Fire bombs to destroy railways? Better you stop posting on this. You make a fool of yourself.Maple 01 wrote:Failed again, every allied air raid was given an aiming point that was directly involved in the war effort - in the case of Dresden it was the Railway station - You might not like it, but look at the target maps - Next!
Churchill´s warcrimes
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
A city inside of an enemy country is automactically a defended city , think of all troops on the "frontline" surely they are "defending that city"
if there is just one anti -aircraft gun anywhere in the flight -path of those bombers surely they are considered defending that city.
I would say that unless a city is declared "open or free" it is automatically defended if in the borders of enemy territory.
Do you get the "loophole" now?
if there is just one anti -aircraft gun anywhere in the flight -path of those bombers surely they are considered defending that city.
I would say that unless a city is declared "open or free" it is automatically defended if in the borders of enemy territory.
Do you get the "loophole" now?
You quoted regulations which came pre WW2 into force. That shows to me haw much knowledge you have on this subject........Maple 01 wrote:Failed again, every allied air raid was given an aiming point that was directly involved in the war effort - in the case of Dresden it was the Railway station - You might not like it, but look at the target maps - Next!4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
When the Hague Convention came into force there weren't any aicrafts in the position to destroy a city. So the authors of the convention had in mind that it is forbidden to destroy a city and kill the civilians with artillery guns. When the city is undefended the infantry should take the city. When they had known it would be possible to carry these shells with a plane and drop them from the air, I'm sure they had made for the Perrien's and Maple's a special Article.ChristopherPerrien wrote:A city inside of an enemy country is automactically a defended city , think of all troops on the "frontline" surely they are "defending that city"
if there is just one anti -aircraft gun anywhere in the flight -path of those bombers surely they are considered defending that city.
I would say that unless a city is declared "open or free" it is automatically defended if in the borders of enemy territory.
Do you get the "loophole" now?
However, Warsaw and Rotterdam was bombed because the infantry wanted to take the city. In Lübeck, Hamburg, Cologne, Tokyo etc was no infantry to take the city. The cities had to be destroyed to demoralize the people. That is a big difference imho.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
I made this quote.I added it cause he claimed that it was even today allowed to bomb civilians.
Since post-war Articles are being addresed: I will suport my statement with them.
. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
This is the same reason justifying civlian bombing during WWII.
And I see the articles still play semantic games. with:
5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.
Warcrimes are still decided by the victor.
I think you're the fool, where does it say you can't drop what you like on the enermy - as Spike Millagan once said, 'it's like dropping gas cookers full od s**t'Fire bombs to destroy railways? Better you stop posting on this. You make a fool of yourself.
All legal and above board, enermy army on the ground, clearly marked aiming point - now, which is it to be - all area bombing is a warcrime or none?
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
In the Einsatzgruppen trial held by an American military tribunal at Nuernberg (US v. Otto Ohlendorf, et al.), the defendants raised the allied strategic bombing of Germany as a defense to their own war crimes. The judge presiding over the trial rejected this defense, stating:
"Then it was submitted that the defendants must be exonerated from the charge of killing civilian populations since every Allied nation brought about the death of non-combatants through the instrumentality of bombing.
Any person, who, without cause, strikes another may not later complain if the other in repelling the attack uses sufficient force to overcome the original adversary. That is fundamental law between individuals in every civilized nation and it is fundamental law between nations as well.
It has already been adjudicated by a competent tribunal that Germany under its Nazi rulers started an aggressive war. The bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and other German cities followed the bombing of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw and other Allied cities; the bombing of German cities succeeded, in point of time, the acts discussed here. But even if it were
- 72 -
assumed for the purpose of illustration that the Allies bombed German cities without Germans having bombed Allied cities, there still is no parallelism between an act of legitimate warfare, namely the bombing of a city, with a concomitant loss of civilian life, and the premeditated killing of all members of certain categories of the civilian population in occupied territory.
A city is bombed for tactical purposes: communications are to be destroyed, railroads wrecked, ammunition plants demolished, factories razed, all for the purposes of impeding the military. In those operations it inevitably happens that non-military persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to those same railway tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them.
It was argued in behalf of the defendants that there was no moral distinction between shooting civilians with rifles and killing them by means of atomic bombs. There is no doubt that the invention of the atomic bomb has added a preoccupation and worry to the human race, but the atomic bomb, when used, was not aimed at non-combatants. Like any other aerial bomb employed during the war, it was dropped to overcome military resistance.
