New Bravery Medal For Germany [Archive]

HoreTore

03-08-2008, 09:19

Why would you do that? Civilian casualties do happen, the object is minimizing them.

Add "willingly" or "knowingly".

Incorrect. You're missing the crimes of your own socialists, my friend - Stalin and Mao. Hitler was third. However, that does not make him any better or worse.

My own? That's like me saying that Hitler is one of yours because you're a nationalist.

And I'll still rank Hitler as #1, due to the industrial organization of his killings. Stalin and Mao were regular madmen who managed to kill more than any other madmen, but they were indiscriminate about who they killed. Hitler had his killings as a central part of his ideology and killed to exterminate. Stalin and Mao killed to keep themselves in power, Hitler did not. He didn't need to kill 6 million jews to keep in power at all, while Stalin certainly needed to suppress revolts forcefully, or he would be booted out like madmen usually are.

The carpet bombing itself was a campaign of complete destruction, and was, in effect, organized murder. The death toll can be debated, but saying that it was a legitimate exercise is despicable.

Yes, it was despicable. But saying that it was equal to or worse than the concentration camps? Come on. The german army was the worst, and as EA said, other armies didn't behave like them. When the allies invaded german and came across a village, the first thing they did when they entered that village was not rounding up all the people of a said ethnicity and execute them on the spot or ship them off to death camps. That's what the german army did. And that is worse than carpet bombing.

Fixed. Now completely correct.

The point is that the armies were equally guilty (or not guilty). It was the politicians that made it worse. Please note that I do not recognize the Waffen-SS as part of the army - it was a paramilitary made up of largely violent scum, nothing more.

Ah, if we could simply pick the parts we like in history, and discard the rest.... What an easy life we'd have. The SS fought wherever the rest fought, and as such it would be ridiculous not to count them as part of the same army.

Also, Nuremberg stated quite clearly that following orders is NO excuse for committing crimes.

Husar

03-08-2008, 13:06

When the allies invaded german and came across a village, the first thing they did when they entered that village was not rounding up all the people of a said ethnicity and execute them on the spot or ship them off to death camps. That's what the german army did. And that is worse than carpet bombing.
The hypothetical question I ask myself is: Would they have done it if they had been "indoctrinated" and ordered to do so? Didn't they round up and imprison japanese in the US? I think I once read here that the japanese were sort of demonized in the US. Or are you just saying that people living in the geographical region called Germany are more violent and inherently evil in comparison to other humans? Because it seems like that is what you want to say and I want to eat you alive for saying that. :dizzy2:

Brenus

03-08-2008, 13:36

“What the army needs is discipline”: Nope. What a army needs is training, pride, “esprit de corps”, motivation and recruits. Army needs a hard training which will provides all that in one go.

“Stricter officers”: Still living in the 19th Century? As a former NCO, I can tell you most of the officer are NOT so good, and quite incompetent: Sorry Redleg if you read this...:embarassed:

“They can be as strict as we were before WWI”: They still lost the war did they? Sending wave after waves of soldiers against the French machineguns and heavy artillery did nothing good… The “good” thing is that the French and English were as much stupid and incompetent…
The best troops were the Israelis when the soldiers went to war with their guitar on the back and long (medium hairs) because they knew why they were fighting for…

“So according to said politicians, any brave person previously awarded with this highest merit is tainted with nazism? That's not explicit, but is the implication in my opinion.” No. The said politicians are saying it can bring bad memories. And for people who doubt it, I saw in Bosnia some kids doing the Nazi Salute to the poor German soldiers who came to protect them… So the idea is not absurd as such…

“So they can retake Alsace-Lorraine.” Take, not re-take…

“What, almost winning two wars practically alone against the rest of the world?”: The problem is almost…
And Germany lost WW1 against France and England. And was allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire… The arrival of the USA in 1917 just proved to the Germans the limitless number of new soldiers.

“Give me ten Texans and I could take over France, Poland and penetrate 300 miles into Russia”: Lack of Texans in US Army today? What happens in Iraq?

“They could never take down the Russians or the Americans.” The Germans and the French took down the Russians (Napoleon in Austerlitz for ex, even slept in the Tsar’s bed in Moscow) and the Germans in WW1 at Tannenberg.
And to take down USA, the North Commies Vietnamese were quite good at it.:oops:
No intended insult to the US soldiers (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines – I know-) in this answer, just an answer to idiotic remarks…

“So were all armies at that time.” This army was special in doing it. It was organised and systematic…

“Hitler was third”: Compare, if you want (or dare) to go on this road, the time frame: Hitler did it in 3 or 4 years…

“The death toll can be debated, but saying that it was a legitimate exercise is despicable.” Coventry… Remember?
The bombing of Germany during WW2 had the political goal to convince the German population that this time they won’t be able to pretend to have been betrayed (like in WW1 when after losing the war, the Generals gave the responsibility to surrender to the civilians) but really they lost the war. No parade, no flowers, but complete destruction… You can dislike this but it was done…

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-08-2008, 17:14

Add "willingly" or "knowingly".
So you're blaming the entire military? Do you want me to say the American people as a whole are scum for the Japanese Internment?

And I'll still rank Hitler as #1, due to the industrial organization of his killings. Stalin and Mao were regular madmen who managed to kill more than any other madmen, but they were indiscriminate about who they killed. Hitler had his killings as a central part of his ideology and killed to exterminate. Stalin and Mao killed to keep themselves in power, Hitler did not. He didn't need to kill 6 million jews to keep in power at all, while Stalin certainly needed to suppress revolts forcefully, or he would be booted out like madmen usually are.

So you're saying how the people were killed makes one more or less evil than the others? For God sakes, get a hold of yourself. Look at the figures, look at what these people did. The Cheka would pack the lungs and throats of their enemies with earth, or rip heads off by twisting them off the body! I could argue that the methods used against the Jews were more humane, but I won't, because Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were all equally scum.

The german army was the worst, and as EA said, other armies didn't behave like them. When the allies invaded german and came across a village, the first thing they did when they entered that village was not rounding up all the people of a said ethnicity and execute them on the spot or ship them off to death camps. That's what the german army did. And that is worse than carpet bombing.

And you're saying all German soldiers did that? Bullox. Maybe you'd like to read up on the General Staff, and people like Blaskowitz? That's like saying the entire combined Allied Air Forces should have been shot for Dresden.

Come off it.

Ah, if we could simply pick the parts we like in history, and discard the rest.... What an easy life we'd have. The SS fought wherever the rest fought, and as such it would be ridiculous not to count them as part of the same army.
The SS did fight wherever the rest fought, yes, but it was not the same organization, plain and simple. That's why the SS was classified as a criminal organization after the war, but I don't recall that the military was.

Also, Nuremberg stated quite clearly that following orders is NO excuse for committing crimes.

Where did I say it was?

“So they can retake Alsace-Lorraine.” Take, not re-take…
Pointless re-wording, not that it matters anyways. Who cares about that territory? If we really want to settle it, give them a referendum or something. What need does Germany have for that?

And Germany lost WW1 against France and England. And was allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire… The arrival of the USA in 1917 just proved to the Germans the limitless number of new soldiers.
Germany lost WWI against France, England, and Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Turks were a liability, not a help. The German Military essentially held off three countries at once.

“So were all armies at that time.” This army was special in doing it. It was organised and systematic…

You cannot blame the entire Wehrmacht for the atrocities.

“Hitler was third”: Compare, if you want (or dare) to go on this road, the time frame: Hitler did it in 3 or 4 years…
It was started officially in 1942, but what the hell does time frame matter? The point is it still happened. I did say it doesn't make him any better or worse.

“The death toll can be debated, but saying that it was a legitimate exercise is despicable.” Coventry… Remember?
What about Coventry? As I recall, more bombs were dropped on Dresden than were dropped on the whole of England during the Blitz. You do realize the Blitz started as an accident, right?
German bomber accidentally jettisoned it's load over a blacked out city, British retaliated against Berlin, bang, Blitz starts.

The bombing of Germany during WW2 had the political goal to convince the German population that this time they won’t be able to pretend to have been betrayed (like in WW1 when after losing the war, the Generals gave the responsibility to surrender to the civilians) but really they lost the war.
First time I've heard anyone say that, even the apologists.

Brenus

03-08-2008, 22:32

“First time I've heard anyone say that, even the apologists.” See, every day we learn something…
Er, just watch History Channel. :inquisitive:
By the way, even without this, I can think for myself…:idea2:

“I did say it doesn't make him any better or worse.” You didn’t. However, the fact to degrade Hitler to the 3rd position is, er, tendentious…

“Germany lost WWI against France, England, and Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Turks were a liability, not a help. The German Military essentially held off three countries at once.” You “simply pick the parts you like in history, and discard the rest”.

“Who cares about that territory?”: The French and the Germans, few years ago…:beam:

“If we really want to settle it,”: I think that 3 wars did the job, and yes, the will of the Alsatians as well…:beam:

“The German Military essentially held off three countries at once.” Attack the three (at least two) countries… I know, re-wording…

“You cannot blame the entire Wehrmacht for the atrocities”: Of course not, but 90% of the units obeyed the order to kill on the spot Political Commissars, Jews and Gypsies and provided the logistical help to the Einsatzgruppen. Complicity in murders, active and passive… New studies tend to show that the Werhmacht was more involved than thought before…

“You do realize the Blitz started as an accident, right”: Yep, I do, but what about the continuation? Or before, Rotterdam?:inquisitive:

Vladimir

03-08-2008, 23:25

Brenus, Iraq was taken with ease so that's not a counterpoint. Texans just aren't so good at, um, peacekeeping operations.

:texas: :boxing: :barrel: :cowboy: :texas:

Redleg

03-09-2008, 00:16

“What the army needs is discipline”: Nope. What a army needs is training, pride, “esprit de corps”, motivation and recruits. Army needs a hard training which will provides all that in one go.

Training as you fight will equate to fighting as you trained when the crap hits the fan and you have been up for over 20 hours in combat. How else does a division fight 100 hours with very little break in the movement or combat.

“Stricter officers”: Still living in the 19th Century? As a former NCO, I can tell you most of the officer are NOT so good, and quite incompetent: Sorry Redleg if you read this...:embarassed:

No need to apologize - I personally think about 50 percent of the officer's I have meant and worked with fit that category. The earmark of a good officer is one who takes the sage advice of his NCO's when developing his plan for battle.

“They can be as strict as we were before WWI”: They still lost the war did they? Sending wave after waves of soldiers against the French machineguns and heavy artillery did nothing good… The “good” thing is that the French and English were as much stupid and incompetent…
The best troops were the Israelis when the soldiers went to war with their guitar on the back and long (medium hairs) because they knew why they were fighting for…

WW1 discpline was terrible for the type of combat that was going on. Using 1870 discipline and tactics with 1914 weapons was a huge mistake on the part of all armies at the time. The best combat soldiers of WW1 were not the Germans. Nor were the best combat soldiers in any army one's that meet the discpline requirements that is being espoused by some.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-09-2008, 06:35

“I did say it doesn't make him any better or worse.” You didn’t. However, the fact to degrade Hitler to the 3rd position is, er, tendentious…

I did. Post 45. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1853954#post1853954)

“Germany lost WWI against France, England, and Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Turks were a liability, not a help. The German Military essentially held off three countries at once.” You “simply pick the parts you like in history, and discard the rest”.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Germany fought a two front war to the same or better effectiveness as it's opponents. It brought one opponent almost to breaking point and broke another (French and the Russians).

