New Bravery Medal For Germany

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Lawyers would not take it to a courtroom for the simple fact that one does not go to court with a case they know they can not win.

Nonetheless, I have shown that a case exists based on the Hague Convention.



If the bombing falls within Article 25, it means that the allies most likely did not committ a war crime.

We've both said some pretty strange things, but that one has to top the list. If any article is broken by a force, you can charge them for war crimes.



You have been informed - the problem is that you have ignored it. Until you learn on your own I can not give you anymore information since you have to first learn what was alreadly given.

I have read your source, I have shown my own sources. You say I need to expand my horizons, but you refuse to accept any sources I put before you, merely brushing them aside.



Really - firebombs from WW2 did not contain submuntions as far as I have ever discovered.

There's the link. By an American, none the less.


Nope I am saying that Arthur Harris was not the only individual involved, that other stated reasons were the primary purpose behind the bombing of Dresden.


Your entitled - however have you read both prespectives from more then one source, have you read the Hague Convention in detail and several other key documents prior to this discussion?

Why yes, indeed. Where do you think I keep coming up with these quotes, these RAF Memos, etc.?


This seems to be the resounding chorus you guys keep repeating. "Read it. Read it closer!" I've read the documents. I've actually written on them in the past. The verbage is somewhat vague for a legal document of it's importance, and strong arguments can be made on both sides, but the spirit is clear. The whole point of the Hague Convention was to prevent obvious crimes such as Dresden.

An excellent point.


Unfortunately, when the relevant documents are in fact read, his opinion only gains credence at the expense of your.. oh... shall we say "desperate" attempts. :shrug:

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. :bow:


Not in the slightest , since the documents were very outdated by WW2 and have so many get out causes that calling it a war crime is a legal impossibility .

You were the one who brought up the documents in the first place to prove that I had no case! Now, because there are articles that enforce my point, you try to say that it was outdated.

That's extremely hypocritical.

[Tribesman]

You were the one who brought up the documents in the first place to prove that I had no case! Now, because there are articles that enforce my point, you try to say that it was outdated.
That's extremely hypocritical.

:daisy: , learn to read and understand Mars:dizzy2:
I have asked you to spot the important words in clauses you quote , words that negate the meaning you are trying to to use them for .
The articles do not enforce your case at all .

Here try reading this very slowly and see if you can understand at all .

The convention and its articles were outdated and contained so much particular wording that amounted to get out clauses , so that all of the allied actions in that raid can be dressed up as to be in complete compliance with the articles of the convention and as such untryable as a war crime .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have asked you to spot the important words in clauses you quote , words that negate the meaning you are trying to to use them for .
The articles do not enforce your case at all .

They do. I have analyzed the articles fully, and debated and responded. If you pointed out specific words, I could respond to those in particular. However, you asked me to go over the articles to find what words negate my case. I responded perfectly adequately - you have not.



Here try reading this very slowly and see if you can understand at all .


Your attitude is charming.

[Tribesman]

They do. I have analyzed the articles fully
Well I must say that was bloody quick work for someone who hadn't even read them till the other day :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: if you had analyzed them fully you would know why no trial has ever been launched:dizzy2:

Here I will be generous , you seem to be having problems , severe problems . take this that you wrote ....
I'm going on the basis of that article. It only takes one article.

..what is wrong with that statement ?
On the face of it it seem correct enough doesn't it , it seems like it should be good enough .
Since you claim to have analyzed the articles fully you should have no problem at all in spotting where that approach falls flat .
But then again your approach has been entirely along the lines of trying to make things fit into your preconceptions so perhaps you will have a problem spotting the obvious .


BTW on the subject of reading .
you asked me to go over the articles to find what words negate my case. I responded perfectly adequately
what 4 words in that particular article fatally undermine your attempt ?
oh looky it seems to be different .
And you most certainly didn't respond at all to that question so it must be an entirely new definition of a "perfectly adequate respone" that you have invented .
Well done I love it when people invent new definitions .

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually you are almost correct. The document was meant to prevent something like the massare committed by the SS when they killed soldiers that had surrendered. Now it transformed over the pre-WW2 years except that much of the needed changes were never done.

And those killed surrendering to Americans?




Which is why Dresden can not be tried as a war crime - simply put the technicallity was not violated.

I feel this discussion is moving in circles.



An apology?

You could say that. This topic is important to me and some of my comments were on a personal instead of intellectual level.

The facts speak for themselves and I think Mars has proved his points.




Since when is not being honorable a crime? Sorry Panzer the German soldier supported an evil regime, so yes in essence is service was not honorable.

Here I would normally point out that American soldiers did the same, but..



I never said that the broad brush can not be applied. With few exceptions WW2 was not honorable by any means - there were things done that were necessary to destroy Germany and the Nazi regime that had to be done. I dont find much honor in it, just military necessity.

It seems we have a different view of honor in warfare. Fair enough.

I believe the vast majority of soldiers during the conflict were honorable, on both sides. The same cannot be said of the political leadership. I don't think it is reasonable to believe soldiers should be expected to somehow rise up against popularly elected governments, especially in the era of WW2. That doesn't mean they didn't fight and conduct themselves honorably. Its all about context.

[Tribesman]

The facts speak for themselves and I think Mars has proved his points.
No , for Mars to do that he would have to show that it was a clear violation of the treaties and the action couldn't be covered by any of the get out clauses .
Mars set himself an impossible task . He should have chosen a different air raid .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Tribesman,

I have shown my points in accordance with the articles. I have shown it was a violation of the treaties, though you choose to make snide remarks instead of rebutting, and refusing to see or respond adequately to my points. All you have done is make cryptic messages, claims which do not stand up to scrutiny, and attacks upon the intelligence and character of your opponent.

