Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

[murx]

Some laws of war which should have been respected and were violated
(although some treaties are from post war time it was defined at the Nuremberg tyrials that those rules derive from the laws of humanity and are uniquely applicable even for ex post judgements.

A judge should also respect the rules he's holding court about or those Nûrnberg "trials" end in not only having been a show but also a bad comedy.


Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938.

ATTACK OR BOMBARDMENT OF UNDEFENDED TOWNS
Art. 2. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are undefended is prohibited in all circumstances. A town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments (in this Convention referred to as "belligerent establishments") exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometres from such boundaries.

BOMBARDMENT OF DEFENDED TOWNS

Art. 3. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are defended is prohibited at any time (whether at night or day) when objects of military character cannot be clearly recognized.
Art. 4. Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorising the civilian population is expressly prohibited.



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

Article 1. The historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions shall be considered as neutral and as such respected and protected by belligerents.
The same respect and protection shall be due to the personnel of the institutions mentioned above.
The same respect and protection shall be accorded to the historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions in time of peace as well as in war.

(Dresden was an artwork of inestimable value)


Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art.3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
..........
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.



PS:

Also, please explain to me why
- bombing Dresden is a crime, but bombing another German city a week later isn't
- bombing Dresden is a crime, but dropping V-2 on London civilians isn't
- bombing Drenden is a crime, but bombing Coventry or Chungking isn't

I cannot explain the hypothesis above. Of course those were all crimes. Ask somebody who thinks the way you do.

[phylo_roadking]

Murx, you wrote -

Any addition of new data, correction of misspelings, finetuning of results, detection of errors is "revision". The necessity comes from a very simple rule: Science has to be accurate.

THEN you go and write THIS -

Some laws of war which should have been respected and were violated
(although some treaties are from post war time it was defined at the Nuremberg tyrials that those rules derive from the laws of humanity and are uniquely applicable even for ex post judgements.

A judge should also respect the rules he's holding court about or those Nûrnberg "trials" end in not only having been a show but also a bad comedy.


Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938.

ATTACK OR BOMBARDMENT OF UNDEFENDED TOWNS....

A Draft Convention IS NOT A LAW - it is however 100% accurate that a law which does not exist cannot be violated/broken.

[David Thompson]

murx -- You wrote:

Some laws of war which should have been respected and were violated
(although some treaties are from post war time it was defined at the Nuremberg tyrials that those rules derive from the laws of humanity and are uniquely applicable even for ex post judgements.

A judge should also respect the rules he's holding court about or those Nûrnberg "trials" end in not only having been a show but also a bad comedy.

If you give sources for your claims, it will give you the chance to make sure that the sources and the claims line up before you post. In the AHF setting, there's no bad comedy like the result of erroneous claims of fact.

A draft or proposed treaty only binds the countries which ultimate ratify or adhere to it. If no country ratifies or adheres to it, it's just a pipe dream. For war crimes treaties which were or are in effect, see the lists at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf

For interested readers:

Crimes against humanity - an ex post facto law?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27987
Ex post facto law and the Nuremberg trials
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15033

The legality of targeting civilians
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82959

Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1938a.htm

See also the Draft Rules for Aerial Warfare (1923 Hague Rules, etc.)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=71763

which were not formally adopted.

[murx]

Its interesting that those authors see the Versailles dictate as a "treaty". I don't know anglo-american laws, in Europe any contract having been signed under massive threat (British sea blockade), based on treachery (originally Wilson's 12 points were agreed to form the base of the treaty) or including impossible clauses (not defined reparations) is invalid. The German law in addition sees a contract to be void if violating "good manor", which is obvious in the Versailles pamphlet, written under the authorship of hate and revenge by the then winning forces. The prelude of WW II, the Weimar government regularly (and successfully) appealing to the court of the league of nations concerning the treatment of Germans in the former German territories (lost by "treaty"); neighbor Poland having tried to start preventive war together with France in 1933, Poland having mobilised its army in March 39 and again in August 39 (which is a form of declaration of war), Rhineland already having been occupied by a foreign nation, is enough "time of negotiation" according to all treaties and not to forget: France and Britain declared war against the Reich, not vice versa, is somehow strange to hear the IMT court declare: The Tribunal has decided that certain of the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars against twelve nations, and were therefore guilty of this series of crimes. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the subject in further detail, or even to consider at any length the extent to which these aggressive wars were also "wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances."