“Who cares about that territory?”: The French and the Germans, few years ago…:beam:

I meant now. I know I don't give a damn.

“If we really want to settle it,”: I think that 3 wars did the job, and yes, the will of the Alsatians as well…:beam:
Their will has changed over time. That being said, I don't think anyone cares for that territory anymore.

“The German Military essentially held off three countries at once.” Attack the three (at least two) countries… I know, re-wording…
Not strictly true, as France and Russia both mobilized first. That being said, WWI was a cesspot of political scheming, and you can't blame one group more than another for that. In the words of Blackadder, "it was bullox".

“You cannot blame the entire Wehrmacht for the atrocities”: Of course not, but 90% of the units obeyed the order to kill on the spot Political Commissars, Jews and Gypsies and provided the logistical help to the Einsatzgruppen. Complicity in murders, active and passive… New studies tend to show that the Werhmacht was more involved than thought before…

I love these "new studies" you speak of. I would beg to differ on "90% of units", for two reasons:
A) You don't distinguish what you mean by a unit.
B) Political Commissars were without a doubt shot. However, Jews and Gypsies being systematicelly exterminated by almost every unit in the Wehrmacht? Again, that's like blaming the entire Allied Air Forces for Dresden, even the AA gunners.

“You do realize the Blitz started as an accident, right”: Yep, I do, but what about the continuation? Or before, Rotterdam?:inquisitive:
What about Dresden? Or the continuation at Chemnitz? Really, it's an endless argument.

WW1 discpline was terrible for the type of combat that was going on. Using 1870 discipline and tactics with 1914 weapons was a huge mistake on the part of all armies at the time. The best combat soldiers of WW1 were not the Germans. Nor were the best combat soldiers in any army one's that meet the discpline requirements that is being espoused by some.

See, I equate "discipline" and "tactics" to mean two different things. :whip:

HoreTore

03-09-2008, 08:46

The hypothetical question I ask myself is: Would they have done it if they had been "indoctrinated" and ordered to do so?

There's no reason to believe they wouldn't. For an army to avoid raping/pillaging/murdering civilians, they need to kept in check by their officers. If they're not, they will loot. If they are encouraged, they will easily do worse.

Brenus

03-09-2008, 10:24

“I did”: Yes you did. It was what I wanted to said. Sorry. However, the remark after is still valid.

“one opponent almost to breaking point”: Again, almost…
Napoleon almost won at Waterloo, almost…:beam:

“I know I don't give a damn”: I see that… Are you Alsatian, French or German, so why should you?:beam:

“Their will has changed over time”: Err, when Louis the XIV annexed Alsace, the will of the population was not really what mattered… Germany didn’t exist at this point… Then The Alsatian Delegates (we should say Representatives nowadays) voted to belong to 1st French Republic at the “Fête de la Fédération” the 14th of July 1790, one year after the fall of the Bastille Fall.
Until Germany (in fact a federation of German States) took it from France after the 1870 war (at the end of it, with the creation at Versailles of the modern Germany) Alsace was part of the French territory as Bourgogne, Savoy and other departments and Regions… In fact, Alsace is one of the region the most French Nationalists (vote for extreme-right is huge). Having been invaded 3 times in less that one century makes this kind of things…

“Not strictly true, as France and Russia both mobilized first”: Mobilisation is not war, as they said at this period. And Germany attacked Belgium. Not Russia, not France. Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, not reverse…

“You don't distinguish what you mean by a unit”: Army: Give one name of a German General who give instructions to ignore the order. We have example of individuals officers told their soldiers to ignore the order, but none of the High Ranking Officers who could have some influence and power did. None.
:furious3:
“However, Jews and Gypsies being systematicelly exterminated by almost every unit in the Wehrmacht”: “provided the logistical help to the Einsatzgruppen” Complicity in Murder. If I open the boxes of ammunition or help you to reload your machine gun when you press the trigger to kill, I am as guilty as you are… That is the law… Not to prevent a crime is as well to be guilty of murder. Again, that is the law…

“Again, that's like blaming the entire Allied Air Forces for Dresden, even the AA gunners.” Oh, I see. You think that Dresden is like Treblinka, Birkenau and all the extermination and concentration camps… I see…:sweatdrop:

So now, you can see why the iron Cross can be controversial… :beam:

“For an army to avoid raping/pillaging/murdering civilians, they need to kept in check by their officers”: Why do you assert than officers don’t rape/pillage/murder? Why do you assert that troopers are more incline in doing these?
You have no idea how an army works. I follow my officer because I had confidence in him, because I trust him… My commanding officer and I have a contract of mutual trust and confidence.:beam:
If my officer doesn’t fulfil my requirement, he will die in front of the enemy with a bullet in his back. It happened to a far cousin of mine during WW2, according to family legends…

HoreTore

03-09-2008, 10:39

“For an army to avoid raping/pillaging/murdering civilians, they need to kept in check by their officers”: Why do you assert than officers don’t rape/pillage/murder? Why do you assert that troopers are more incline in doing these?

Because I don't?

And for the record, I've spent my year in the army too.

Tribesman

03-09-2008, 14:14

I love these "new studies" you speak of.
So do I , newly declassified material from the British about the German army in WWII does certainly shed new light on the subject , perhaps you might view some before you comment in such a manner .

Redleg

03-09-2008, 15:13

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Germany fought a two front war to the same or better effectiveness as it's opponents. It brought one opponent almost to breaking point and broke another (French and the Russians).

Germany contrubuted to the almost breaking of France and the withdraw from the war of Russia.

The Germans did not almost break the french, the french officers almost broke the french because of the type of discpline and tactics that you are espousing by stating you want the discpline of pre-WW1 for the german army. The discpline used by Germany for WW1 was the same type of discpline used by France and England.

The Russian Army was broke by the Csar and his corrupt officers. The Revolution sealed the withdraw.

Not strictly true, as France and Russia both mobilized first. That being said, WWI was a cesspot of political scheming, and you can't blame one group more than another for that. In the words of Blackadder, "it was bullox".

Correct, which shows that your claim about Germany being the cause of Russia's withdraw and France's muntiy is incorrect.

I love these "new studies" you speak of. I would beg to differ on "90% of units", for two reasons:
A) You don't distinguish what you mean by a unit.
B) Political Commissars were without a doubt shot. However, Jews and Gypsies being systematicelly exterminated by almost every unit in the Wehrmacht? Again, that's like blaming the entire Allied Air Forces for Dresden, even the AA gunners.

There were over 50 divisions that had occupation duty in the Slavic area's. Each of these divisions happened to be assigned to areas where war crimes were committed.

See, I equate "discipline" and "tactics" to mean two different things. :whip:

You better study up on warfare a bit more - since I to use them to mean two different things. The discipline of WW1 sent soldiers standing up and in rows facing automatic weapons. The Tactics of WW1 believed this was a good idea.

You might want to study a bit more on what you are espousing. WW1 discpline was terrible, it was crude and caused moral problems. In effect you saying its okay for an officer to have his men beaten for any slight that the officer images to have happened. As for Tactics - I will save that for a different discussion, other then how else to you explain 1,000,000 casulities for a single battle where the men all went over the top in a row to be shot down like dogs.

Redleg

03-09-2008, 15:16

There's no reason to believe they wouldn't. For an army to avoid raping/pillaging/murdering civilians, they need to kept in check by their officers. If they're not, they will loot. If they are encouraged, they will easily do worse.

Incorrect.

For an army to avoid raping/Pillaging/murdering civilians they need to have discpline and an esprit de corps, held together by the officer and NCO Corps of the unit, and the moral code of every single individual. Claiming that only officers keep their men in check is false. I have seen NCO's keep this from happening far better then any officer.

There is a saying that in the Army the NCO is the backbone for a reason.

Redleg

03-09-2008, 15:18

Because I don't?

And for the record, I've spent my year in the army too.

spending time in the service is good. But don't equate peacetime service and discpline to what combat does to unit. Two different things.

Armies fight the way they train. Discpline will break down during combat, and its up to the officer and NCO corps to insure that it remains. Claiming only officer's do this is basically incorrect.

Redleg

03-09-2008, 15:21

So do I , newly declassified material from the British about the German army in WWII does certainly shed new light on the subject , perhaps you might view some before you comment in such a manner .
Oh Tribesman I wanted him to explain the actions of the over 50 divisions that had occupation duty. Then again I wonder if he wants to talk about what the front line units did during thier invasion of Russia.

Or would he care to explain why the Russian Army did some horrific things as it marched into Germany.

Tribesman

03-09-2008, 15:46

Oh Tribesman I wanted him to explain the actions of the over 50 divisions that had occupation duty.
Don't fret Red , it can still work .
I will let you hammer him on the slavic areas , while I shall stick to the armies atrocities in other regions .:2thumbsup:

Then again perhaps he is re-evaluating the validity of the comment he made .

Redleg

03-09-2008, 16:12

Don't fret Red , it can still work .
I will let you hammer him on the slavic areas , while I shall stick to the armies atrocities in other regions .:2thumbsup:

Then again perhaps he is re-evaluating the validity of the comment he made .

If he has ever studied WW2 he probably is re-evaluating his comment. To easy to prove that front line units were involved in some of the atrocities, not as bad as the occupation divisions - but they were involved.

To many captured troops died away from the front lines to be otherwise. Especially Russian POW's.

HoreTore

03-09-2008, 19:54

Claiming only officer's do this is basically incorrect.

Yes. However, I'm pretty sure that the german high command giving orders to loot and shoot civilians had a large impact on the german soldiers doing just that. And the absence of that in the allied army had an impact on them not to do that. Would they round up and shoot german civilians if Patton etc ordered them to?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-09-2008, 20:22

“one opponent almost to breaking point”: Again, almost…
Napoleon almost won at Waterloo, almost…:beam:

:rolleyes:

“I know I don't give a damn”: I see that… Are you Alsatian, French or German, so why should you?:beam:

I'm still not understanding what you're trying to say. Either way, it's a dead issue. It's not really a part of the debate at all - it's better if we drop it.

“Not strictly true, as France and Russia both mobilized first”: Mobilisation is not war, as they said at this period. And Germany attacked Belgium. Not Russia, not France. Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, not reverse…
I'd suggest you read "Blood and Iron - The von Moltke Family's Impact On German History" to view how serious mobilization really was. Paraphrasing the author, due to the time it took to mobilize an army, a mobilization was tantamount to a declaration of war, because all other nations then had to mobilize. A mobilization could be treated as a casus belli.

“You don't distinguish what you mean by a unit”: Army: Give one name of a German General who give instructions to ignore the order.

We have example of individuals officers told their soldiers to ignore the order, but none of the High Ranking Officers who could have some influence and power did. None.
Johannes Blaskowitz, who actually arrested and imposed death sentences against SS men for war crimes. Erwin Rommel refused to obey orders to shoot British commandoes and Jewish prisoners. I quote Blaskowitz below.

The attitude of the troops against the SS and the police fluctuates between disgust and hatred. Every soldier feels cloyed by these crimes committed against the Poles by citizens of the Reich and representatives of the government.