I do not see a reason to continue debating with you unless you stop being rude. I will continue posting in this thread, however, as Redleg does make some good points which he backs up. :bow:

[Redleg]

And those killed surrendering to Americans?


Correct - that was the behavior that the Hague Conventions were first drawn up to prevent. That and the using of hostages and shooting them if something happened to your troops in a village. Something the Germans did in both world wars. Care to play again.



I feel this discussion is moving in circles.


Yes indeed - calling something a war crime without adequate understanding of the Rules of War would lead one to make a circuler arguement.




You could say that. This topic is important to me and some of my comments were on a personal instead of intellectual level.

History is never personal with me - its simply a look at what happened and why.



The facts speak for themselves and I think Mars has proved his points.


Actually he hasn't. There is a fundmental flaw in his arguement in proving a war crime. Its one of technicallity but its still why Dresden can not meet the legal burdern of proof to get a conviction.



Here I would normally point out that American soldiers did the same, but..


LOL attempting to equate WW2 America to WW2 Nazi Germany. Unfortunately for you that attempt falls flat on its face.



It seems we have a different view of honor in warfare. Fair enough.


Having fought in a conflict - I find little honor in killing people in mass from a distance. You want honor in warfare go back to the middle-ages and before when battles were sometimes decided by single combat between champions. Modern Warfare is not honorable - its a tough duty that sometimes has to be preformed.




I believe the vast majority of soldiers during the conflict were honorable, on both sides. The same cannot be said of the political leadership. I don't think it is reasonable to believe soldiers should be expected to somehow rise up against popularly elected governments, especially in the era of WW2. That doesn't mean they didn't fight and conduct themselves honorably. Its all about context.

Duty is different then honor. The two concepts often go hand in hand - but serving an evil regime that controls your nation might be a duty, but rarely is it an honorable experience.

[Redleg]

Tribesman,

I have shown my points in accordance with the articles. I have shown it was a violation of the treaties, though you choose to make snide remarks instead of rebutting, and refusing to see or respond adequately to my points. All you have done is make cryptic messages, claims which do not stand up to scrutiny, and attacks upon the intelligence and character of your opponent.

I do not see a reason to continue debating with you unless you stop being rude. I will continue posting in this thread, however, as Redleg does make some good points which he backs up. :bow:

Tribesman is correct however - your arguement leaves out the clauses that prevents the articles you espouse from being actual violations when looked at.

The Airforce article that is linked shows why Dresden will never meet the burdern of proof necessary to convict of a war crime.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Correct - that was the behavior that the Hague Conventions were first drawn up to prevent. That and the using of hostages and shooting them if something happened to your troops in a village. Something the Germans did in both world wars. Care to play again.

Who was it who said earlier that it didn't matter who did it first, just that one side did it?



Actually he hasn't. There is a fundmental flaw in his arguement in proving a war crime. Its one of technicallity but its still why Dresden can not meet the legal burdern of proof to get a conviction.


Can you point out what you believe this flaw to be clearly and precisely so I may respond?


Tribesman is correct however - your arguement leaves out the clauses that prevents the articles you espouse from being actual violations when looked at.

1) That does not excuse personal attacks.
2) I'm looking at the Articles that are on the paper, namely 23, 26, and 27 in their full text - clear as day. I have debated based on the text within these articles, and I believe I make a valid point.
3) He is correct in your opinion. If he was 100% correct, for certain, we would not be having this debate.

[Tribesman]

All you have done is make cryptic messages,
Oh sorry is cryptic too hard for you .
Here have another clue (2,3,2,8):2thumbsup:
OK slightly misleading only 3 of the words are little one has a whole massive 8 letters:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


and refusing to see or respond adequately to my points
I see your points , but see them for what they are ...flawed and badly thought out .


claims which do not stand up to scrutiny
Unfortunately Mars , it is your points that don't stand up again and again .


I have shown it was a violation of the treaties
You most certainly have not , you have attempted to show it , but you have failed most miserably .




I do not see a reason to continue debating with you unless you stop being rude.
What you mean like stop questioning your intelligence in this matter ?

Fair enough , but only if you can explain your wisdom in repeatedly writing read the articles when firstly , you hadn't read the articles ,
secondly you attempted to focus on an entirely irrelevant unadopted article ,
thirdly and most importantly you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand at all what you have read .

In short Mars , you are attempting to grasp at straws to back up your preconceptions of what constitutes a war crime , when articles you cite contain words that mean they cannot be used in the way you wish them to be used , and other articles contain words which mean that the articles you want to use cannot be used anyway .
Its all in the detail you see , thats why its no good just reading the thing , you have to understand it , and you are showing again and again that you are lacking on the understanding portion of the equation .

[PanzerJaeger]

Correct - that was the behavior that the Hague Conventions were first drawn up to prevent. That and the using of hostages and shooting them if something happened to your troops in a village. Something the Germans did in both world wars. Care to play again.

This is how my friendly overture is met? I won't again assume you're any less obnoxious than your current bedfellow..

In any event, if the game is matching American attrocities to those of the Germans, I'm game. There are plenty of other cities, an entire theatre, and all sorts of other nasty stuff we haven't even touched on.



Yes indeed - calling something a war crime without adequate understanding of the Rules of War would lead one to make a circuler arguement.

Yes, there is a clear lack of understanding going on. :book:


History is never personal with me - its simply a look at what happened and why.

Yet you're grasping at straws to defend the undefendable.


Actually he hasn't. There is a fundmental flaw in his arguement in proving a war crime. Its one of technicallity but its still why Dresden can not meet the legal burdern of proof to get a conviction.