In fact, the text you have set a link to mainly regards the following "rule" as base for the IMT trials: In the year 1923 the draft of a Treaty of Mutual Assistance was sponsored by the League of Nations. In Article I the treaty declared "that aggressive war is an international crime," .

The joke: In the very same year France had occupied the (German) Rhineland, the Reich being mostly defenseless. If that was not an act of "aggressive war", there are no such acts. The declaration of the IMT tyherefore is a sarcastic joke, the face punch to the ass kick, not more. The accusation having planned "aggressive war against 12 nations" was the same. Probably it should be better asked why during times of negotiations the British government gave such extensive guarantees of assistance to Poland that those refused any further talks. It could also have been asked why the RAF had to to bomb the cities of Cologne and Duesseldorf during the phoney war from bases in Belgium and France, knowing that a two front war under all circumstances would be prevented by the Germans (New York Times 1940) and why the BBC started planning the wartime procedure of information broacasting in the year 1936 (BBC homepage) , why in the German - French armistice the paragraph appears: "the occupation is a temporary one until the diffences with the British Empire are settled", the French forces to hold the colonies were kept by the French, an armistice was chosen, not capitulation and why Churchill destroyed the French navy. That Brits were able to ship there people out of Duenkirchen is no miracle at all. The German Reich had no ambitions in the West except neutralising forces pulling up a second front, which constantly was the job of the British Empire and Churchill (who had failed on the same task at Galllipoli).



Aug. 30: Poland mobilises against Germany, Sept 1 1939: Germany declares war on Poland, Sept. 2: France on Germany, Belgium and France were drawn in to the war by the RAF using their airfields, Sept. 3: British Empire on Germany, Sept 10: Canada on Germany , April 8: Norway on Germany, June 22: Germany, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Sept 11 1941: USA on Germany, December 1941: Germany on the USA./





Question: >When and where did the German Reich plan aghgressive war against 12 nations (which ones), and how is the IMT accvusation of "conspiracy" justified, if not by "showtime"?

[South]

Good morning Murx,

President Wilson had a plan involving 14 (fourteen) - not 12 - points. It was not "agreed to" by the US Government.

Forgot who said it - might have been Clemenceau - ... there was a saying going around among the pundits:

= Wilson has 14 points. God only needed 10 =.


Warm regards,

Bob

[uberjude]

This whole thread is based on a faulty premise. Nobody objects to "revisionism." All historians are implicitly revising history every time they present a new thesis. But "revision" is not "denial." There are lots of interpretations as to why the American Civil War broke out; nobody denies there was a civil war. Nobody objects if a scholar revises the general 6 million dead figure in the Holocaust to 5.5 million--that's what historians do. Denial is another issue.

And it isn't simply a matter of honest debate. For all their pretense of historical objectivism, Holocaust Deniers (I refrain from calling them "revisionists") don't use the methodologies of legitimate historians, and for good reason. If they did, it would be obvious that they have no arguments to make, and that would expose their real goal. Because they might pretend to be objective, but follow the logic of their arguments. If the Holocaust didn't happen, it's not just about a different interpretation of facts; it's about a massive cover-up, that somebody managed to make the entire world believe that something took place that didn't. And who do the Holocaust deniers (at least the--relatively speaking--more honest one--) say that is? The fact is that Holocaust denial does offer a justification for attacks on synagogues, because it is used to "prove" that "the Jews" are a people guilty of committing a massive and sinister fraud upon the world.

As far as debating the deniers, I love it when this argument is offered. The most authoritative holocaust denier (sorry, "ex Holocaust denier") in the world had his day in court. He lost, and lost badly.

I suggest, Murx, that before this thread goes any further, you define your terms. All this talk about the Treaty of Versailles and it's meaning is certainly grounds for historical interpretation...but that's not in the same category as Holocaust Denial, and nobody says it is. If that's all you mean, then there's no reason for this thread, since this whole site is essentially dedicated to revising history. So when you say "Revisionist," what do you mean? Do you mean someone who revises and reinterprets history, or someone who denies it?