In addition, numerous generals in the staff protested against the war crimes ordered by Hitler.

“However, Jews and Gypsies being systematicelly exterminated by almost every unit in the Wehrmacht”: “provided the logistical help to the Einsatzgruppen” Complicity in Murder. If I open the boxes of ammunition or help you to reload your machine gun when you press the trigger to kill, I am as guilty as you are… That is the law… Not to prevent a crime is as well to be guilty of murder. Again, that is the law…
Of course they provided "logistical help". This does not necessarily mean that the infantryman knew exactly where this logistical help was going. Of course, word would spread, but remember at the same time that all the news the troops got was from the Nazis, and therefore all activites could be covered up if the intention was there.

“Again, that's like blaming the entire Allied Air Forces for Dresden, even the AA gunners.” Oh, I see. You think that Dresden is like Treblinka, Birkenau and all the extermination and concentration camps… I see…:sweatdrop:

I do, because it was a systematic extermination.

You are going there tonight to finish off the refugees who managed to escape from Dresden.

Seems explicit enough? I do not apologize for the actions of Germany during the Second World War - we committed crimes, we apologized, we paid, and heck, we're still paying. Why is it so hard for you to recognize your nations committed crimes as well?

Germany contrubuted to the almost breaking of France and the withdraw from the war of Russia.

The Germans did not almost break the french, the french officers almost broke the french because of the type of discpline and tactics that you are espousing by stating you want the discpline of pre-WW1 for the german army.

Fair enough. This logic, however, can be used to argue almost any descisive battle in history, from the Battle of Issus to the Tet Offensive. Anyways, that's really a matter of historical view and opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I agree with both your statement and mine - however, remember that German officers used much the same tactics.

The discpline used by Germany for WW1 was the same type of discpline used by France and England.
Sure, what's the problem with that?

The Russian Army was broke by the Csar and his corrupt officers. The Revolution sealed the withdraw.
However, the process began at the Battle of Tannenberg, with the destruction of the Russian First and Second Armies.

Correct, which shows that your claim about Germany being the cause of Russia's withdraw and France's muntiy is incorrect.
I was talking about the pre-WWI situation - you're misusing my words.

However, Tannenberg was well before the Revolution. I also never mentioned France's mutiny.

There were over 50 divisions that had occupation duty in the Slavic area's. Each of these divisions happened to be assigned to areas where war crimes were committed.
Einsatzgruppen were travelling units, so of course there were war crimes. I also do not doubt that some units of the Wehrmacht committed war crimes as well - hell, name me a modern army that hasn't.

You better study up on warfare a bit more - since I to use them to mean two different things.
That's exactly what I said. If you're going to be condescending, at least be right.

The discipline of WW1 sent soldiers standing up and in rows facing automatic weapons. The Tactics of WW1 believed this was a good idea.
The tactics of WWI caused them to stand in front of the machine guns, and the discipline caused them not to break. I think this is what you're trying to say - it's also what I'm trying to say.

You might want to study a bit more on what you are espousing. WW1 discpline was terrible, it was crude and caused moral problems.
I said pre-WWI. By the way, by discipline I mean the will to follow orders and the morale of the soldiers.

Really, there's no need to insult the intelligence of another. That's Tribesman's job.

In effect you saying its okay for an officer to have his men beaten for any slight that the officer images to have happened.
Not necessarily, but you can't be too soft either, or this is what happens.

As for Tactics - I will save that for a different discussion, other then how else to you explain 1,000,000 casulities for a single battle where the men all went over the top in a row to be shot down like dogs.

Hey, everyone did it except the Russians. Did I ever say I wanted WWI tactics back? For God's sake, read the text you respond to.

So do I , newly declassified material from the British about the German army in WWII does certainly shed new light on the subject , perhaps you might view some before you comment in such a manner .
I trust WWII era British documents about as far as I could throw them, or in other words, just as much as I trust WWII era German documents. It's best to gather data from individual historians who have taken a look at all data and formed a neutral opinion. I take it you've read the documents? If so, you can link them. If you can't link them, this is null and void.

Redleg

03-09-2008, 20:41

Yes. However, I'm pretty sure that the german high command giving orders to loot and shoot civilians had a large impact on the german soldiers doing just that. And the absence of that in the allied army had an impact on them not to do that. Would they round up and shoot german civilians if Patton etc ordered them to?

Your orginal statement was not about orders being given, but of behavior in general. I notice that you are now qualifing your statement by stating orders given. Your orginal statement was that the officer keeps the behavior in check. Having shown that your orginal statement is false - you have now attempted a different arguement.

As to your comment here that would constitute an illegal order, an officer is obligated to not follow an illegal or unlawful order. Hince the findings of the War Tribunals held after the war. That the absence of such an order does not prevent such crimes from happening - yes it even happened in the American Army during WW2, in units where the officer and NCO corps were not functioning properly.

One can even site My Lai as an examble where the officer and NCO corps broke down and allowed the massacre of civilians given the order by at least one officer, and the failure of the NCO corps to question and refuse to follow illegal orders. This is a circumstance where an officer followed an illegal order (one version) or interpated the order to do in essence something that was illegal (the one the officer was convicted on). The discpline of this unit was terrible along with the moral of the men. The officer ordered or allowed the killing of civilians by the men of his platoon.

So I would say that officers can destroy the discpline of a unit very quickly, because of situations such as My Lai. However to keep behavior in check requires training, discpline, and leadership of not only the officer corp but the NCO corp. The old military adage that I learned long ago applies - units fight as they train. So if your undiscpline in your training your undiscpline in combat. That is the fault of both the officer and the NCO of the unit.

HoreTore

03-09-2008, 20:49

Your orginal statement was not about orders being given, but of behavior in general. I notice that you are now qualifing your statement by stating orders given. Your orginal statement was that the officer keeps the behavior in check. Having shown that your orginal statement is false - you have now attempted a different arguement.

Oh god. It happens again...

Most people try to debate debates, not individual short statements, Redleg. If you wish rant on for a dozen pages about the exact wording of a phrase again - be my guest. But I won't.

Kralizec

03-09-2008, 21:05

HoreTore

03-09-2008, 21:08

Horetore, your original statement suggested that if ordinary soldiers weren't watched very closely by their officers, it would be rape and pillage galore. If that's not what you meant, maybe you should clarify or take it back instead of accusing others of nitpicking your every word :rolleyes:

I stated that I agreed with both redleg and brenus in their first replies to me, if that was was hard to understand for some people, allow me to make it clearer:

YES REDLEG I AGREE WITH YOU

Redleg

03-09-2008, 21:08

:
I'd suggest you read "Blood and Iron - The von Moltke Family's Impact On German History" to view how serious mobilization really was. Paraphrasing the author, due to the time it took to mobilize an army, a mobilization was tantamount to a declaration of war, because all other nations then had to mobilize. A mobilization could be treated as a casus belli.

The von Moltke Family were these the same one's that blindly followed Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz theories on warfare?

Mobilization started because of what event? Alliances is part of the answer to this problem.

Fair enough. This logic, however, can be used to argue almost any descisive battle in history, from the Battle of Issus to the Tet Offensive. Anyways, that's really a matter of historical view and opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I agree with both your statement and mine - however, remember that German officers used much the same tactics.

The outcome of the Tet Offensive was the the United States and South Vietnam broke the back of the Viet Cong - so in essence we won the battle but lost the war. The outcome was the same for the German's for both World Wars. The outcome of the event in total is what counts in historical review.

Sure, what's the problem with that?

leading men to slaughter is not leadership nor is it sound discpline for a unit.

However, the process began at the Battle of Tannenberg, with the destruction of the Russian First and Second Armies.

Yep and proves the point of why the discpline and tactics of the time were errorous for the type of warfare being done.

I was talking about the pre-WWI situation - you're misusing my words.

However, Tannenberg was well before the Revolution. I also never mentioned France's mutiny.

You might want to read up on France's mutiny then it matches the claim you made about almost beating the French in WW1. The discpline used in WW1 was the same discpline used pre-WW1, so it makes you point about pre-WW1 discpline mute since they are one and the same. The Regimental system worship of much of Europe was one of the biggest problems of pre-WW1 and the rush to war that insued with a certain assination. Clauswitz sold the Europeans a bill of goods on warfare with his theories - one that they should of abandoned right after the 1870's when modern weapons began to find their way into the arensels of country's militaries.

Einsatzgruppen were travelling units, so of course there were war crimes. I also do not doubt that some units of the Wehrmacht committed war crimes as well - hell, name me a modern army that hasn't.

You just disproved one of your earlier comments.

That's exactly what I said. If you're going to be condescending, at least be right.

LOL - I was right in the very beginning.

The tactics of WWI caused them to stand in front of the machine guns, and the discipline caused them not to break. I think this is what you're trying to say - it's also what I'm trying to say.

Not at all - I am saying the discipline was what got them killed because of the failure of the officer leadership to stop doing the same battle plan over and over again. The inability to question orders was the discpline that killed many men during WW1.

I said pre-WWI. By the way, by discipline I mean the will to follow orders and the morale of the soldiers.

There you go - the discipline to follow orders regardless of the circumstances and the legality of the order is the issue. Discpline does not equate to following orders of your superiors. Discpline is the means in which to follow the lawful orders of your superiors and to question the illegal orders that are given to you. Saying Pre-WW1 discpline is the way to run a military is patently false.

Really, there's no need to insult the intelligence of another. That's Tribesman's job.

Wanting to return to pre-WW1 discpline is an insult. You do realize how they enforced thier discpline don't you.

Not necessarily, but you can't be too soft either, or this is what happens.

Now that is funny - I don't think you have an understanding of what pre-WW1 discpline really involved. I for one would never use the techinques for discpline that was used back then in Europe.

Hey, everyone did it except the Russians. Did I ever say I wanted WWI tactics back? For God's sake, read the text you respond to.

That everyone did it makes it right? The discpline you espouse is the exact same discpline that sent millions to their death because of a failure to learn from previous battles. The inability to question stupid orders lead millions to their deaths. Not a sound discpline pratice. One should be able to ask questions concerning thier orders, up to the time that the decision has to be made by the commanding officer. Without the input from lower ranks stupid orders will be given. Pre-WW1 discpline refused to allow the input from anyone else but the senior senile commander of the time.

I trust WWII era British documents about as far as I could throw them, or in other words, just as much as I trust WWII era German documents. It's best to gather data from individual historians who have taken a look at all data and formed a neutral opinion. I take it you've read the documents? If so, you can link them. If you can't link them, this is null and void.

There are even a few references to the fact in German historical accounts concerning the fighting on the Eastern Front. The use of the term extermination is used in several german documents when dicussing the fighting on the Eastern Front. In fact I read many years ago a book from a German Staff Officer that was very dry full of statistics and operation orders that pointed to just that. THe book had a simple title - Eastern Front.

Redleg

03-09-2008, 21:10

Oh god. It happens again...

Most people try to debate debates, not individual short statements, Redleg. If you wish rant on for a dozen pages about the exact wording of a phrase again - be my guest. But I won't.

However, before you accuse others of that maybe you should read the exact wording of your own statements.

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 01:22

If so, you can link them. If you can't link them, this is null and void.
Errr...I don't have to link them and it is not null and void , your views however are easily shown to be null with a small piece of simple writing .