Incorrect. Of course, we've been over this. Dresden not only breaks one statute, but several.


LOL attempting to equate WW2 America to WW2 Nazi Germany. Unfortunately for you that attempt falls flat on its face.

Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Im equating the soldiers, not the political leadership.

You can LOL until you fall out of your chair, but I think it's been demonstrated quite readily in this thread that America did not hesitate to commit horrible deeds when it wanted to. The real challenge is trying to understand events in the context they occured.

And how about this one.. There is growing data that suggests the American government knew the Japanese were planning an attack, and nothing was done to solve the situation diplomatically. (ie, negotiation,lifting embargoes) This completely changes the nature of America's involvement in the conflict. If America sought war - which its common knowledge that FDR did - it suddenly makes many things a lot more comparable.

But again, you missed my point - I wasn't comparing the two nations..


Having fought in a conflict - I find little honor in killing people in mass from a distance. You want honor in warfare go back to the middle-ages and before when battles were sometimes decided by single combat between champions. Modern Warfare is not honorable - its a tough duty that sometimes has to be preformed.

Good to know.


Duty is different then honor. The two concepts often go hand in hand - but serving an evil regime that controls your nation might be a duty, but rarely is it an honorable experience.

Ask a Japanese survivor of Hiroshima if America is an evil country. If things were that clear cut at the time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Its easy to pass judgements in hindsight.

Its easy to sit here and say "how could anyone fight for the nazis", but when you look at events from a historical perspective and not your own, things become a lot more clear. And those evil nazi soldiers? Well, turns out most of them weren't much different than their allied counterparts.

[Redleg]

This is how my friendly overture is met? I won't again assume you're any less obnoxious than your current bedfellow..

You might want to look at your comment that recieved this.



In any event, if the game is matching American attrocities to those of the Germans, I'm game. There are plenty of other cities, an entire theatre, and all sorts of other nasty stuff we haven't even touched on.


Go ahead - you will find the Germans did far more and whats worse had standing orders from their high command to do them. You seemly forget that you began this little game with me.



Yes, there is a clear lack of understanding going on. :book:


Sure there is - and I am enjoying your attempts, rather amusing.



Yet you're grasping at straws to defend the undefendable.


Not at all - what I have stated is correct - One can not bring charges of a war crime concerning Dresden because one will not get a conviction because the evidence does not support a clear violation of the Hague Conventions. Not a hard position to defend at all. Neither is the one that states that in Total the German Military is guilty of committing war crimes, given the standing orders of the military command.



Incorrect. Of course, we've been over this. Dresden not only breaks one statute, but several.


Technically no statute was broken since the Hague Convention does not contain statutes but articles. Nice try but this error demonstrates a fundmental flaw.



Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Im equating the soldiers, not the political leadership.


Standard still applies - German soldiers also manned genocide camps - the same can not be said of American Soldiers.



You can LOL until you fall out of your chair, but I think it's been demonstrated quite readily in this thread that America did not hesitate to commit horrible deeds when it wanted to. The real challenge is trying to understand events in the context they occured.

Something I have not denied - can you say the same thing. Calling Dresden a war crime is just the tip of this ice berg. You have made several fundmental flaws in attempting to correct what you feel I have as wrong information.



And how about this one.. There is growing data that suggests the American government knew the Japanese were planning an attack, and nothing was done to solve the situation diplomatically. (ie, negotiation,lifting embargoes) This completely changes the nature of America's involvement in the conflict. If America sought war - which its common knowledge that FDR did - it suddenly makes many things a lot more comparable.


You do see the fundmental flaw in this arguement. If the evidence ever actually proves that the American Government knew of the Attack, and allowed it to be carried out with little warning - that is a big difference then actually doing the attack that Japan did. I really love this type of discussion from an individual who claimed I was being a revisionist. Rather amusing.



But again, you missed my point - I wasn't comparing the two nations..


You might want to review the wording of your point then.



Ask a Japanese survivor of Hiroshima if America is an evil country. If things were that clear cut at the time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Its easy to pass judgements in hindsight.

LOL again the attempt of compriasion on two different types of behavior. Are you attempting to state that Nazi Germany was not considered evil during the conflict? Its not even hindsight - it was the term used immediately after the genocide camps were first discovered. Come now if your going to make comparisions at least make them on par.



Its easy to sit here and say "how could anyone fight for the nazis", but when you look at events from a historical perspective and not your own, things become a lot more clear. And those evil nazi soldiers? Well, turns out most of them weren't much different than their allied counterparts.

I happen to know most if not all what German soldiers went through during WW2 from their theather of operations to even the home front. And yes most were different from their allied counterparts - they served an evil regime, a significant portion of them were involved in war crimes, and help start a murderous campaign on the Russian Front, Russian conduct during its march west was horrendous but it was in response to the behavior on their march to Moscow. Remember Panzer a standing order of the German Army was to take hostages and shot civilians if trouble developed from that town, village, or area. This happened not as part of the Nazi Regime but a standing practice of the German Military, historically it was done in both World Wars. Can you state that a similiar order was present in any Allied Army? Now the soviets had a practice very similiar - but it was also significantly different. The United States did not have such an order.

So bring up the battles in the Pacific - it should be interesting to see you write on that part of the war.

The problem is that you don't get that doing your duty because you are ordered to is not necessarily being honorable. Your seemly stuck on this concept that a warrior is always honorable because he served his nation in war. Sorry that is not true - a warrior is only doing his duty in that, honor requires something far greater.

