is personified by David Irving, who seeks to excuse German War Crimes by manufacturing Allied crimes (I differ from Irving in that I want to find evidence of real crimes, and I believe I have found such evidence).

You can censure me if you will, but I WILL get to the bottom of what happened, even if I don't like the answers. The book is about War Crimes, and if it turns out that the only ones who committed them were the Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians (with the British and Americans innocent), then SO BE IT. THAT will be what I report. I am honorable, and intend to present the evidence as it lies. Before you say, "Oh, no you won't. You'll just show one side so that people will believe you without seeing the other point of view." That is ALSO NOT THE CASE. For example, I plan on quoting the USAAF report on the Dresden bombing as a key piece of evidence on the "It wasn't" side of the argument. We cannot have true informational closure, and a truly well reasoned conclusion, without showing both sides. To do less would be sensationalism of the worst variety.

Sorry for the long post, but I had to get certain things aired. If I have offended anyone or seemed accusatory or insulting, I apologize. I want to say that it's an honor to have intelligent discourse about subjects like this with intelligent individuals, as long as we can remain intelligent and civil.

Thanks, folks, for listening, and giving me food for thought every day...

Charles

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

#155

Post by WalterS » 29 Dec 2004, 05:13

The city was of dubious military value,
Says who? You? If attacking war production and transportation sites is a war crime then virtually every raid conducted during the war was a crime, according to you.

I will restate the obvious:

1. Dresden was a legitimate military target. Over 100 shops and factories were making war-related materials in Feb 45.

2. Dresden was a legitimate communications target. In Feb 45 some twenty-eight troop transport trains passed though Dresden each day.

3. The Russians specifically requested that the RAF and USAAF bomb Dresden and other transport hubs.

and most of the military targets were totally missed by the bombers,
Not true. Extensive damage was done to the city center, where many of the shops that made war materials were, as well as damage to the Friedrichstadt marshalling yards and petroleum facilities. Other facilities in outlying areas were relatively unscathed.
Forty-one damaged or destroyed factories were mentioned by name as important for military production, with descriptions of level of damage and the probability of a resumption in production.....

Dresden companies were famous before the war for their cameras, which were exported all over the world. By the last years of the Second World War, the output of all of these companies was devoted to war work.....

The Ihagee camera factory in the Schandauer Strasse, which employed (1943) more than 550 workers, also exclusively producing equipment for the Wehrmacht, was completely destroyed.
Frederick Taylor, "Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945," pp. 358-9

In any event, inaccuracy wasn't a crime. It is incorrect to say that military targets were not attacked or damaged.
The Germans bombed civilians instead of military targets. They were as guilty in Coventry as Harris was in Dresden
Actually, the Germans were trying to bomb Coventry's aircraft engine and munitions industries which were concentrated in small shops near the city center. The fact that they did a poor job of it doesn't negate this.

I think your use of the terms "Buckwheat" and "Kemosabe" shows who's really doing the shoe smashing here.

You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate why the Dresden bombing is a war crime.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

You're right

#156

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 05:20

You are correct, WalterS...I should not have resorted to sarcasm. I removed the incorrect phrases from my post.

C.

And you have not proven to me that Dresden was not a War Crime. Please don't say you have.

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

#157

Post by WalterS » 29 Dec 2004, 05:28

And you have not proven to me that Dresden was not a War Crime. Please don't say you have.

I'm not sure it is possible to do so.


It's up to you to prove that Dresden was a war crime. You haven't. I have at least raised reasonable doubt that it was.

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

#158

Post by WalterS » 29 Dec 2004, 05:50

TheKurgan wrote:
I now pose serious questions to all of the members of the forum. Do you really think that the Germans were the only ones who begot war crimes on a large scale? Do you think the Allies incapable of them? Are you afraid of national shame if it's proven that your countrymen and ancestors committed large scale crimes? Do you even want to KNOW if crimes were committed? Or is it more conveniently left under the rug where no one will get hurt?
Well, this thread, which YOU resurrected, is about Dresden. There are plenty of threads on this forum discussing alleged crimes by the Allies. Perhaps you'd like to resurrect one of those?

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

#159

Post by David Thompson » 29 Dec 2004, 08:23

TheKurgan -- (A) Here are the problems I'm having with your argument:

(1) The aerial bombardment of cities and their civilian populations was widespread -- even commonplace -- in WWII. Without reference to which country started the practice, and why, it very quickly became customary.