So now Mars , these war crimes thingies , by the army , navy , airforce , SS , auxiliaries or whatever , what was their origin ?

Was it perhaps written in directives ?

You know directives yes ? sort of order thingies , pieces of paper written and dispatched to all relevant forces and authorities .
Many of these were fuhrer directives were they not , orders from the dickhead himself , orders to all forces under his command as the supreme being of the master race .
The wehrmacht were part of those forces were they not :yes:

Now of course not all the dodgy orders came from Mr.Hitler did they , the army itself issued some rather nice directives on its own , you know things like killing POWs , civilians , hostage reprisals , executing naval and airforce personel .
But hey lets not complicate the issue with such trivialities as the wehrmacht itself drawing up and implementing its own directives that were warcrimes .
Lets instead get back to the great dickheads directives .

So now Mars , what was the process for issuing these orders to commit war crimes ?
Did Hitler just write it and send it off ?:no:
Or did he perhaps write it and send it to the army , who would then check it make amendments and send it back , followed by him checking the changes and giving the approval for the army to issue those orders to all branches that they commanded (or liased with)?:yes:

Are these directives well documented ?
Is the authenticity of these documents challenged by anyone on any side in the conflict ? (even when it comes to war crimes trials the defendents never challenged the authenticity of the documentation , in fact the opposite occured , they tried to use the authenticity as a defence) .
Are the minutest detail concerning them confirmed by those who worked on them or implimented them ?

I think you will find that if the accused do not challenge the factual accuracy of evidence presented it is a pretty strong indication that the evidence presented is factual and accurate .

Really, there's no need to insult the intelligence of another. That's Tribesman's job. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You could always put me out of a job by writing something more intelligent , until then your views on this issue in hand are null and void as far as factual accuracy goes .

Redleg

03-10-2008, 01:33

Is the authenticity of these documents challenged by anyone on any side in the conflict ? (even when it comes to war crimes trials the defendents never challenged the authenticity of the documentation , in fact the opposite occured , they tried to use the authenticity as a defence) .

Dont bring up the Numberg Trails - everyone knows they were a farce alreadly programed to find the Nazi warcriminals guilty.....

Oh wait - was I being sarcastic?.

Numberg demonstrates that the discpline process of pre-WW1 that someone is espousing is just bad. If that individual assumes that blind/unquestionable obenience is good discpline then he has failed to study the history of warfare to the modern conflicts. Blind obenience only means stupidy will be the end result of the military in question.

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 01:38

Dont bring up the Numberg Trails - everyone knows they were a farce alreadly programed to find the Nazi warcriminals guilty.....

No need to bring up Nuremburg , trials still happen for these crimes from that period , even in former axis countries .

Redleg

03-10-2008, 01:53

No need to bring up Nuremburg , trials still happen for these crimes from that period , even in former axis countries .

I know, I just wanted to beat him to the punch so to speak. Nuremburg is the best published examble that demonstrates blind obenience is not an acceptable defense. Nor does it demonstrate good discipline.

I guess we could bring up the other war crime trails that have happened throughout the last 50 years. The Japanese also tried that defense and it was found lacking. A certain LT in the United States Army tried it during the Vietnam conflict and it was found lacking then to.

I think someone really wants the regimental system re-imposed on germany like what was done in Pre-War1 Europe. You know the one where many misunderstood the theories on war that Clauswitz is credited for.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2008, 02:16

Dont bring up the Numberg Trails - everyone knows they were a farce alreadly programed to find the Nazi warcriminals guilty.....

I'll formulate a response in a bit, but just for now I'd like to say that since you clearly don't know my opinion on this subject, it's best not to guess.

Just FYI, I believe that the trials held here were as just as could be in general, and the resulting verdicts were generally quite fair.

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 03:14

Just FYI, I believe that the trials held here were as just as could be in general, and the resulting verdicts were generally quite fair.
So would that mean that you would take testimony from say Keitel or Jodl and orders issue by them to regular army units under their command who carried out those orders as sort of errrrr...evidence of regular army war crimes ?
BTW earlier you said that Einsatzgruppen were travelling units , in each case their travels were restricted by something wern't they , they had areas of travel didn't they , areas where they could operate , areas where they were ordered to operate .
How were these areas defined ?
Were they just random areas ?
Or perhaps were they specific areas set out by the defined area of operational command under the army groups who ran all forces in its area ?
If by some strange chance it happens to be the latter then doesn't that mean that the "travelling units" were under the direct command and authority of the regular army group that ran all operations under its command in its area .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2008, 03:28

Errr...I don't have to link them and it is not null and void , your views however are easily shown to be null with a small piece of simple writing .
Neither yourself nor Redleg has changed my view. However, you may want to restate your main point.

So now Mars , these war crimes thingies , by the army , navy , airforce , SS , auxiliaries or whatever , what was their origin ?

Was it perhaps written in directives ?
Of course...directives to the SS. I do not deny directives were written to the army, such as the commando order. However, how often these directives were followed and how often they were merely cast aside is the point for debate, and to tell the truth, we can't tell for sure how often this happened.

You know directives yes ? sort of order thingies , pieces of paper written and dispatched to all relevant forces and authorities .
Many of these were fuhrer directives were they not , orders from the dickhead himself , orders to all forces under his command as the supreme being of the master race .
These directives you speak of were certainly not sent to every branch of the services, with exceptions, of course. In regards to the extermination and Holocaust, many directives were sent directly to and only to the SS. Some directives were sent to General Staff or came to the knowledge of the General Staff, who protested them.

Now of course not all the dodgy orders came from Mr.Hitler did they , the army itself issued some rather nice directives on its own , you know things like killing POWs , civilians , hostage reprisals , executing naval and airforce personel .
Western POWs were treated as well by the Germans as German prisoners were treated by the West.

Russian POWs were sometimes executed in reprisal for crimes committed on German POWs, and vice versa. This was simply a cycle.

So now Mars , what was the process for issuing these orders to commit war crimes ?
Did Hitler just write it and send it off ?:no:
Or did he perhaps write it and send it to the army , who would then check it make amendments and send it back , followed by him checking the changes and giving the approval for the army to issue those orders to all branches that they commanded (or liased with)?:yes:
That depends on the directive. Not all directives were in relation to extermination, you know. You're generalizing.

Are these directives well documented ?
Why, yes, the vast majority are.

I think you will find that if the accused do not challenge the factual accuracy of evidence presented it is a pretty strong indication that the evidence presented is factual and accurate .
The information in itself is factual and accurate. It boils down to who saw the directives, what they did with it, what was in the directives (again, you seem to have this absurd idea that all directives were related to extermination, and not, say, to the war or anything) and when it took place.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You could always put me out of a job by writing something more intelligent , until then your views on this issue in hand are null and void as far as factual accuracy goes .
If I have room to debate and to cite factual examples, which I have done, then my views are not null and void. However, I have yet to see these "new British documents" you're talking about.

So would that mean that you would take testimony from say Keitel or Jodl and orders issue by them to regular army units under their command who carried out those orders as sort of errrrr...evidence of regular army war crimes ?
I DO NOT DENY THAT THE WEHRMACHT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.

It is merely the scale and ratio (Wehrmacht : SS) that I am debating. However, we are straying from the focal point of the debate, namely Dresden.

BTW earlier you said that Einsatzgruppen were travelling units , in each case their travels were restricted by something wern't they , they had areas of travel didn't they , areas where they could operate , areas where they were ordered to operate .
How were these areas defined ?
Were they just random areas ?
You have made the fatal mistake of assuming Einsatzgruppen were part of the regular army. I quote:

Einsatzgruppen (German for "task forces" or "intervention groups") were paramilitary groups formed by Heinrich Himmler and operated by the SS before and during World War II.

Or perhaps were they specific areas set out by the defined area of operational command under the army groups who ran all forces in its area ?

Formed mainly from men of the Ordnungspolizei, the Waffen-SS and local volunteers and led by Gestapo, Kripo, and SD officers, these death squads followed the Wehrmacht as it advanced eastwards into Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Bolded something for you.

If by some strange chance it happens to be the latter then doesn't that mean that the "travelling units" were under the direct command and authority of the regular army group that ran all operations under its command in its area .
Nope, Einsatzgruppen operated seperately. See above, do some reading.

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 03:42

Bolded something for you.

really , they followed ????
Thats strange since they were each attatched to an army group
Now something can follow without being attatched can't it , but if it is attatched it isn't following it is part of it .
See the difference...a bloody big difference isn't it .

Nope, Einsatzgruppen operated seperately. See above, do some reading.
Perhaps you should do some reading , maybe something a little more comprehensive than Wiki .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2008, 03:50

really , they followed ????
Thats strange since they were each attatched to an army group
Now something can follow without being attatched can't it , but if it is attatched it isn't following it is part of it .
See the difference...a bloody big difference isn't it .

You can be attached to an army group and not actually be within it. By the way, the very documents you spoke of went to the Einsatzgruppen from the SS, not the Wehrmacht.

In addition, with the Einsatzgruppen within the army as an attachment, there was both the morale hit on the soldiers (which, believe it or not, was actually a concern for some echelons of high command), and the need for the Einsatzgruppen not to be exposed to enemy fire so they could continue their work. The Einsatzgruppen were attached to an army in a sense, yes, but they were also independent units, receiving instructions from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt directly.

The Einsatzgruppen typically followed close behind Wehrmacht army formations, marching into cities and towns where large numbers of Jews were known to live.

Perhaps you should do some reading , maybe something a little more comprehensive than Wiki .

I only cite Wiki because it's the easiest source for you to read. There are links and citations within Wiki, if you would care to view them. Wikipedia is not unreliable, so long as it's properly cited. Really, if that's the best card you can play...

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 04:09

Wrong agian Mars .
Now you could make yourself correct by saying that the Einsatzgruppen were not under the command and authority of the army groups to which they were attatched when they were not attatched to the army groups , like if you take each area of operations and transfered the authority on the dates when the army transfered security to the civilian administration ...until such times as they moved back to being under the military authority by moving on to areas under military authority (though of course some areas never transfered security at all to the civilian authority) .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2008, 04:38

To be completely honest, I'm sick of this debate. I've cited examples, I've shown evidence, I've suggested where you can find it. You have done none of the above, but you have played the man instead of the subject, you claim you're right when I don't think you've read much on the subject, and I really don't want to continue this. I'm sure you'll think of a sarcastic comment to say you've won - truth is, I don't think there's any point in continuing. I've shown my examples, there's nothing more to say.

No disrespect to you as a person intended whatsoever - you have shown in other topics you can be an excellent debater.

Now, we can return to the topic of Dresden, the history of the medal itself, or we can let this thread die. I would prefer option two.

PanzerJaeger

03-10-2008, 08:00

Don't let him browbeat you Mars.

The truth is that the German army was just as honorable as any of the other major combatants. Unfortunately for their legacy, they lost. We all know who writes history.

While your average German soldier knew he would face death and dishonor for not following orders, what was the excuse of the Marines who made quite a habit of killing wounded Japanese prisoners for their gold fillings? Don't feel too bad for the Japanese though, as they truly relished the prisoners they tortured and the civilians they raped. Of course the revisionists will try and downplay the genocide committed by the British in such places as Dresden, but what of the summary executions without trial of thousands of German prisoners deemed not worthy of trial but worthy of a bullet? Thats a little more personal isn't it? Nothing really needs to be said of the Russians... even a cursory examination of the conflict will demonstrate their "attitudes" toward things such as human rights and "non combatants".