[Pannonian]

Remember Panzer a standing order of the German Army was to take hostages and shot civilians if trouble developed from that town, village, or area. This happened not as part of the Nazi Regime but a standing practice of the German Military, historically it was done in both World Wars. Can you state that a similiar order was present in any Allied Army? Now the soviets had a practice very similiar - but it was also significantly different.
I'm intrigued by this. I'm not trying to argue anything here, but I'm interested in the eastern front, but I don't have access to all the reading material you guys do. How did the Soviets approach this? From what I've read of their other actions, they seem to have at least formally observed the rules of war, even if in practice they may not have been that much different from the Germans.

[Brenus]

To bomb a town is NOT a war crime by itself: My Grand mother was under the Allies bomb in Lyon, when they were targeting the main railways station in Lyon. They missed and hit the avenue causing civilian casualties. It was not a war crime, Lyon wasn’t defended by the French, but the French understood that it was the price to pay for freedom.
In Lorient, the town was flattened; in fact I think the allies bombing campaign killed more civilians than the Germans reprisals… Do the French blame the Allies? No. Why? It was the price to pay to be free. Was it a legitimate target? Knowing it killed 4 German Soldiers? Yes, in term of Allies map and strategy (U-boat base)…

Panzer and Mars, you speak from points of view of Germans and I understand what you want:
However, when the German Soldiers burned, raped and killed in the village I born few years later, they missed my grand-parents who were probably the unique partisans of the village. In the region where I grow-up we have plenty of monuments at the “Nazi Barbarism”. Few years ago, before Mitterrand and Kohl friendship, it was at the “German Barbarism” because at the time it was happening, it was difficult to really see the difference between an “honourable” German soldier and a SS, or Ost Troopen…
By the way, I was told some SS did refuse to participate to illegal orders, as the German Rules of Engagement allowed them to do…
Some Germans refused to follow criminal orders. Some joined the French Resistance, some joined the German Resistance, and the vast majority of the German soldiers did choose to ignore what happened in their military theatre. In France, Italy, Holland, Russia, Yugoslavia, in all occupied territories, the politic of reprisal (100 men for 1 in Yugoslavia, politic which was carry on several times).

Ultimately, the responsible of the German sufferings during and after the WW2 are Hitler and Co. In choosing an aggressive total merciless war, they decided how the war would be fought.
It wasn’t the Russian who start to kill and torture the German soldiers.
It wasn’t the English, French, Polish, Dutch (who were neutral by the way) or the US which started to bomb the towns.
There are no Allies Death Squads lurking in the occupied territories to kill and burn some ethnic/ religious groups.

There is only one Army, one chief of Staff who gave an explicit order to liquidate a specific category of personnel and human being: It was in the German Army.
The German soldiers, as individual, were probably honest and kept their head down… However I do agree with Redleg: The German Army as such didn’t support an honourable cause (ideological war of aggression) so was not honourable. And the High Command which had access to all documents and evidence about what happened in the rears (as shown in the transcripts of their conversation when prisoners of war) did nothing to prevent these atrocities when they didn’t carry them on…
From the start of the war, some German Units did commit atrocity (against the English at Dunkirk), French Spahis and Goumiers, soldiers and officer (who was a Jew) shot then burned…
And yes, some of them were saved by German Medical Unit, so it proves that some knew it was not the right things to do…

[PanzerJaeger]

Go ahead - you will find the Germans did far more and whats worse had standing orders from their high command to do them. You seemly forget that you began this little game with me.

The Germans did such things under orders, the Americans did them for fun and profit. I'm not seeing a winning hand in this game.


Not at all - what I have stated is correct - One can not bring charges of a war crime concerning Dresden because one will not get a conviction because the evidence does not support a clear violation of the Hague Conventions. Not a hard position to defend at all. Neither is the one that states that in Total the German Military is guilty of committing war crimes, given the standing orders of the military command.

Then why have you been as far unable to prove this? Saying it over and over and over until I get bored and go away doesn't make it so. Dresden not only goes against the spirit of the convention but also several articles.



Technically no statute was broken since the Hague Convention does not contain statutes but articles. Nice try but this error demonstrates a fundmental flaw.

You got me there, but going so far as to try to make a point out of a vocabulary mistake demonstrates something about your methods.


Standard still applies - German soldiers also manned genocide camps - the same can not be said of American Soldiers.

Much worse can, though. You may want to examine some of the conditions Germans were held in during and after the war, although the Brits really take the cake on that one...


You do see the fundmental flaw in this arguement. If the evidence ever actually proves that the American Government knew of the Attack, and allowed it to be carried out with little warning - that is a big difference then actually doing the attack that Japan did. I really love this type of discussion from an individual who claimed I was being a revisionist. Rather amusing.

If America sought war and allowed its own soldiers to die for it, what does that say about the government?

And I'm certainly not defending the Japanese. They were the ultimate sadistic soldiers.



LOL again the attempt of compriasion on two different types of behavior. Are you attempting to state that Nazi Germany was not considered evil during the conflict? Its not even hindsight - it was the term used immediately after the genocide camps were first discovered. Come now if your going to make comparisions at least make them on par.

So, you're saying that Germans en masse decided that they wanted to fight for the forces of evil? What do you think the Germans were hearing about the allies - that they were the epitomy of goodness and love? Come on, man. As I've said over and over again, try and understand things as they happened, not in hindsight. Oh, and when were the death camps first discovered?



I happen to know most if not all what German soldiers went through during WW2 from their theather of operations to even the home front.

Apparently not.


And yes most were different from their axis counterparts - they served an evil government, a significant portion of them were involved in war crimes, and help start a murderous campaign in the Pacific Theatre, Japanese conduct during its island conquests was horrendous as well.