(2) For that reason, the aerial bombardment of cities and their civilian populations was not treated as a war crime during and after WWII, with a single exception -- the bombardment of Belgrade in April 1941 by German officers who knew that it had been previously declared an open city.

(3) Since none of the belligerent powers undertook to prosecute anyone for the aerial bombardment of civilian populations in Europe during WWII, it is a fair inference that no European government considered such acts to be war crimes. If you hold that the aerial bombardment of cities and their civilian populations generally was a war crime, your view runs counter to the official position of the governments of every European belligerent power in WWII.

(4) The term "war crime," like a "crime against humanity" or a "crime against peace," has a definite legal meaning. It means that one of the laws and customs of land warfare was knowingly and deliberately violated. These elements of the offense against the laws and customs of war must be factually established to prove that a war crime took place.

(5) The charge of war crime or war criminal carries with it a certain moral disapproval of the acts or persons involved. For that reason, the claim should not be made lightly. The burden of proof to establish a war crime is on the claimant -- the person or country making the allegation. In my opinion, you have failed to carry this burden. You have been unable to show that aerial bombardment of cities in WWII was a violation of the laws and customs of land warfare generally, and you have failed to make a particularized showing that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime under the circumstances.

(6) Even if one takes your point of view -- that the aerial bombardment of cities and their civilian populations generally was a war crime -- the corollary is there were thousands of such crimes and hundreds of civilian and military leaders who were guilty of them. Under such circumstances, the bombing of Dresden is just one of the thousands of crimes committed by nearly every country which bombed another in WWII.

(7) Your focus on this single incident, as opposed to a blanket denunciation of the practice of bombing civilian populations by all sides, or the use of multiple examples to show that the practice was inhumane, is therefore intellectually and morally inconsistent. It strongly suggests that you have a partisan or propagandistic agenda, particularly when coupled with the number of your factual errors, all of which had the same tendency -- to sensationalize and emphasize the alleged wrongdoing. I think that some of our other readers have noticed this inconsistency in your argument as well and resent it, particularly since you have not been able to establish that the bombing was a war crime.

(B) You said:
I now pose serious questions to all of the members of the forum. Do you really think that the Germans were the only ones who begot war crimes on a large scale? Do you think the Allies incapable of them? Are you afraid of national shame if it's proven that your countrymen and ancestors committed large scale crimes? Do you even want to KNOW if crimes were committed? Or is it more conveniently left under the rug where no one will get hurt?
(1) These comments are off-topic in this thread, which is about the Dresden bombings. If you can't prove your claims here, don't try to change the subject to something else. If you want to raise other claims, do it in other threads.

(2) Your statement is just bombast. We're here to produce and discuss facts, not listen to unsupported opinions or rhetorical cries. It is a requirement of this section of the forum that proof be posted to back up claims like these. I have already mentioned this requirement to you on five previous occasions.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 823#601823
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 498#602498
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 714#602714
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 838#605838
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 866#605866

This warning makes it six. Further noncomplying posts will be deleted without warning.

(3) It is well known that every country has some individuals serving in its armed forces who commit crimes. Few countries, however, institute criminal policies for their armed forces and police units to carry out. In WWII, Germany was such a country. If you have proof that allied countries in WWII had criminal policies, post it. If you fail to prove your claims, however, do not be surprised if our readers point it out.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

Now you've got it

#160

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 14:18

David Thompson wrote:
(6) Even if one takes your point of view -- that the aerial bombardment of cities and their civilian populations generally was a war crime -- the corollary is there were thousands of such crimes and hundreds of civilian and military leaders who were guilty of them. Under such circumstances, the bombing of Dresden is just one of the thousands of crimes committed by nearly every country which bombed another in WWII.
Now you're beginning to see the gist of my argument. You said two things in your post. First, that every European nation generally agreed that bombing civilian populations was not a war crime. Above you said that there would be "hundreds of civilian and military leaders who were guilty of them" and that there were "thousands of such crimes." Bingo. Considering that most of what was done was by Europeans, is it any wonder that they wouldn't pursue the prosecution of "hundreds" of guilty parties? Dresden was simply the icing on the cake of destruction, that is, until H & N, but that is another thread.

Now you know why I think WWII Was the darkest hour of humanity.