Yes, there is no doubt that the German military participated in war crimes during World War 2 while under the control of a military dictatorship that treated disobedient Germans with as much sympathy as their victims.

There is also no doubt that the Americans and British committed genocidal war crimes during the same conflict. However, the cost of not following orders was far smaller (when they weren't acting out of their own greed or murderous tendencies).

One just needs to ask what would have happened to that German boy who refused to guard the concentration camp? Conversely, what would have happened to that British pilot who refused to drop bombs on women and small children in the European city of your choice? Court martial?

Politically, the Nazis will always be a blight on our history. What Germans can be proud of is the extraordinary military prowess and determination our soldiers demonstrated during the war - especially in the later years as the odds were increasingly vastly against them. Your average German soldier was a decent, brave and honorable man whose actions were conditioned based on the cultural dimensions of the time as well as the overbearing form of government. To judge them through the prism of contemporary thought, especially while ignoring Allied actions, is simply revisionism.

CountArach

03-10-2008, 08:32

*Smile on face widens*

PanzerJaeger is just what this thread needs :grin:

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 08:36

you claim you're right when I don't think you've read much on the subject,

Mars , do you really think I would write stuff on German war crimes in about the 20th topic here on the subject without reading a hell of a lot more than Wiki and the sources it cites ?

Now, we can return to the topic of Dresden, the history of the medal itself,
Dresden ? medals ?
oh that would be Bomber Command wouldn't it .
How did Britian honour Bomber Command after the war ?

BTW you earlier mention bombing cities , you know London being a mistake and it leading to Berlin being bombed and British cities being bombed and German cities being bombed and......oh how it goes on and on .
So I was just wondering , when was Rotterdam bombed ?

Husar

03-10-2008, 13:18

BTW you earlier mention bombing cities , you know London being a mistake and it leading to Berlin being bombed and British cities being bombed and German cities being bombed and......oh how it goes on and on .
So I was just wondering , when was Rotterdam bombed ?
Wait a second...
So Germany started bombing cities, then Britain started doing it too in revenge and that somehow makes it okay? That can't be what you want to say so please explain for stupid me. :inquisitive:

Apart from that I don't really get why it is important in a discussion about medals whether the Wehrmacht command gave orders for warcrimes or not? :dizzy2:

I think it started with some weird claim that the german army was the only one to commit war crimes or something like that which to me sounded like "germans are inherently by their nationality evil monsters who would kill jews without being told to do so and that would never happen in other armies", then that shifted to a discussion about officers being responsible because clearly officers are completely different humans than soldiers and should know better, now we're talking about the high command because we all know the nazis took only guys from Amnesty International for that job so one wonders why they might have given such weird orders and I'm completely confused what that has to do with a new medal or whether I'm an evil monster and should go out killing immigrants because the army NCOs never told me not to do so as I have never been in the army? :dizzy2:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2008, 17:17

Post, Today, 3:00
Thanks Panzer, I don't think I could have said it better myself. I think I will return to this debate.

Mars , do you really think I would write stuff on German war crimes in about the 20th topic here on the subject without reading a hell of a lot more than Wiki and the sources it cites ?

You want me to be honest? It sounds a hell of a lot like it. Would you, perhaps, like a list of books that were used from my point of view? It's probably useless, as you'll most likely claim that they're unreliable or biased. :rolleyes:

Apart from that I don't really get why it is important in a discussion about medals whether the Wehrmacht command gave orders for warcrimes or not?

It's the Backroom. We always go off topic. :laugh4:

Geoffrey S

03-10-2008, 18:06

Personally I've yet to see the perfect, morally blameless army. I don't think it's possible. To attempt to bring the subject back to the medal thing, I think that's why we need such matters, to distinguish those who do act without blemish in what are situations often impossible to understand for those not involved. If we accept that every army has its scum, perhaps some more than others, it must also be acknowledged that some rise above themselves.

Fragony

03-10-2008, 19:44

Personally I've yet to see the perfect, morally blameless army. I don't think it's possible.

A virus :sweatdrop:

Kralizec

03-10-2008, 19:47

Personally I've yet to see the perfect, morally blameless army.

The Salvation Army?

Geoffrey S

03-10-2008, 19:54

Nah, what about Frau Farbissina?

Tribesman

03-10-2008, 23:13

Wait a second...
So Germany started bombing cities, then Britain started doing it too in revenge and that somehow makes it okay? That can't be what you want to say so please explain for stupid me.
It was Mars who said that Germany started it by bombing cities by mistake , thus attempting to diminish the responsibilty by claiming it was an error . Yet since they had already deliberately bombed cities there can be no diminishment of responsibilty along those lines .

You want me to be honest? It sounds a hell of a lot like it.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Would you, perhaps, like a list of books that were used from my point of view? It's probably useless, as you'll most likely claim that they're unreliable or biased.
Will I , thats funny , I read a lot of biased books , they are interesting for the different perspectives , they give the oppertunity to check "facts " presented by both sides .
Since you are fixated on Dresden I wonder if you have read David Irvings volume on it , it isn't bad , it is a lot more substantive than most of his holocaust nonsense (which in turn are not nearly as bad as Harwoods pathetic effort on Nazi atrocities) yet it still contains some of his habitual flaws derived from his twisted ideology .

Redleg

03-11-2008, 02:28

I'll formulate a response in a bit, but just for now I'd like to say that since you clearly don't know my opinion on this subject, it's best not to guess. No guessing at all - pure "D" sarcasm.

Just FYI, I believe that the trials held here were as just as could be in general, and the resulting verdicts were generally quite fair.

The statement indicates that you believe that the Trails and Verdicts were gnerally in line with the proper fulfillment of justice. A number of the individuals convicted were Nazi's but also Generals in the German Army, not the SS. If German Generals were convicted of war crimes - that would indicate that the number of divisions involved in war crimes were higher then you were initially willing to admit, one could say in fact that in general the German Military was guilty of committing war crimes given the number of senior officers convicted of such crimes. Also given that the high command issued directives to committ such actions would also indicate that in general the German Army in total was guilty of committing war crimes.

But lets return to pre-WW1 discpline of the German Army. I wonder if you would acknowledge one of the discpline practices of the German Army of WW1 was to execute one out of ten civilians in a village that rebelled against the German Occupation of thier area?

Is this the type of discpline you wish to re-install?

PROCLAMATION POSTED AT HASSELT ON THE 17TH AUGUST 1914.*
Dear fellow citizens :
Acting in conjunction with the High German military command I have the honour to advise you again to abstain from any kind of provocative demonstration and from all acts of hostility which might bring terrible reprisals upon our town.
Above all you must abstain from acts of violence against the German troops, and especially from firing on them.
In case the inhabitants fire upon the soldiers of the German Army a third of the male population will be shot.
I recall to your notice that groups of more than five persons are strictly forbidden and that persons who disobey the order to this effect will be arrested forthwith.
Hasselt, the 17th August 1914.
The Burgomaster,
FEBD. PORTMANS.

http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/mm/alleged/german_outrages.htm

Redleg

03-11-2008, 02:51

Don't let him browbeat you Mars.

The truth is that the German army was just as honorable as any of the other major combatants. Unfortunately for their legacy, they lost. We all know who writes history.

Corrected to read that many units in the German Army were just as honorable as any other major combatants. In fact I think several division fought very honorable, however that does not negate the fact that the German High Command - ordered certain activities to be done.

While your average German soldier knew he would face death and dishonor for not following orders, what was the excuse of the Marines who made quite a habit of killing wounded Japanese prisoners for their gold fillings?

You do know the difference don't you Panzer - the American Army nor the Marine Corps had a standing order for killing wounded Japanese prisoners for their gold teeth. If your unable to see the difference then shame on you.

Don't feel too bad for the Japanese though, as they truly relished the prisoners they tortured and the civilians they raped. Of course the revisionists will try and downplay the genocide committed by the British in such places as Dresden, but what of the summary executions without trial of thousands of German prisoners deemed not worthy of trial but worthy of a bullet? Thats a little more personal isn't it? Nothing really needs to be said of the Russians... even a cursory examination of the conflict will demonstrate their "attitudes" toward things such as human rights and "non combatants".

What was the attitude of the German's toward the Soviet POW's. Don't attempt the one-sided byline here concerning what the Soviet's did to German Prisoners of War without considering the equally bad misconduct of the German Army toward Soviet POW's.

Yes, there is no doubt that the German military participated in war crimes during World War 2 while under the control of a military dictatorship that treated disobedient Germans with as much sympathy as their victims.

Correct

There is also no doubt that the Americans and British committed genocidal war crimes during the same conflict. However, the cost of not following orders was far smaller (when they weren't acting out of their own greed or murderous tendencies).

Committed war crimes yes - genocidal is a reach since the actions do not meet the necessary requirement for genocide as per what the Germans were attempting with the Jews.

One just needs to ask what would have happened to that German boy who refused to guard the concentration camp? Conversely, what would have happened to that British pilot who refused to drop bombs on women and small children in the European city of your choice? Court martial?

Difference in the discpline needed by a free nation versus a nation in the midst of a dictator.

Politically, the Nazis will always be a blight on our history. What Germans can be proud of is the extraordinary military prowess and determination our soldiers demonstrated during the war - especially in the later years as the odds were increasingly vastly against them. Your average German soldier was a decent, brave and honorable man whose actions were conditioned based on the cultural dimensions of the time as well as the overbearing form of government. To judge them through the prism of contemporary thought, especially while ignoring Allied actions, is simply revisionism.

Revisionism - LOL. Wanting to bring back the discpline of the German Military which committed many of exact type of war crimes in WW1 that were being done in WW2. Don't forget the German Military had a nasty habit during WW1 of taking civilians hostage and then executing them because someone shot a German soldier. I don't find that an action of an honorable military. Especially when its a written order in not just one conflict but at least two. Unquestionable obience is something that destroys honorable soldiers.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-11-2008, 05:47

Corrected to read that many units in the German Army were just as honorable as any other major combatants. In fact I think several division fought very honorable, however that does not negate the fact that the German High Command - ordered certain activities to be done.

I don't deny that orders were issued to the Wehrmacht - simply that every army was, as you "corrected" Panzer, just as honourable as every other army. Without a doubt, there was no completely righteous side, and there never has been in history.

You do know the difference don't you Panzer - the American Army nor the Marine Corps had a standing order for killing wounded Japanese prisoners for their gold teeth. If your unable to see the difference then shame on you.

Jews were killed, and their gold teeth were taken, without a doubt. However, claiming that all Jews were killed for their gold teeth is rather odd. :inquisitive:

What was the attitude of the German's toward the Soviet POW's. Don't attempt the one-sided byline here concerning what the Soviet's did to German Prisoners of War without considering the equally bad misconduct of the German Army toward Soviet POW's.