There, thats better. Or we can do it from the European viewpoint.


And yes most were different from their axis counterparts - they served an evil government, a significant portion of them were involved in war crimes, and help start a murderous campaign against women and children, firebombing hostpitals, churches, and schools. German conduct during its occupation was horrendous as well.

Good points.. I really cant argue.. :yes:



Remember Panzer a standing order of the German Army was to take hostages and shot civilians if trouble developed from that town, village, or area. This happened not as part of the Nazi Regime but a standing practice of the German Military, historically it was done in both World Wars. Can you state that a similiar order was present in any Allied Army?

I can name one far more dispicable. Instead of threatening hostages to keep down partisan activity in an occupied town, it was a standing order in the Allied militaries to simply destroy the entire place with an emphasis on killing as many women and children possible - using nuclear weapons when availible. Because really, why not stop at killing hundreds of thousands in mere seconds when you can afflict millions more for decades to come?



So bring up the battles in the Pacific - it should be interesting to see you write on that part of the war.

As I said earlier, this is where the Americans truly shined. They didn't even have to be ordered to torture and kill wounded and captured Japanese - it was sport! :dizzy2:



The problem is that you don't get that doing your duty because you are ordered to is not necessarily being honorable. Your seemly stuck on this concept that a warrior is always honorable because he served his nation in war. Sorry that is not true - a warrior is only doing his duty in that, honor requires something far greater.

Now you're assuming things. My feelings on honor include far more than simply putting on the uniform. Skill, courage, and determination all factor in among other things.

The vast majority of German soldiers served honorably. Thats my opinion. You don't agree. I understand your feelings towards the subject and appreciate where you're coming from.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ultimately, the responsible of the German sufferings during and after the WW2 are Hitler and Co.

I'll be the first to cite German treatment after WW1 when a discussion of WW2's causes arises, but I completely, totally, enthusiastically agree. Let's not confuse who exactly is being defended here.

[Brenus]

"I'll be the first to cite German treatment after WW1 when a discussion of WW2's causes arises":
Probably, but it was the answer to how France was treated by the new Germany (declared in VERSAILLES -French Town and Castle-) after the 1870-71 war. Do you know how much France had to pay in reparations, being amputated of Alsace-Lorraine, and occupied until all the gold was transferred in German's coffer? France had to pay an indemnity of 5 billion francs and cover the costs of the German occupation of France's Northern provinces until the indemnity was paid.
So, sorry “réponse du berger à la bergère”, as we say in French. We paid, you paid, basically…
Most of the German defenders choose to ignore this part of history, I know.
The peace treaty after WW1 is more or less a copy of the one dictated by the germans after the Franco-Prussian War…:oops:

[Kralizec]

I can name one far more dispicable. Instead of threatening hostages to keep down partisan activity in an occupied town, it was a standing order in the Allied militaries to simply destroy the entire place with an emphasis on killing as many women and children possible - using nuclear weapons when availible. Because really, why not stop at killing hundreds of thousands in mere seconds when you can afflict millions more for decades to come?

This is really quite pathetic. You're so desperate to prove your point that the Germans weren't that bad that you resort to defaming the American military.

...

I like what Redleg has said about the distinction between duty and honor.
To be fair, neither the average Brit or American was put to this same test. Would they have followed the same orders, if it was them marching on the eastern front?
For that reason I don't think you can lable the average German soldier as dishonorable or criminal, but that doesn't mean the organisation as such (the Wehrmacht) wasn't tainted.

[Redleg]

I'm intrigued by this. I'm not trying to argue anything here, but I'm interested in the eastern front, but I don't have access to all the reading material you guys do. How did the Soviets approach this? From what I've read of their other actions, they seem to have at least formally observed the rules of war, even if in practice they may not have been that much different from the Germans.

From a quick link source - there is other material but will require me to do a detail search on the Internet to see if its there - or to go home and find the history book that I read in it. But for instance


In 1940, the Soviet authorities ordered the execution of more than 22,000 Polish citizens, mainly Polish officers, but also scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, priests and others in the Katyn Massacre. Civilian populations suffered tremendously, the population of Kiev dropped by 70% between the early 1930s and 1945, partly from starvation under Stalin, but mostly under the Nazis. In indiscriminate retaliation the Soviet Army committed mass rape of German women in the final phase of the war.


http://www.solarnavigator.net/world_war_two.htm

[Husar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Well, it can happen anywhere. :sweatdrop:

[Redleg]

The Germans did such things under orders, the Americans did them for fun and profit. I'm not seeing a winning hand in this game.

Which goes to individual behavior - return to the beginning and you will see the point about taking gold teeth from japanese dead. So in other words an individual crime committed by individuals, reports differ on how severe it was but no-one has defended the practice as anything more or less then it was. So in essence you wanted to play the game but you can't find a winning hand.



Then why have you been as far unable to prove this? Saying it over and over and over until I get bored and go away doesn't make it so. Dresden not only goes against the spirit of the convention but also several articles.


Oh the proof is in the facts. Something you don't want to acknowledge.



You got me there, but going so far as to try to make a point out of a vocabulary mistake demonstrates something about your methods.


That I find your arguement amusing.



Much worse can, though. You may want to examine some of the conditions Germans were held in during and after the war, although the Brits really take the cake on that one...

Bad comprasion there Panzar bad WW2 POW interment camps do not compare to Genocide processing camps. Now a more accurate comparision should be made concerning POW camps. Here the Germans would lose again when one compares British Treatment of POW to German treatment of POW's.




If America sought war and allowed its own soldiers to die for it, what does that say about the government?

And I'm certainly not defending the Japanese. They were the ultimate sadistic soldiers.