Thus, as grave a military action as is an air bombardment, whether with the usual bombs or by atomic bomb, the one and only purpose of the bombing is to effect the surrender of the bombed nation. The people of that nation, through their representatives, may surrender and, with the surrender, the bombing ceases, the killing is ended. Furthermore, a city is assured of not being bombed by the law-abiding belligerent if it is declared an open city. With the Jews it was entirely different. Even if the nation surrendered they still were killed as individuals.
It has not been shown throughout this entire trial that the killing of the Jews as Jews in any way subdued or abated the
- 73 -
military force of the enemy, it was not demonstrated how mass killings and indiscriminate slaughter helped or was designed to help in shortening or winning the war for Germany. The annihilation of defenceless persons considered as "inferior" in Russia would have had no effect on the military issue of the war.
In fact, so mad were those who inaugurated this policy that they could not see that the massacre of the Jews in many instances actually hindered their own efforts. We have seen in the record that occasionally German officials tried to save Jews from extinction so that they could be forced to work for the German war effort. This would have been another war crime but at least it would not have been so immediately disastrous for the victims.
The Einsatzgruppen were out to kill "inferiors" and, first of all, the Jews. But in the documentation of the war crimes trials since the end of the war, no explanation appears as to why, from the viewpoint of the Nazis, the Jew had to die. In fact, most of the defendants in all these proceedings have expressed a great regard for the Jew. They assert they have admired him, befriended him, and to have deplored the atrocities committed against him. It would seem they were ready to help him in very way except to save him from being killed.
The Einsatzgruppen were told at Pretzsch that "the Jews" supported Bolshevism, but there is no evidence that every Jew had espoused Bolshevism, although, even if this were true, killing him for his political belief would still be murder.
As the einsatzkommandos entered new cities and towns and villages they did not even know where to look for the Jews. Each einsatzkommando was equipped with several interpreters, but it became evident throughout the trial that these invading forces did not carry sufficient linguistic talent to cope with the different languages of the States, provinces and localities through which they moved. There can be no doubt that because of the celerity with which the order was executed countless non-Jews were killed on the supposition that they were Jews. Frequently the only test applied to determine Judaism was that of phsiognomy.
- 74 -
One either justifies the Fuehrer-Order or one does not. On supports the killing of the Jews or denounces it. If the massacres are admitted to be unsupportable and if the defendants assert that their participation was the result of physical and moral duress, the issue is clear and it becomes only a question of determining how effective and oppressive was the force exerted to compel the reluctant killer. If, however, the defendants claim that the killing of the Jews was justified, but this claim does not commend itself to human reason and does not meet the requirements of law, then it is inevitable that the defendants committed a crime.
It is the privilege of the defendant to put forth mutually exclusive defences, and it is the duty of the court to consider them all. But it is evident that the insistence on the part of the defendants that the massacres were justified because the Jews constituted an immediate danger to Germany inevitably weakens the argument that they acted only under duress exerted on them personally; and in turn, the "personal duress" argument enfeebles the "danger to Germany" argument. In two or three instances an attempt was made to show that the Jews in
Russia held a high percentage of official positions, a percentage
disproportionate to the size of the Jewish population. This was the most common theory utilized in Germany for the oppression and persecution of the Jews. By adducing the same excuse here the defendants involved acknowledged they were putting into physical effect in Russia an antipathy and prejudice already entertained in Germany against the Jewish race. There is no duty and certainly no right on the part of the defendants to go into Russia to equalize the official positions according to the proportion between Jews and non-Jews.
Defense Counsel Dr. Mayer admitted that the Fuehrer-Order violated the
recognized laws and customs of war, but urged that Russia was not entitled to protection under international law. Apart from the fact that Russia was a party to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare -- in fact, the Hague conference of 1899
- 75 -
was initiated by Russia -- the International Military Tribunal pointed out that the rules of the Hague Regulations have become declaratory of the Common Law of War. It further disposed of the objection by quoting approvingly from the memorandum issued by the German Admiral Canaris on September 15, 1941, in which he declared that is is contrary to military tradition, regardless of treaty or lack of treaty -- "To kill or injure helpless people."
Dr. Mayer also said, taking the same line as Dr. Maurach:
"If this war was not an unjustified war of aggression, but a justified
preventive war, then, on the basis of my explanations in the Trial Brief on the subject of the ideology, aims and practice of the USSR, to which I refer, the question arises, in how far the German Reich found itself, in this war against the USSR, in a genuine state of national emergency, and whether this justified the orders given by Hitler."