Eh? Germans didn't like Soviet POWs. Allied POWs in Germany were treated just as German POWs were in the Allied nations. Soviets did do terrible things to German prisoners of war, which did, in part, lead to crimes committed by the military, without a doubt. On the other hand, German treatment of Soviet POWs probably also led to additional brutality by the Soviets. It was really a vicious cycle. However, I'd prefer to let Panzer deal with the Soviet question - I had too many relatives who suffered. I don't think I can offer an unbiased opinion when my own grandmother was dragged to Russia after the war and tortured in Lubyanka.

Committed war crimes yes - genocidal is a reach since the actions do not meet the necessary requirement for genocide as per what the Germans were attempting with the Jews.

Difference in the discpline needed by a free nation versus a nation in the midst of a dictator.

With propaganda, you can teach people to believe anything. With dehumanizing the enemy, you can make your soldiers want to kill. With telling them they are bombing something that should not exist, they would do it. This happened on both sides of the war - but remember, more bombs were dropped on Dresden than on the whole of Britain combined, including military targets.

Revisionism - LOL.
It is revisionism - in the schools, students are fed bullox about how all Germans were so terrible (except for Saint Schindler, of course)*, and nothing is mentioned about the firestorms of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, Chemnitz, Nürnberg...shall I go on? That is tantamount to not recognizing the Holocaust. You may say I cannot compare the two. Well, I can. Why?

1) They were both terrible, organized murders of innocents.
2) They were both carried out by the all-powerful, who didn't need to listen to anyone
3) They were both carried out by those who dehumanized those they were killing.
4) They were both intentional exterminations, designed with the expressed purpose of mass murder (see #1)

I don't see why I can't compare them. Because one lacked camps? Big :daisy: deal.

*who was a good man

Wanting to bring back the discpline of the German Military which committed many of exact type of war crimes in WW1 that were being done in WW2.

I am trying to say that soldiers in the Allied armies also committed war crimes. Obviously, by your own logic, they were undisciplined. Did one Allied airman question Dresden?

Don't forget the German Military had a nasty habit during WW1 of taking civilians hostage and then executing them because someone shot a German soldier.
The psychological effects of being shot at constantly while passing through a village, even after you've cleared out the opposing army, is intense. Indeed, I seem to recall Americans taking out frustrations on civilians in Iraq. The theory is that everyone is now a combatant. It's called asymmetrical warfare. It's the same principle, deny it as I know you will.

PanzerJaeger

03-11-2008, 08:25

You do know the difference don't you Panzer - the American Army nor the Marine Corps had a standing order for killing wounded Japanese prisoners for their gold teeth. If your unable to see the difference then shame on you.

Shame on me? You just made my point.

The war crimes committed by the German military you cite were sanctioned from the top political leadership through the military command to the individual units and soldiers. Being at the bottom of this chain, your average German soldier when faced with a decision to commit a "war crime"(by today's standards) had two options - obey or face the wrath of the Nazis directed towards not just himself, but also his family.

(This completely ignores the cultural dimensions at play in regards to the government supported propaganda against various groups, which sought to justify their destruction. In a sort of "carrot and stick" approach, the Nazi leadership sought to dehumanize their victims while severely punishing those who did not go along.)

Now back to the allies...

As you freely state, there was no standing order to execute Japanese prisoners to rip their fillings out of their heads and certainly no punishment for not doing so. It was of course done, however - and to a large degree. Some brave historians recently have even gone so far as to mention this practice along with the common theme of Bushido in explanation of the unusually small prisoner counts in the aftermath of the Pacific War.

So there is certainly a difference, but I'm struggling to understand how it reflects poorly on the German soldiers and not the other way around.

But hey, as has been pointed out so readily, "just following orders" is no excuse, regardless of what horrible punishments awaited those who didnt.

So lets examine some examples of British and American war crimes that were sanctioned by the authorities and not simply committed out of greed.

As I said before, what consequences awaited British and American airmen who refused to drop incendiary and nuclear bombs on civilian targets deemed to have little military value? Would the Gestapo pay a visit to their wives and children?

My point in all this is not to say that American and British soldiers are worse than their German counterparts, but that they are no better. It is easy to make judgements based on todays standards of right and wrong, but examining the same actions in the context of when they were committed makes things much more complicated. None of the major combatant's militaries would pass such a test.

The growing movement to condemn the entire German military not only ignores the above, but literally hundreds of other factors. For example, lets take your 50 divisions comment. That ignores such things as the percentage that represents in the total number of divisions in the German military. Also, given the size of a division, what constitutes divisional war crimes participation? Did every man in the division shoot a Jew, or did the Gestapo use a divisional supply depot to refuel. The answers to such questions might lead to a different understanding of the situation.

To buy in to and propagate the idea that German soldiers as a whole were somehow worse than their allied counterparts is not only gross revisionism but is completely disrespectful to the vast majority of ordinary Germans who were drafted to serve and did so honorably and bravely under some of the most severe conditions any military has faced in human history. Shame on you for taking part...

Brenus

03-11-2008, 09:02

“Soviets did do terrible things to German prisoners of war, which did, in part, lead to crimes committed by the military, without a doubt”: Hold on: The Germans did horrible thing to the Russians (until late 1941, no Germans were taken prisoners as the Germans invaded Russia and not Russia invaded Germany) and started to kill and genocide.:inquisitive:
The Russians retaliated to this, and I can say that you can’t expect a Russian soldier to have much sympathy for a German one after what happened in his towns and villages…
The French even had to shot few of its own soldiers for rape and killing during the occupation of Germany…

Now, if you want to speak about what happened in my village in France? Do you want to know what Germans did?

“Well, I can”: Well, that is the problem, is it?

There is NO allies’ example of Einstzagruppen. Even the Russians who had good reasons to hate Germans did not organise extermination camps like Treblinka. I do know that on 90 000 prisoners in Stalingrad only 6 000 came back to Germany... It wasn’t prevented by the Red Army; it wasn’t planned as such…

“I am trying to say that soldiers in the Allied armies also committed war crimes”: Give me an example where an allies unit was ordered to kill hostages and burned houses and actually did it… I am confident you can find one. Then compare with the number of villages burned to the ground in Russia… In short, give me a German Oradour sur Glane…

“most severe conditions any military has faced in human history”:
Er, the same than the one which was in front of them… What about the one who had to face, due the incompetence of their Generals, the Iron Fist of the panzers without adequate guns, the bombs of the Stukas when the Germans seemed invincible…?

Tribesman

03-11-2008, 09:02

It is easy to make judgements based on todays standards of right and wrong, but examining the same actions in the context of when they were committed makes things much more complicated.
There is no need to make judgements based on todays standards , all parties had signed up to the same standards long before , todays standards are only different from the whole of the 20th centuries standards on the minutest technicalities that have had to be adopted to suit new developments .

Jews were killed, and their gold teeth were taken, without a doubt. However, claiming that all Jews were killed for their gold teeth is rather odd.
Thats a classic , no real offence to either poster , but that statement is worthy of Red in his worst windmill mode:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

HoreTore

03-11-2008, 09:24

The Salvation Army?

Nah, they discriminate against gay people...

The Swedes haven't fought in any war for centuries, so they've got to be high up on the list. No suppression of finnish rebels either...

HoreTore

03-11-2008, 09:27

One just needs to ask what would have happened to that German boy who refused to guard the concentration camp?

Like Oscar Schindler?

Besides - a lot of those guards did a lot more than simple guard duty. Things that cannot be described as anything less than pure sadistic evil.

Husar

03-11-2008, 11:51

Redleg

03-11-2008, 12:35

I don't deny that orders were issued to the Wehrmacht - simply that every army was, as you "corrected" Panzer, just as honourable as every other army. Without a doubt, there was no completely righteous side, and there never has been in history. I did not say the German Army was as honorable as any allied army - I said some units were just as honorable, this is a discint difference. Those very issueing of orders that expressily dicated the extermination of civilians, especially civilians within Germany itself and the occupied terrorities it controled, took away any honor of the German Army.

Jews were killed, and their gold teeth were taken, without a doubt. However, claiming that all Jews were killed for their gold teeth is rather odd. :inquisitive: No such claim was made. The statement was that no order was given. However an order was given to kill jews and take their processions. Something that was documented by the Germans in thier desire to account for every procession of the jews that they killed.

Eh? Germans didn't like Soviet POWs. Allied POWs in Germany were treated just as German POWs were in the Allied nations. Soviets did do terrible things to German prisoners of war, which did, in part, lead to crimes committed by the military, without a doubt. On the other hand, German treatment of Soviet POWs probably also led to additional brutality by the Soviets. It was really a vicious cycle. However, I'd prefer to let Panzer deal with the Soviet question - I had too many relatives who suffered. I don't think I can offer an unbiased opinion when my own grandmother was dragged to Russia after the war and tortured in Lubyanka.

Fair enough - admitting to baised views is a start.

With propaganda, you can teach people to believe anything. With dehumanizing the enemy, you can make your soldiers want to kill. With telling them they are bombing something that should not exist, they would do it. This happened on both sides of the war - but remember, more bombs were dropped on Dresden than on the whole of Britain combined, including military targets.

The difference in our arguement is that I am not trying to defend the decision to bomb Dresden as an honorable act of warfare.

It is revisionism - in the schools, students are fed bullox about how all Germans were so terrible (except for Saint Schindler, of course)*, and nothing is mentioned about the firestorms of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, Chemnitz, Nürnberg...shall I go on? That is tantamount to not recognizing the Holocaust. You may say I cannot compare the two. Well, I can. Why?

Then that is an issue for your education system. The Firebombing of Tokyo was mentioned while I was in school. Comparing the two has to require a bit more detail then what you are attempting. Using bad behavior to justify bad behavior is a false arguement.

1) They were both terrible, organized murders of innocents.
2) They were both carried out by the all-powerful, who didn't need to listen to anyone
3) They were both carried out by those who dehumanized those they were killing.
4) They were both intentional exterminations, designed with the expressed purpose of mass murder (see #1)

I don't see why I can't compare them. Because one lacked camps? Big :daisy: deal.

See statement above. Using bad behavior to justify bad behavior is a poor arguement. However the part that you refuse compare is that one was an action against the civilians of an external state. The other was conducting actions against the civilians of its own nation and civilians that were taken from occupied lands. The first being an unhonorable act of war, by definition a possible war crime. The second being an extermination classified as genocide. That is why saying I am being a revisionist does not fit.

I am trying to say that soldiers in the Allied armies also committed war crimes. Obviously, by your own logic, they were undisciplined. Did one Allied airman question Dresden? Correct undiscipline soldiers will commit war crimes. I have also not denied that allied soldiers did indeed commit war crimes. The difference was that it was not a standing order to commit war crimes as it was in the German Army. Dresden was also questioned before it happened, a history on it I might find later, but If I remember right the United States Military was at first against the fire bombing because it did not have significant enough tactical or stagetic value as an operation.

The psychological effects of being shot at constantly while passing through a village, even after you've cleared out the opposing army, is intense. Indeed, I seem to recall Americans taking out frustrations on civilians in Iraq. The theory is that everyone is now a combatant. It's called asymmetrical warfare. It's the same principle, deny it as I know you will.