It says nothing of the government since it has not been proven to be true. You really should look into the lend-lease program it fits what you are attempting much better since its actually true.



So, you're saying that Germans en masse decided that they wanted to fight for the forces of evil? What do you think the Germans were hearing about the allies - that they were the epitomy of goodness and love? Come on, man. As I've said over and over again, try and understand things as they happened, not in hindsight. Oh, and when were the death camps first discovered?

Tsk Tsk - you fail again. Allied proganda during the war painted Germany as Evil. You really should pay more attention to what was stated versus attempting to claim a greater understanding. Evidence indiciates that the Allied high command knew of the possiblity before they were actually discovered. Now when were they discovered in Spring of 1945. Claiming I am using hindsight to review things is kind of funny - since all judgements are from hindsight. Understanding I got in spades, judgments I can make.



Apparently not.


Oh I know about the German women running from the Soviet Army because of the rapes being committed by Soviet soldiers - first hand knowledge given to me by a family friend who escaped Germany one step ahead of the Soviet Army. So in other words Panzer I have made a judgement about the military of Germany on informed inputs from multiple sources that allows me to make a judgement based upon a review of information, one that I can update as better informaton comes forward. It is not hard to make a judgement that in Total the German Military committed war crimes.



There, thats better. Or we can do it from the European viewpoint.


That is not a actual European Viewpoint concerning WW2. Try again.



Good points.. I really cant argue.. :yes:


Funny attempt - however it still falls short.



I can name one far more dispicable. Instead of threatening hostages to keep down partisan activity in an occupied town, it was a standing order in the Allied militaries to simply destroy the entire place with an emphasis on killing as many women and children possible - using nuclear weapons when availible. Because really, why not stop at killing hundreds of thousands in mere seconds when you can afflict millions more for decades to come?

Oh panzer you really are reaching aren't you. Your point has been defeat repeatly by yourself for one simple reason - your attempting to excuse proved bad behavior by pointing to other unproving bad behavior.



As I said earlier, this is where the Americans truly shined. They didn't even have to be ordered to torture and kill wounded and captured Japanese - it was sport! :dizzy2:

Oh a reaching arguement again. One that would be extremely difficult to prove beyond the limited numbers of actual crimes committed by the soldiers involved. Got a grandfather that fought in three island campaigns -got some first hand stories on that one to. Did some American soldiers commit war crimes - oh wait I have stated that several times, and that some were indeed prosecuted for their crime. Again a reaching arguement their panzer



Now you're assuming things. My feelings on honor include far more than simply putting on the uniform. Skill, courage, and determination all factor in among other things.

Sorry Panzer wasn't much of an assumption given your postion - Skill does not equate to honor either, Courage can and often influences honorable conduct, but as evident with German actions during WW2, it does not necessarily transpose into honor. Determination also has its faults when attempting to apply it to honor. For instance Germany was determined to destroy the Jews - not much honor in that now is there.

Edit: After reading Brenus post one can find that some German soldiers did indeed act under great courage and honor, (something that I did ackownledge in the beginning by the way). This is the type of arguement that you should of used to demonstrate that some German soldiers did indeed act with great courage and honor, versus attempting the bad behavior counter arguement.



The vast majority of German soldiers served honorably. Thats my opinion. You don't agree. I understand your feelings towards the subject and appreciate where you're coming from.

Then why the attempts to excuse bad behavior by pointing to lesser bad behavior. Not much understanding there from you with that sort of arguement.

[Pannonian]

From a quick link source - there is other material but will require me to do a detail search on the Internet to see if its there - or to go home and find the history book that I read in it. But for instance

http://www.solarnavigator.net/world_war_two.htm


In 1940, the Soviet authorities ordered the execution of more than 22,000 Polish citizens, mainly Polish officers, but also scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, priests and others in the Katyn Massacre. Civilian populations suffered tremendously, the population of Kiev dropped by 70% between the early 1930s and 1945, partly from starvation under Stalin, but mostly under the Nazis. In indiscriminate retaliation the Soviet Army committed mass rape of German women in the final phase of the war.

I knew about the Katyn massacre of the polish officer corps and the mass rape of 1945, but I didn't know about the Polish intelligentsia. I knew the Bolsheviks had a habit of liquidating the bourgeoisie in their republics, but I didn't know they did that in conquered territories as well.

[Redleg]

I knew about the Katyn massacre of the polish officer corps and the mass rape of 1945, but I didn't know about the Polish intelligentsia. I knew the Bolsheviks had a habit of liquidating the bourgeoisie in their republics, but I didn't know they did that in conquered territories as well.

There is some interesting history concerning the Soviet Advance into Poland and Germany. Trying to remember where I read it - so I can verify its accuracy, but I remember reading about how the Soviet's used three fronts in their advance, the first being the Attacking army groups, the second being a consildation and break through front, and the third being a composite army of occupation and re-education. Read what you want into the term but one can safely assume it was not a polite re-education.

There was a reason why German civilians were fleeing in front of the Soviet Advance - the Soviets had a bad habit of paying back the Germans in spades for thier activities in Russia.

Needless to say the Soviets were not very nice to their own people once they took over the German Occuiped areas. Kind of it you were not an active resistance fighter - you were part of the problem.

All in all one can safely say war crimes were committed by the Allies, one just has to focus on what was actually done in violation of the Hague Convention, and what has the emotional appeal of being a warcrime. Many of the allied actions have an emotional appeal for being a warcrime, I can name several to include the atomic bombings - the problem with emotional appeal is that one often leaves out the critical component that constitutes a war crime.