If Dr. Mayer means this, he collides head-on with a res judicata. The
International Military Tribunal, after studying countless documents and hearing numerous direct witnesses of and participants in the event itself, declared:
"The plans for the economic exploitation of the USSR, for the removal of
masses of population, for the murder of Commissars and political leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme launched on the 22nd June without warning of any kind, and without the shadow of legal excuse. It was plain aggression."
The annihilation of the Jews had nothing to do with the defense of Germany, the genocide program was in no way connected with the protection of the Vaterland, it was entirely foreign to the military issue. Thus, taking into consideration all that has been said in this particular phase of the defense, the Tribunal concludes that the argument that the Jews in themselves constituted an aggressive menace to Germany, a menace which called for their liquidation in self defense, is untenable as being opposed to all facts, all logic and all law."
- 76 -
Musmanno, Michael A., U.S.N.R, Military Tribunal II, Case 9: Opinion and
Judgment of the Tribunal. Nuremberg: Palace of Justice. 8 April 1948. pp. 72-76 (original mimeographed copy), available on-line at:
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/t ... mbing.html
"Then it was submitted that the defendants must be exonerated from the charge of killing civilian populations since every Allied nation brought about the death of non-combatants through the instrumentality of bombing.
Any person, who, without cause, strikes another may not later complain if the other in repelling the attack uses sufficient force to overcome the original adversary. That is fundamental law between individuals in every civilized nation and it is fundamental law between nations as well.
It has already been adjudicated by a competent tribunal that Germany under its Nazi rulers started an aggressive war. The bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and other German cities followed the bombing of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw and other Allied cities; the bombing of German cities succeeded, in point of time, the acts discussed here. But even if it were
- 72 -
assumed for the purpose of illustration that the Allies bombed German cities without Germans having bombed Allied cities, there still is no parallelism between an act of legitimate warfare, namely the bombing of a city, with a concomitant loss of civilian life, and the premeditated killing of all members of certain categories of the civilian population in occupied territory.
A city is bombed for tactical purposes: communications are to be destroyed, railroads wrecked, ammunition plants demolished, factories razed, all for the purposes of impeding the military. In those operations it inevitably happens that non-military persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to those same railway tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them.
It was argued in behalf of the defendants that there was no moral distinction between shooting civilians with rifles and killing them by means of atomic bombs. There is no doubt that the invention of the atomic bomb has added a preoccupation and worry to the human race, but the atomic bomb, when used, was not aimed at non-combatants. Like any other aerial bomb employed during the war, it was dropped to overcome military resistance.
Thus, as grave a military action as is an air bombardment, whether with the usual bombs or by atomic bomb, the one and only purpose of the bombing is to effect the surrender of the bombed nation. The people of that nation, through their representatives, may surrender and, with the surrender, the bombing ceases, the killing is ended. Furthermore, a city is assured of not being bombed by the law-abiding belligerent if it is declared an open city. With the Jews it was entirely different. Even if the nation surrendered they still were killed as individuals.
It has not been shown throughout this entire trial that the killing of the Jews as Jews in any way subdued or abated the
- 73 -
military force of the enemy, it was not demonstrated how mass killings and indiscriminate slaughter helped or was designed to help in shortening or winning the war for Germany. The annihilation of defenceless persons considered as "inferior" in Russia would have had no effect on the military issue of the war.
In fact, so mad were those who inaugurated this policy that they could not see that the massacre of the Jews in many instances actually hindered their own efforts. We have seen in the record that occasionally German officials tried to save Jews from extinction so that they could be forced to work for the German war effort. This would have been another war crime but at least it would not have been so immediately disastrous for the victims.
The Einsatzgruppen were out to kill "inferiors" and, first of all, the Jews. But in the documentation of the war crimes trials since the end of the war, no explanation appears as to why, from the viewpoint of the Nazis, the Jew had to die. In fact, most of the defendants in all these proceedings have expressed a great regard for the Jew. They assert they have admired him, befriended him, and to have deplored the atrocities committed against him. It would seem they were ready to help him in very way except to save him from being killed.
The Einsatzgruppen were told at Pretzsch that "the Jews" supported Bolshevism, but there is no evidence that every Jew had espoused Bolshevism, although, even if this were true, killing him for his political belief would still be murder.
As the einsatzkommandos entered new cities and towns and villages they did not even know where to look for the Jews. Each einsatzkommando was equipped with several interpreters, but it became evident throughout the trial that these invading forces did not carry sufficient linguistic talent to cope with the different languages of the States, provinces and localities through which they moved. There can be no doubt that because of the celerity with which the order was executed countless non-Jews were killed on the supposition that they were Jews. Frequently the only test applied to determine Judaism was that of phsiognomy.