I know very well what it is, are you attempting to deny that the standing order was not a war crime? Having been in combat a time or two - I am very well of some of the emotions that soldiers have. Several United States soldiers are sitting in Leavenworth for taking out their frustrations on enemy non-combatants. Many are still awaiting trail. Again notice the difference between the two. The main difference is one is an act of frustration the other is a standing order to committ murder if your shot at from the village, in essence holding the population hostage and then carrying it out. Your attempting to justify murder in the name of combat, making excuses for a criminal act.

Redleg

03-11-2008, 12:52

Shame on me? You just made my point. [quote]

Yes shame on you Panzer. If you missed the point I will explain it again. One side had a standing order to kill then rob the non-combatant. One side had an order to kill the combatant. Your point was not made.

[quote]
The war crimes committed by the German military you cite were sanctioned from the top political leadership through the military command to the individual units and soldiers. Being at the bottom of this chain, your average German soldier when faced with a decision to commit a "war crime"(by today's standards) had two options - obey or face the wrath of the Nazis directed towards not just himself, but also his family.

The honorable warrior would of faced the wrath of the Nazi command versus obeying an unlawful order. You espouse the honorable combat of the German soldier but you fail to acknowledge that he in essence was not a honorable warrior.

(This completely ignores the cultural dimensions at play in regards to the government supported propaganda against various groups, which sought to justify their destruction. In a sort of "carrot and stick" approach, the Nazi leadership sought to dehumanize their victims while severely punishing those who did not go along.)

Not at all - I refuse to say that the German Army in total fought honorably.

As you freely state, there was no standing order to execute Japanese prisoners to rip their fillings out of their heads and certainly no punishment for not doing so. It was of course done, however - and to a large degree. Some brave historians recently have even gone so far as to mention this practice along with the common theme of Bushido in explanation of the unusually small prisoner counts in the aftermath of the Pacific War.

Again I have not tried to defend its action as anything other then what it was.

So there is certainly a difference, but I'm struggling to understand how it reflects poorly on the German soldiers and not the other way around.

See the above

But hey, as has been pointed out so readily, "just following orders" is no excuse, regardless of what horrible punishments awaited those who didnt.

So lets examine some examples of British and American war crimes that were sanctioned by the authorities and not simply committed out of greed.

As I said before, what consequences awaited British and American airmen who refused to drop incendiary and nuclear bombs on civilian targets deemed to have little military value? Would the Gestapo pay a visit to their wives and children? Military Prison if the command authority desired to prosecute. Now are you beginning to see the difference. You can not say the German Military was honorable when its very nature was being fearful of its own command.

My point in all this is not to say that American and British soldiers are worse than their German counterparts, but that they are no better. It is easy to make judgements based on todays standards of right and wrong, but examining the same actions in the context of when they were committed makes things much more complicated. None of the major combatant's militaries would pass such a test.

Never said they could. The difference is that I am not trying to protray the German Military as being honorable during war. Nor am I espousing them as anything other then what they were.

The growing movement to condemn the entire German military not only ignores the above, but literally hundreds of other factors. For example, lets take your 50 divisions comment. That ignores such things as the percentage that represents in the total number of divisions in the German military. Also, given the size of a division, what constitutes divisional war crimes participation? Did every man in the division shoot a Jew, or did the Gestapo use a divisional supply depot to refuel. The answers to such questions might lead to a different understanding of the situation.

LOL - Condemn the entire German Military is based upon the orders issued by the high command of the German Military and the actions of its senior officers. Everything else has the trickle down approach because the German Military obeyed those orders in total. Some out of fear, some did it because they really believed in the Nazi dream. I refuse to find honor in either of those actions. Some german officers and men did indeed refuse to obey - in that they were honorable, but in general the German Military of WW2 should be condemned for its actions outside of combat with allied armies.

To buy in to and propagate the idea that German soldiers as a whole were somehow worse than their allied counterparts is not only gross revisionism but is completely disrespectful to the vast majority of ordinary Germans who were drafted to serve and did so honorably and bravely under some of the most severe conditions any military has faced in human history. Shame on you for taking part...

LOL try again. I do not believe I condemned the German soldier who behaved honorably in WW2, I condemn the German Military in general for obeying unlawful orders of their high command. I condemn the German High Command in total for its actions. I refuse to accept that unquestionable obience is a sign of discipline also, because it leads to just those actions that happened in WW2 by Germany.

Redleg

03-11-2008, 12:58

I still don't get the point of some here, why is it important how many soldiers followed the orders of their high command?
In the Big Red One you see one American soldier after the other running in front of a sniper in order to blow a few wires up just because they're ordered to do so. If that's any indicator of how allied soldiers followed their orders I wonder what they had done with similar orders to those the germans had. That does not mean I want to excuse the crimes committed, the soviets treated our soldiers like that mainly because we raped their women and exterminated their villages before, when they came through them during their counter attack they must've held us for monsters...

The point is that someone is espousing the unquestionable obeying of orders which was one of the standards of discipline of Pre-WW1 Germany. Then the situation gets even more cloudly when a nation goes on a war of aggression.

For instance in that aspect the citizen of the nation that joins or is conscripted into the military has acted within the law of his nation. Which in essence means he is honor and duty bound to serve the nation. To put it in modern terms, every soldier ordered to Iraq to fight is duty bound to fulfil that order because under the law they are required to perform that duty. If the conflict is deemed by the International Tribunal to be illegal - a soldier can not be convicted of a war crime because he served. A soldier can only be convicted of the crime that he commits in the line of that initial obligation. An individual mentioned that in Iraq, American soldiers have acted out in frustration against Iraqi civilians. This is true, and those individuals are guilty of committing an illegal act, and should be held responsible for it. The error in the comprasion is that in regards to the German Military of both WW1 and WW2, these were official orders of the high command, therefore the German Military was encouraged to commit an illegal act by its command authority within the obligation of what the solder believed was his lawful duty to serve. The service of the individual soldier can be honorable because he refuses to act on that unlawful order, but the German Military in total can be condemned for ordering illegal/unlawful acts.

This covers the situation that we have with Germany in both World Wars, where instructions were given to kill civilians in occupied terrorities held by the German Military. If one refers to the Hague Conventions that were signed by most of Europe in the early 1900's, that constitutes a direct violation of one of the articles agreed upon. What both are trying to compare is this action to the action by both sides in the terror bombings of cities in the enemy's nation.

Attempting to justify a seperate crime by using exambles of a violation of a different article of that same convention is again a false comparison since the exambles are dis-similiar. So in essence to mitigate Germany's violation of two distinct articles of the convention - they are pointing to the allies violation of one article of the convention. Using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior is a false arguement.

Obeying lawful orders should happen, obeying unlawful orders should not. Unquestionable obience prevents unlawful orders from being questioned and stopped.

So to make all this a bit more clear, give me a number of how many war crimes exactly an army has to commit so that the army as a whole can not be called honorable anymore?

Its an subjective opinion. The standard is based upon the individual. Some would want to call it revisionist to state what I have, but that would require an established definition on honorable conduct in modern warfare. No such definition exists, so to call me a revisionist would be false.

And then tell me who had the insane idea to call killing humans honorable in the first place. :sweatdrop:

Your going to have to delve deep into human history to find that answer.

Redleg

03-11-2008, 13:02

:whip:
There is no need to make judgements based on todays standards , all parties had signed up to the same standards long before , todays standards are only different from the whole of the 20th centuries standards on the minutest technicalities that have had to be adopted to suit new developments .

Oh I haven't even begun to get into the arguements around the Hague or the Geneva conventions concerning the actions of the German Military in WW2. THe very actions that actually got them convicted at Nuremburg along with a few new ones that were added because of WW2

Thats a classic , no real offence to either poster , but that statement is worthy of Red in his worst windmill mode:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Kettle meet Pot. :laugh4:

Tribesman

03-11-2008, 16:09

So to make all this a bit more clear, give me a number of how many war crimes exactly an army has to commit so that the army as a whole can not be called honorable anymore?

No need for numbers , one word and its use makes all the difference .
It defines the policy that covers the orders during the war and its conduct which directly leads to these crimes at hand .
It was a policy of annihilation , a war of annihilation , it is clearly stated in orders and public proclaimations . That is what makes the whole action of the German forces different from those of the other powers .
Yes the allies commited war crimes , but the whole core rationale of the German intention was a war crime of the highest order .

drone

03-11-2008, 16:17

Regarding the Soviets/German POW treatment - The USSR was not a signatory of the 1929 Geneva Convention (neither was Japan, but that's a different story). This was used as a justification by the Nazis/German military to mistreat Soviet POWs, since the Soviets were not bound by the treaty to reciprocate with proper treatment.

Not defending either side here, just bringing this up.

Tribesman

03-11-2008, 16:51

Regarding the Soviets/German POW treatment - The USSR was not a signatory of the 1929 Geneva Convention (neither was Japan, but that's a different story). This was used as a justification by the Nazis/German military to mistreat Soviet POWs, since the Soviets were not bound by the treaty to reciprocate with proper treatment.

No that doesn't work , since there is a clause that states that all countries not ratifying the new treaty remain under their obligations under the the previous treaties that dealt with the issue .

PanzerJaeger

03-11-2008, 17:15

The honorable warrior would of faced the wrath of the Nazi command versus obeying an unlawful order. You espouse the honorable combat of the German soldier but you fail to acknowledge that he in essence was not a honorable warrior.

Unlawful by whose standards? It was certainly unlawful in Germany to disobey orders. If you are going by international law, I hope you are willing to condemn every American soldier as being a dishonorable warrior as well. There were certainly standing orders to kill civilians in the American military, among many other infractions of international warfare treaties. Broad brushes and guilt by association are certainly fun, but they of course paint a picture with questionable accuracy.

Military Prison if the command authority desired to prosecute. Now are you beginning to see the difference. You can not say the German Military was honorable when its very nature was being fearful of its own command.

Why not? You're conclusion has no logical bearing.

blah blah bla... but in general the German Military of WW2 should be condemned for its actions outside of combat with allied armies.

Incorrect. Again, you need to buy a narrower brush or simply stop painting.

By your own standards I can make a pretty good case that the American military was a criminal organization during WW2, and none of their soldiers were honorable. In fact, I can apply that to every major combatant.

Now we can come to the conclusion that WW2 was a dirty war and no one fought honorably by today's standards, or realize that you are not looking at the issue in context.

LOL try again. I do not believe I condemned the German soldier who behaved honorably in WW2,

Actually, you did. [see - first quote]

I condemn the American Military in general for obeying unlawful orders of their high command. I condemn the American high command in total for its actions. I refuse to accept that unquestionable obience is a sign of discipline also, because it leads to just those actions that happened in WW2 by America.

I agree. Whether it is burning villages or dropping nuclear weapons on women and children, I think that by your standards, soldiers on both sides followed orders without giving enough thought to the legality of their actions on an international basis. Of course by your standards, Americans in Iraq have some issues with honor as well. :shame:

Looking at the conflict in the context in which in occurred yields a slightly different outcome, in which honorable soldiers fought on both sides.

drone

03-11-2008, 17:26

No that doesn't work , since there is a clause that states that all countries not ratifying the new treaty remain under their obligations under the the previous treaties that dealt with the issue .
I never said "it would work", I just said that it was used as justification for the poor treatment. We all know the Nazis' plans for deliberate starvation of the soviet populace in occupied territory, so we don't really need to debate the overall motives.