[David Thompson]

murx -- You wrote:

Its interesting that those authors see the Versailles dictate as a "treaty". I don't know anglo-american laws, in Europe any contract having been signed under massive threat (British sea blockade), based on treachery (originally Wilson's 12 points were agreed to form the base of the treaty) or including impossible clauses (not defined reparations) is invalid. The German law in addition sees a contract to be void if violating "good manor", which is obvious in the Versailles pamphlet, written under the authorship of hate and revenge by the then winning forces. The prelude of WW II, the Weimar government regularly (and successfully) appealing to the court of the league of nations concerning the treatment of Germans in the former German territories (lost by "treaty"); neighbor Poland having tried to start preventive war together with France in 1933, Poland having mobilised its army in March 39 and again in August 39 (which is a form of declaration of war), Rhineland already having been occupied by a foreign nation, is enough "time of negotiation" according to all treaties and not to forget: France and Britain declared war against the Reich, not vice versa, is somehow strange to hear the IMT court declare: The Tribunal has decided that certain of the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars against twelve nations, and were therefore guilty of this series of crimes. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the subject in further detail, or even to consider at any length the extent to which these aggressive wars were also "wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances."

(1) This argument gets you nowhere. If coercive agreements are unenforceable, the Germans had no basis for occupying France after 1940, or for annexing Alsace and Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian war. In fact, the German-imposed 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, which ended the Franco-Prussian war, is substantially similar to the Treaty of Versailles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Frankfurt_(1871)

(2) There's nothing strange about the IMT declaration either -- the issue of crimes against peace (waging aggressive war) had already been discussed extensively (42 pages worth) earlier in its judgment -- a point you have either overlooked or failed to mention. See:

Crimes Against Peace (Waging Aggressive War)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21755

(3) Please start sourcing your factual claims, as required by our rules. They're posted for all to see at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962

[phylo_roadking]

It could also have been asked why the RAF had to to bomb the cities of Cologne and Duesseldorf during the phoney war from bases in Belgium and France, knowing that a two front war under all circumstances would be prevented by the Germans (New York Times 1940)

There were no, repeat NO RAF bases in or operations from Belgium during the period of the "phoney" War September 1939-May 9th 1940. Belgium was a Neutral country.

Also - Britain/France in the West were one defensive/offensive Front.

why the BBC started planning the wartime procedure of information broacasting in the year 1936 (BBC homepage)

ALL nations plan/update their emergency planning provisions for civil/military emergencies when circumstances change; these can be for technological reasons...the BBC was a growing entity during the 1930s, opening new studios and broadcasting facilities up and down the British Isles that would have to be incorporated into their wartime preparations, while simply a greater number of people owned radios - so more management of wartime civilian affairs COULD be by radio dissemination of information.

ANY national government that did not update its procedures and preparations for defending its citizens would be at fault for not doing so; it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a provocative or warlike act.

Britain's Civil Defence preparations have ALWAYS had more than half an eye to protecting the governmental functions and continuance of government in the event of domestic emergency or unrest. In other words - what appears to be preparations to serve its citizens in wartime....is ALSO there to serve the general citizenry in time of national emergency AT HOME such as the General Strike that loomed far larger in British emergency planning than did the shadow of European war!

[Hanny]

Its interesting that those authors see the Versailles dictate as a "treaty". I don't know anglo-american laws, in Europe any contract having been signed under massive threat (British sea blockade), based on treachery (originally Wilson's 12 points were agreed to form the base of the treaty) or including impossible clauses (not defined reparations) is invalid.

Law not your thing then. Revisionsm is also where the facts are misreprented to allow a different conclusion to be drawn from that misrepresenation.

International law of treatys is what governs treaty laws between nations, not domestic law.http://web.me.com/waltergehr/The_Intern ... lcome.html

Your reviononist timeline is wrong.

Head of German state was offered an armistice/ceasfire on 14 points proposed by the POTUS, the head of state then consulted his Army generals and asked could they defend the nation with any prospect of success, to which the replied they could not, so he acepted the allied offer rather than face certain military defeat and risk defeat on unconditional terms.

later the ToV was freely entered into by all parties under internatioanl treaty law, which allows a nation to unilaterly leave a treaty if no time bar exist or provison for mechanism for leaving.

[PFLB]

Draft treaties are not necessarily worthless as evidence of international law. If the purpose of the treaty is simply to codify existing customary law, then it may constitute evidence of the views of states as to that law. For example, the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility are typically used by most commentators as the basis for discussion of state responsibility, notwithstanding that they are not binding on any state as a treaty.

The same is true of a treaty which is not universally adopted. For example, the US is not party to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1949. Nevertheless, the US government takes the view that the targeting regime in Pt IV Section I of that treaty is broadly representative of customary law, and the rules of engagement used in every military campaign since the 1991 Gulf War have been based on those provisions.