The Avalon Project has some interesting reading that alludes to some soviet war crimes - however because of the allied victory most crimes that were publically prosecuted were committed by Germany and Japan. Allied war crime prosecution takes a lot of research and effort to discover how much was prosecuted, many were often painted with a different brush - charged as criminal behavior or violation of the the allied army military law. Hard to track but its there.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To bomb a town is NOT a war crime by itself: My Grand mother was under the Allies bomb in Lyon, when they were targeting the main railways station in Lyon. They missed and hit the avenue causing civilian casualties. It was not a war crime, Lyon wasn’t defended by the French, but the French understood that it was the price to pay for freedom.

The circumstances differ from Dresden, quite simply. :bow:



Panzer and Mars, you speak from points of view of Germans and I understand what you want:

I'm not debating the honour of German soldiers at all, though I easily could. Ultimately, it comes down to Hitler. When you see the pain in your family from the deaths of two great-uncles, when you see your grandmother's haunted face if you mention Lubyanka, when you see your grandfather being dragged off to work in forced labour camps, even though he never even put on a military uniform, you realize there are two sides to blame, not just one.


It wasn’t the Russian who start to kill and torture the German soldiers.

Maybe, or maybe not, but the Russians were already good at atrocities. Somebody has already mentioned Katyn. On the other hand, it doesn't matter who started it - a war crime is a war crime, plain and simple.


However I do agree with Redleg: The German Army as such didn’t support an honourable cause (ideological war of aggression) so was not honourable.

Now look at it from the pre-WWII German perspective, something you and Redleg are failing to do.

A) You've been fed a ton of propaganda. Propaganda makes people believe things they otherwise wouldn't. :book:
B) You've had Danzig, Alsace-Lorraine, and other German territories (at least considered German at the time) ripped out of your country.

To the individual, that would seem a war of defense (or honourable aggression), a war of pride, rather than one of pure, unhindered aggression.


And the High Command which had access to all documents and evidence about what happened in the rears (as shown in the transcripts of their conversation when prisoners of war) did nothing to prevent these atrocities when they didn’t carry them on…
I would disagree with that. High Command protested on numerous occasions, including right after Poland, some generals in the field refused to follow the orders of extermination, and, anyways, High Command had no control over the Einsatzgruppen or Concentration Camps. Protest was all they could do. On the other hand, they could try to assassinate Hitler. There's an interesting book I have that I could refer you to - assassinations of Hitler were tried many times, not just on July 20th, but they all failed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Well, it can happen anywhere.

Good attempt, but that's certainly not true with me, if that's what you're implying. The only thing less desirable to me than Nazism is Stalinism. I have been quite willing in the past to denounce fascism.


Oh the proof is in the facts. Something you don't want to acknowledge.

Something you're all too willing to brush aside if they come from the other side. At least I actually find a rebuttal to what you're saying that's not "read the articles closer. Read them closer. Read them closer..."

[Redleg]

The circumstances differ from Dresden, quite simply. :bow:

Not really when one comes down to it.



Now look at it from the pre-WWII German perspective, something you and Redleg are failing to do.

To the individual, that would seem a war of defense (or honourable aggression), a war of pride, rather than one of pure, unhindered aggression.


Edit: Misread of the Initial statement, removed a statemnt.

Proganda would explain why the average German Soldier felt it was necessary to fight again. However have you given thought to logical conclusion to this statement? And then place it into the concept of the discussion about Dresden and Military Necessity. Some claim I haven't looked into the events of the time, which I find extremely amusing - but you have just begun to delve into part of the reasoning behind the bombing of cities that was executed by the Allies against Germany. Military Necessity allows for certain activities, which must be judged based upon the information and understanding of the time.

Futhermore when one committs an act of aggression to initiate a conflict - one can not argue defensive war. A War of pride is not an honorable war by the way.




I would disagree with that. High Command protested on numerous occasions, including right after Poland, some generals in the field refused to follow the orders of extermination, and, anyways, High Command had no control over the Einsatzgruppen or Concentration Camps. Protest was all they could do. On the other hand, they could try to assassinate Hitler. There's an interesting book I have that I could refer you to - assassinations of Hitler were tried many times, not just on July 20th, but they all failed.


As many times as they might have done this - there are more exambles of them doing the exact thing brenus stated.



Good attempt, but that's certainly not true with me, if that's what you're implying. The only thing less desirable to me than Nazism is Stalinism. I have been quite willing in the past to denounce fascism.


The study is actually true for all individuals. Very few people can actually resist following into that pattern. Those that don't are the expectation not the rule.



Something you're all too willing to brush aside if they come from the other side. At least I actually find a rebuttal to what you're saying that's not "read the articles closer. Read them closer. Read them closer..."

your having failed to actually read them initially was proof enough to my comment. Rebuttals were given by the way. Now I know this is slightly harsh but I find it rather telling that at first you did not read the Hague Conventions prior to this discussion taking place. Sometimes its better to just lead the horse to water and then browbeat him off enough that he actually begins to see the water.

[Tribesman]

Hey Mars ,I think I have worked out a way to easily demonstrate how your approach is flawed .......
If one person kills another is it murder , murder is after all killing someone isn't it , its quite simple , there are laws on it and everything , so it must be murder , person A killed person B so person A is a murderer and must be brought to trial for murder and the only verdict can be guilty of murder , it cannot be denied that the killing took place since person B is dead and they were certainly killed by person A so it is definately murder ....
That in essence has been your approach to the branch of this topic concerning war crimes .... it is a bollox approach isn't it .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not really when one comes down to it.