- 74 -
One either justifies the Fuehrer-Order or one does not. On supports the killing of the Jews or denounces it. If the massacres are admitted to be unsupportable and if the defendants assert that their participation was the result of physical and moral duress, the issue is clear and it becomes only a question of determining how effective and oppressive was the force exerted to compel the reluctant killer. If, however, the defendants claim that the killing of the Jews was justified, but this claim does not commend itself to human reason and does not meet the requirements of law, then it is inevitable that the defendants committed a crime.
It is the privilege of the defendant to put forth mutually exclusive defences, and it is the duty of the court to consider them all. But it is evident that the insistence on the part of the defendants that the massacres were justified because the Jews constituted an immediate danger to Germany inevitably weakens the argument that they acted only under duress exerted on them personally; and in turn, the "personal duress" argument enfeebles the "danger to Germany" argument. In two or three instances an attempt was made to show that the Jews in
Russia held a high percentage of official positions, a percentage
disproportionate to the size of the Jewish population. This was the most common theory utilized in Germany for the oppression and persecution of the Jews. By adducing the same excuse here the defendants involved acknowledged they were putting into physical effect in Russia an antipathy and prejudice already entertained in Germany against the Jewish race. There is no duty and certainly no right on the part of the defendants to go into Russia to equalize the official positions according to the proportion between Jews and non-Jews.
Defense Counsel Dr. Mayer admitted that the Fuehrer-Order violated the
recognized laws and customs of war, but urged that Russia was not entitled to protection under international law. Apart from the fact that Russia was a party to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare -- in fact, the Hague conference of 1899
- 75 -
was initiated by Russia -- the International Military Tribunal pointed out that the rules of the Hague Regulations have become declaratory of the Common Law of War. It further disposed of the objection by quoting approvingly from the memorandum issued by the German Admiral Canaris on September 15, 1941, in which he declared that is is contrary to military tradition, regardless of treaty or lack of treaty -- "To kill or injure helpless people."
Dr. Mayer also said, taking the same line as Dr. Maurach:
"If this war was not an unjustified war of aggression, but a justified
preventive war, then, on the basis of my explanations in the Trial Brief on the subject of the ideology, aims and practice of the USSR, to which I refer, the question arises, in how far the German Reich found itself, in this war against the USSR, in a genuine state of national emergency, and whether this justified the orders given by Hitler."
If Dr. Mayer means this, he collides head-on with a res judicata. The
International Military Tribunal, after studying countless documents and hearing numerous direct witnesses of and participants in the event itself, declared:
"The plans for the economic exploitation of the USSR, for the removal of
masses of population, for the murder of Commissars and political leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme launched on the 22nd June without warning of any kind, and without the shadow of legal excuse. It was plain aggression."
The annihilation of the Jews had nothing to do with the defense of Germany, the genocide program was in no way connected with the protection of the Vaterland, it was entirely foreign to the military issue. Thus, taking into consideration all that has been said in this particular phase of the defense, the Tribunal concludes that the argument that the Jews in themselves constituted an aggressive menace to Germany, a menace which called for their liquidation in self defense, is untenable as being opposed to all facts, all logic and all law."
- 76 -
Musmanno, Michael A., U.S.N.R, Military Tribunal II, Case 9: Opinion and
Judgment of the Tribunal. Nuremberg: Palace of Justice. 8 April 1948. pp. 72-76 (original mimeographed copy), available on-line at:
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/t ... mbing.html
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
POW and Maple01 -- Take a look at the announcement "On Taunts, Insults and Other Offensive Behavior" posted at the top of the index to this section of the forum, and then comply with it:
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24871
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24871
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Ok, POW stated
Now, if POW wants to go into who started the whole gastly mess of indescriminate area bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1892714.stm
-Nick
From the RAF web-site Bomber Command diaryFire bombs to destroy railways? Better you stop posting on this. You make a fool of yourself
So, the majority of the bombs that were dropped were Iron bombs!Dresden: 796 Lancasters and 9 Mosquitos were dispatched in two separate raids and dropped 1,478 tons of high explosive and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs.
Now, if POW wants to go into who started the whole gastly mess of indescriminate area bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1892714.stm
-Nick
We shall ... bomb every building in Britain marked with three stars in the Baedeker Guide
In the spring of 1942, the Luftwaffe began to rain bombs down on English towns notable not for their armaments factories, but for their rich histories and architectural treasures.