Charles

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

Yet more

#161

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 14:22

David Thompson wrote:
B) You said: Quote:
I now pose serious questions to all of the members of the forum. Do you really think that the Germans were the only ones who begot war crimes on a large scale? Do you think the Allies incapable of them? Are you afraid of national shame if it's proven that your countrymen and ancestors committed large scale crimes? Do you even want to KNOW if crimes were committed? Or is it more conveniently left under the rug where no one will get hurt?
and
(1) These comments are off-topic in this thread, which is about the Dresden bombings. If you can't prove your claims here, don't try to change the subject to something else. If you want to raise other claims, do it in other threads.
Respectfully, David, I disagree. I think these questions are quintessentially on point. Since we both agree that there were hundreds of guilty parties involved in bombings all over Europe (by both sides). then we have to start to ask difficult questions about the conduct of both sides. Germany has already been through the wringer, Japan less so. The allies never have. Hence the difficult questions about their fear of "being found out," as it were.

Charles

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 23:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Contact:

#162

Post by TheKurgan » 29 Dec 2004, 14:42

David Thompson wrote:
7) Your focus on this single incident, as opposed to a blanket denunciation of the practice of bombing civilian populations by all sides, or the use of multiple examples to show that the practice was inhumane, is therefore intellectually and morally inconsistent. It strongly suggests that you have a partisan or propagandistic agenda, particularly when coupled with the number of your factual errors, all of which had the same tendency -- to sensationalize and emphasize the alleged wrongdoing. I think that some of our other readers have noticed this inconsistency in your argument as well and resent it, particularly since you have not been able to establish that the bombing was a war crime.
OK, I'll shut up now. You're right. I should simply wait until I have gathered all of the cites I need before posting anything else. So you should see a moratorium of posts until such time. It might be a while, and the resulting post will likely be longer than usual (and I will include the previously lost translation that I did)

If I have offended anyone or caused resentment, I'm sorry. It was not my intent to be a propagandist or an apologist. I certainly don't want to be lumped into the same category as Goebbels (which the term propagandist does, at least to me). Even though my feelings were hurt, I probably deserved it. I will, however, note that WalterS does the same thing as I. I do also want to note, though, that his behavior does not excuse mine. I let emotion get involved in the research process, where it does not belong. Forgive me, David, WalterS, AndyH, and the rest of you in whom I caused resentment.

If after making my best argument, I still am unable to convince you, then so be it. Take care, all. I probably won't be posting until after the New Year, so I'll wish you all Happy New Year now.

Sincerely,

Charles

C.
Last edited by TheKurgan on 29 Dec 2004, 17:00, edited 1 time in total.

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

#163

Post by Andy H » 29 Dec 2004, 15:00

the British technique of bombing didn't care if it wounded civilians
using that as a template, can one rightly conclude that every Artillery barrage placed on a city/town/village or hamlet is a warcrime?

Andy H

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

#164

Post by David Thompson » 29 Dec 2004, 20:23

Andy H -- You astutely remarked:
using that as a template, can one rightly conclude that every Artillery barrage placed on a city/town/village or hamlet is a warcrime?
This puts the problem very neatly. 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://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/decpeter.htm
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.

The publication of Jules Verne's work Robur the Conqueror (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 for a second time.

Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons (Hague, IV); July 29, 1899
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague994.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-01.htm

When WWI started the laws and customs of land warfare had been codified in the 1907 Hague Convention, which did not distinguish between artillery and aerial bombardment:
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://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
During WWI, both sides did not respect several of these articles, and there was great disagreement over the meanings of "unnecessary suffering" and "the 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.

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 reinterpreted by the signatory powers to permit attacks on civilian populations, and there was no legal basis for a distinction between shelling by artillery and bombing from aircraft.

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. As a result, acts which were not considered to be war crimes during WWII are now expressly prohibited.

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 Aug 1949)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm
Last edited by David Thompson on 19 Feb 2005, 18:48, edited 1 time in total.

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

#165

Post by WalterS » 30 Dec 2004, 17:36

TheKurgan wrote:
Respectfully, David, I disagree. I think these questions are quintessentially on point. Since we both agree that there were hundreds of guilty parties involved in bombings all over Europe (by both sides). then we have to start to ask difficult questions about the conduct of both sides
That is a misrepresentation of Mr. Thompson's post. He didn't agree at all. He began the paragraph
6) Even if one takes your point of view --
It's quite obvious that Mr. Thompson doesn't. Nor do I.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”