Very much so, actually. Unless civilians were one of the primary targets, if not the primary target at Lyon? :inquisitive:


Germany would of bombed Dresden just as quick as any allied power. As I have alreadly pointed out several times Germany went into WW2 with several standing orders that were in direct contradiction to the Hague Convention.

You were the one who stated earlier in this thread that one war crime does not deserve another. I don't care what Germany would have done, nor do I care at the moment what Germany did do. That's not what I'm debating. You can take that up with Panzer. I'm talking about Dresden. ~;)


This does not follow his line of reasoning.

Why not? Regardless, it follows mine.


The study is actually true for all individuals. Very few people can actually resist following into that pattern. Those that don't are the expectation not the rule.

I don't doubt that I may well have fallen into the same pattern in that opportunity, just that now I don't. :bow:



LOL - your having failed to actually read them initially was proof enough to my comment. Rebuttals were given by the way. Now I know this is slightly harsh but I find it rather telling that at first you did not read the Hague Conventions prior to this discussion taking place.

LOL - the fact I did read them and manage to bring up Dresden in three articles to your one is proof enough for my comment. I freely admit that I did not read most of the Hague Convention before this debate, but the fact I have read it, can make points based upon it, and have made good points based upon it that are backed up by the Allied Bomber Command itself is a good indication that I understand it. The text is all there in front of me, and I have read it. I understand it. I have backed up my points. :bow:


Hey Mars ,I think I have worked out a way to easily demonstrate how your approach is flawed .......
If one person kills another is it murder , murder is after all killing someone isn't it , its quite simple , there are laws on it and everything , so it must be murder , person A killed person B so person A is a murderer and must be brought to trial for murder and the only verdict can be guilty of murder , it cannot be denied that the killing took place since person B is dead and they were certainly killed by person A so it is definately murder ....

You'd have to know the circumstances under which murder was committed. Fortunately, I have shown the circumstances under which murder was committed at Dresden from Allied Bomber Command and Mr. Churchill themselves. :yes:

Therefore, your analogy is what is bullox, not my reasoning.

[Husar]

Good attempt, but that's certainly not true with me, if that's what you're implying. The only thing less desirable to me than Nazism is Stalinism. I have been quite willing in the past to denounce fascism.
What I was implying is that noone can sit on a high horse and blame soldiers who were indoctrinated by an evil regime for doing what the regime wanted them to do. Well, maybe they can but they should be aware that it could have happened to them and be thankful that it didn't. That some of us feel like "it wouldn't work with me" has probably a lot to do with the fact that we, especially here in Germany, are more or less "indoctrinated" to hate nazism and such patterns etc., we learn how bad it is, how all humans are equal etc. Had we instead been instructed by Obersturmführer von Brunzenberg in our Hitlerjugend and other preschool nazi groups etc, we might now actually believe that jews are ugly moneygrabbing animals. The hypothetical argument that some of us may or may not have gone with the flow is moot since the only way to really find out would be to travel back in time and be young and stupid again. :dizzy2:

Of course I don't know to what extent the average german soldier was indoctrinated but the regime had quite a few years to influence at least the younger generations of soldiers.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Post

I see your point, and I must agree with it. :bow:

[Redleg]

Very much so, actually. Unless civilians were one of the primary targets, if not the primary target at Lyon? :inquisitive:


As stated before civilians were considered in the targeting - but they were not the primary target.



You were the one who stated earlier in this thread that one war crime does not deserve another. I don't care what Germany would have done, nor do I care at the moment what Germany did do. That's not what I'm debating. You can take that up with Panzer. I'm talking about Dresden. ~;)


As stated this was not an examble of one war crime leading to another. It was a statement that shows that in Pre-WW2 Germany that that the military of Germany would of done the same type of attack, hence their behavior in the war. An examble of using a examble of bad behavior to justify other bad behavior would be written different. However I did initially misread the statement and has since edited it.

As for Dresden....



I don't doubt that I may well have fallen into the same pattern in that opportunity, just that now I don't. :bow:

your not in a similiar situtation as the study now either I am willing to bet.




LOL - the fact I did read them and manage to bring up Dresden in three articles to your one is proof enough for my comment. I freely admit that I did not read most of the Hague Convention before this debate, but the fact I have read it, can make points based upon it, and have made good points based upon it that are backed up by the Allied Bomber Command itself is a good indication that I understand it. The text is all there in front of me, and I have read it. I understand it. I have backed up my points. :bow:


With some major failures however. Your arguement is based primarily on emotional appeal, which is fine, but it lacks the ability to prove a crime when one looks at the techinical data. BTW the US Airforce document was a study of the Allied Bomber Command. Notice that it conflicts with a majority of your view point.

[Tribesman]

Therefore, your analogy is what is bullox, not my reasoning.

Actually it is a very good analogy , because like the fact that killing someone may not be murder due to lots of different laws and the fact that it would have to fit all the relevant lws with no exception to make it actually murder ....so it is that the bombing of Dresden isn't a war crime because it doesn't fit the laws neccesary without exception to make it a war crime .
Its all in the techniclities that lawyers are so fond of , and even though you write ....
I have read it. I understand it. you definately do not understand it . If you did understand it you wouldn't still be going on .

Panzer wrote earlier about the spirit of the law in the document which is all well and good but that doesn't matter when the letter of the law has holes so big you can drive a panzer division through them.
You yourself posted an attempt to try and close some of those holes prior to WW2 , perhaps if the holes had been closed you would have more of a case , but the were not so you do not .
I did suggest that you perhaps should try another raid from earlier in the war to try your arguement , but no you are fixated on the big one and as such come completely unstuck since by that time Germany had opened another bloody big loophole for the lawyers to exploit .(plus there were at least a dozen loopholes concerning Dresden anyway )