Curious as they were, the attacks are important to our understanding of air warfare in World War II - for they led directly to the 1,000-bomber RAF raids that so utterly destroyed many German towns and cities
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
On the issue of "undefended" cities, the usual procedure is for the military commander occupying the city to withdraw all troops and weapons, and declare the place an "open city." This has been a custom of war for some time. A superficial google search turned up these examples:
US Civil War -- Elizabeth City, North Carolina
http://www.elizcity.com/history/cvlwar03.htm
US Civil War -- Mobile, Alabama
http://www.siteone.com/tourist/blakeley ... istory.htm
WWII -- Lorient, France 1940
http://www.geocities.com/shipwrecks_magazine/aerial.htm
WWII -- Paris 1940
http://www.news24.com/News24/On_this_da ... 46,00.html
http://www.vialarp.org/soiree/background.htm
WWII -- Manila 1941
http://www.oovrag.com/~oov/essays/essay2001b-1.shtml
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ramcyberv/
http://www.los-indios-bravos.com/englis ... st_22.html
http://wwiiradio.com/memories.html
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:5Z ... n&ie=UTF-8
http://www.worldwar2history.info/Bataan/
WWII -- Rome 1944
http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36divisi ... /44375.htm
http://travel.yahoo.com/p/travelguide/722193
WWII -- Paris 1944
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x20/xr2039.html
WWII -- Bad Wildungen, Germany
http://www.mysuncountry.com/Vets/Roberts/Roberts2.htm
WWII -- Florence (Firenze), Italy
http://www.forgottensoldier.com/veteran ... 62_20.html
WWII - Assisi, Italy
http://www.assisi-hotel.com/en/assisi_home.html
US Civil War -- Elizabeth City, North Carolina
http://www.elizcity.com/history/cvlwar03.htm
US Civil War -- Mobile, Alabama
http://www.siteone.com/tourist/blakeley ... istory.htm
WWII -- Lorient, France 1940
http://www.geocities.com/shipwrecks_magazine/aerial.htm
WWII -- Paris 1940
http://www.news24.com/News24/On_this_da ... 46,00.html
http://www.vialarp.org/soiree/background.htm
WWII -- Manila 1941
http://www.oovrag.com/~oov/essays/essay2001b-1.shtml
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ramcyberv/
http://www.los-indios-bravos.com/englis ... st_22.html
http://wwiiradio.com/memories.html
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:5Z ... n&ie=UTF-8
http://www.worldwar2history.info/Bataan/
WWII -- Rome 1944
http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36divisi ... /44375.htm
http://travel.yahoo.com/p/travelguide/722193
WWII -- Paris 1944
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x20/xr2039.html
WWII -- Bad Wildungen, Germany
http://www.mysuncountry.com/Vets/Roberts/Roberts2.htm
WWII -- Florence (Firenze), Italy
http://www.forgottensoldier.com/veteran ... 62_20.html
WWII - Assisi, Italy
http://www.assisi-hotel.com/en/assisi_home.html
David that was a great post on the use of "they did it so I am innocent".
That is the exact stance I take on the issue. I think the Judge summed it up nicely.
Even so I still say it is different when dropping bombs and shooting someone in the head. Sure they are both dead, but the shooting was plainly cold blooded, you could actually sneak out of the cities and get away from bombers they were not actually designed to exterminate but to reduce fighting capability. Jews and others had no such choices.
That is the exact stance I take on the issue. I think the Judge summed it up nicely.
Even so I still say it is different when dropping bombs and shooting someone in the head. Sure they are both dead, but the shooting was plainly cold blooded, you could actually sneak out of the cities and get away from bombers they were not actually designed to exterminate but to reduce fighting capability. Jews and others had no such choices.
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Hey Caldric , I do not believe or agree with that one war crime justifies another, either, but I do find a couple problems with your statements.
I don't think that is a point of contention to the person who is dead. And I if I had the choice I would rather die from an intentionable bullet , than an unintentionable bomb.Even so I still say it is different when dropping bombs and shooting someone in the head. Sure they are both dead, but the shooting was plainly cold blooded
Where are you going to go? To another "target? I suppose you could leave the country. I guess you could, but if this is true why didn't the "and others" you mention do it? I did not want to say that but I wanted to point out some flaws in the "getting away from stategic bombing" idea.you could actually sneak out of the cities and get away from bombers they were not actually designed to exterminate but to reduce fighting capability. Jews and others had no such choices.