Tribesman

03-11-2008, 18:29

It was certainly unlawful in Germany to disobey orders.
Not if the orders were unlawful it wasn't .
Since the orders in question were in violation to agreements Germany had signed they cannot have been lawful therefore it was not unlawful to disobey those orders .
An illegal order is and always remains an illegal order , thats why the "I was just following orders" line is ruled as no defense .

Why not? You're conclusion has no logical bearing.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Actuall Panzer Redlegs statement is spot on .
If a force cannot refuse an illegal order and instead follows illegal orders out of nothing but fear it has absolutely no honour whatsoever .
Now of course there were honourabe soldiers in the wehrmacht , if they were lucky they deserted and got away , if they were slightly less lucky they got incarcerated for the duration , if they were really unlucky they were either shot or strung up .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-11-2008, 18:59

Not if the orders were unlawful it wasn't .
Since the orders in question were in violation to agreements Germany had signed they cannot have been lawful therefore it was not unlawful to disobey those orders .

National law, both in writing and de facto, made it impossible for German soldiers to disobey orders. High-profile Generals who disobeyed orders would be reassigned or dealt with quietly, and ordinary soldiers who did would be shot. Do you remember what happened at My Lai? Where a soldier attempted to stop the massacre by turning weapons on his own troops? That could never have happened in Germany, because anyone would be shot the second they tried that. Also, any idea of an army coup (aside from the July 20th Plot, but I mean a coup by the common soldier) inside Germany can't be more than a romantic ideal, that "they could have if they wanted to". The choice was obey orders or be shot. The vast majority of people would choose to obey orders.

An illegal order is and always remains an illegal order , thats why the "I was just following orders" line is ruled as no defense .
It was an illegal order by international law, but not by national law.

RedLeg and Tribesman: By your definition of honour, nobody who firebombed any city while in an allied bomber had any honour, because they could have refused to do it.

Vladimir

03-11-2008, 20:55

All this honor stuff is so :thumbsdown:

All you have to do is win and the Germans lost, twice.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-11-2008, 21:37

All this honor stuff is so :thumbsdown:

Possibly. It all boils down to the fact that the war was lost by Germany (in the the Second World War, probably for the better, in the First World War, this is quite debateable), and history is generally written by the victors.

Fortunately, in the days of the internet, we can actually have contrasting views, aside from the official government version.

HoreTore

03-11-2008, 21:43

An individual mentioned that in Iraq, American soldiers have acted out in frustration against Iraqi civilians. This is true, and those individuals are guilty of committing an illegal act, and should be held responsible for it. The error in the comprasion is that in regards to the German Military of both WW1 and WW2, these were official orders of the high command, therefore the German Military was encouraged to commit an illegal act by its command authority within the obligation of what the solder believed was his lawful duty to serve. The service of the individual soldier can be honorable because he refuses to act on that unlawful order, but the German Military in total can be condemned for ordering illegal/unlawful acts.

That's what I meant before, Redleg, and I knew you agreed with me :yes:

Vladimir

03-11-2008, 21:47

All this honor and lawful order stuff is good in theory but when someone belabors the point it becomes really tedious. I understand the importance of honor and law but quickly become disgusted by those who try to impose them on what in other circumstances is dishonorable and illegal.

Why are these orders and actions illegal? Often times because they negatively affect the desired outcome.

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 00:22

National law, both in writing and de facto, made it impossible for German soldiers to disobey orders.
No it didn't , if it was impossible then the Germans would't have had to shoot any of their own troops for disobeying orders would they.:dizzy2:

It was an illegal order by international law, but not by national law.

No since gemany in signing up to those agreements made them part of their criteria in national law on those subjects .
They could have withdrawn from the agreement , in which case they would be bound by the earlier agrrement , but then then coud have withdrwn from that one too...in which case they would have been bound by the even earlier agreement ...but they could have withdrawn from that , in which case they would be bound by...errrr...oh yeah the even earlier agreement ....but they didn't do that did they .

RedLeg and Tribesman: By your definition of honour, nobody who firebombed any city while in an allied bomber had any honour, because they could have refused to do it.

Yes and no , that would depend on the raid and the intended target .
Don't forget that even Dresden can be dressed up as complying with the laws of war , that cannot be said of the majority of the orders issued by Germany that were deemed war crimes .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2008, 01:18

No it didn't , if it was impossible then the Germans would't have had to shoot any of their own troops for disobeying orders would they.:dizzy2:

You don't make any sense. German soldiers were shot for disobeying orders because it was law that you could not disobey an order. In effect, you seem to be agreeing with me.

No since gemany in signing up to those agreements made them part of their criteria in national law on those subjects .

Indeed it should have, but the National Socialist government obviously had other ideas, which the individual soldier, like it or not, could do little or nothing about during the lawmaking process.

Don't forget that even Dresden can be dressed up as complying with the laws of war , that cannot be said of the majority of the orders issued by Germany that were deemed war crimes .

Germany's war crimes can also be dressed up as obeying the laws of war, or, rather, could have been if Germany won. This does not mean I believe these were not war crimes, it's just a counterpoint on what could have happened. History is always written by the victor.

Dresden can also be dressed up as complying with the laws of war, but it did not in reality. The purpose of Dresden, as defined by allied commanders in numerous documents and speeches (which I can quote "upon command"), was to bring an "absolutely devastating, exterminating attack upon [The German] homeland" (Winston Churchill), "to adopt deliberate terror bombing of the great population centers of Germany" (The Associated Press), and (in the case of Chemnitz), "to finish off the refugees who managed to escape from Dresden" (Allied commander giving briefing before Chemnitz attack).

Dresden was a deliberate campaign of destruction and extermination. It was a war crime, and by your own definition, Allied air crews going to Dresden were immoral and honourless soldiers. En finalement, Dresden was not deemed a war crime simply because the Allies won - nothing more.

PanzerJaeger

03-12-2008, 02:01

Not if the orders were unlawful it wasn't .
Since the orders in question were in violation to agreements Germany had signed they cannot have been lawful therefore it was not unlawful to disobey those orders .
An illegal order is and always remains an illegal order , thats why the "I was just following orders" line is ruled as no defense .

The standard line of the Allied authorities... the same Allies who did not charge their own soldiers for breaking the same treaties the German soldiers were brought to trial on. Was there any doubt that charges of war crimes would be brought against the losing side?

As I said in my first post, history is written by the victors. Had the Axis won, how many thousands of allies would have been charged with war crimes based on the very same treaties?

As with Redleg, you can make claims based on the obviously biased rulings the Allies made after the conflict, or you can look at things from a more realistic perspective. To the average soldier, international law is not now, and certainly was not during WW2, the highest authority. Not in Germany, and not in any nation. 60 years later, the situation has not changed.

If you want to make accusations of not following treaties, then the political leadership should be the target. They make the law of the land, not the military, and not the international community. If you'd like to go through the list of military treaties made prior to WW2 and make a list of nations that picked and chose what elements of those treaties to adhere to, I'd be glad to help. The results would be... illuminating? :yes:

Yes and no , that would depend on the raid and the intended target .
Don't forget that even Dresden can be dressed up as complying with the laws of war , that cannot be said of the majority of the orders issued by Germany that were deemed war crimes .

It is interesting to see how quickly you begin nitpicking about specifics when the questions turn to the allies, what happened to the broad brush?

In any event, Im sure you can tell me who "dressed up" the massacre to conform to the law(which still completely falls short). Was it the very people who committed the massacre? What are the chances that, had the Axis won, they would have come to the conclusion that all their actions were completely lawful?

“That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and
the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be
emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the
creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of
morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified
bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy,
they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

Arthur Harris, October 25, 1943

Thanks for the insightful quote, Mars. :bow:

Adrian II

03-12-2008, 02:13

I don't want to derail the thread, so i'll just say, no, they weren't, and leave it at that.Neither do I, so I'll just agree with your wholeheartedly. :yes:

Banquo's Ghost

03-12-2008, 09:13

Possibly. It all boils down to the fact that the war was lost by Germany (in the the Second World War, probably for the better, in the First World War, this is quite debateable), and history is generally written by the victors.
.

Probably for the better? :shocked2:

What pray, would have been a good outcome of Germany's aggression? Nicer motorways?

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 09:22

Was there any doubt that charges of war crimes would be brought against the losing side?

How many countries were on the losing side ?
What was the extent of war crimes tribunals against each of those countries ?

As with Redleg, you can make claims based on the obviously biased rulings the Allies made after the conflict, or you can look at things from a more realistic perspective.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No Panzer , I make claims based on a wide variety of sources , even from Nazi apologists , so your attempt at calling it an unrealistic persprctive falls flat .

It is interesting to see how quickly you begin nitpicking about specifics when the questions turn to the allies, what happened to the broad brush?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Poor Panzer , oh dear you really are not doing very well .
Since in this forum on the subject of war crimes I have "nitpicked" with Redleg over different elements and applications of the German commando directive and how parts of it do comply with the laws of war you once again fall flat on your face (curiously enough it was over the parts which on specifics designated certain captured aircrew as war criminals and subject to punishment under those terms) .

In any event, Im sure you can tell me who "dressed up" the massacre to conform to the law
Since a scummy nazi sympathiser like Irving can do a reasonable job of dressing it up , why on earth do you think that anyone else couldn't ?

You don't make any sense.
No Mars , it was you who didn't make any sense when you said it was impossible , it was not impossible , it did carry grave consequences .
But since you have this thing about "honour" then you should understand that the honourable thing would be to do the right thing and face those consequences .

edit to add
history is written by the victors......
That is something that is repeatedly being written here , it is a bollox claim isn't it .
If it were true there wouldn't be such a variety of histories written from all perpectives and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all based on those different perspectives .

Husar

03-12-2008, 12:18

Would you die to be able to enjoy your own freedom? :dizzy2:

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 13:30

Would you die to be able to enjoy your own freedom?
would you murder to take away someone elses freedom and your own ?:inquisitive:

Husar

03-12-2008, 13:55

would you murder to take away someone elses freedom and your own ?:inquisitive:
If there's noone to judge me for the murder, why not? At least I can live and hope to regain my own freedom later. ~;p

Viking

03-12-2008, 14:21

Probably for the better? :shocked2:

What pray, would have been a good outcome of Germany's aggression? Nicer motorways?

No Palestine vs. Israel conflict. ~:wacko:

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 14:58

If there's noone to judge me for the murder, why not? At least I can live and hope to regain my own freedom later.
some things can never be regained Husar , and at all times there is someone there to judge you .

Conradus

03-12-2008, 15:03

It was an illegal order by international law, but not by national law.

And international law surpasses national laws, even the constitution.

Husar

03-12-2008, 15:18

some things can never be regained Husar
True, but freedom isn't one of them.

and at all times there is someone there to judge you .
So you do believe in God after all? ~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2008, 15:52

What pray, would have been a good outcome of Germany's aggression? Nicer motorways?

To be honest, I'm rather pressed to find a good benefit...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2008, 16:05

How many countries were on the losing side ?
What was the extent of war crimes tribunals against each of those countries ?

Pretty extensive against Japan and Germany, the two major players. I'm not sure about the minor players.

However, what about the important trials that didn't happen at all? The Soviet Nuernberg, if you will? The Bomber Trial? Trials that should have happened, but didn't.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Poor Panzer , oh dear you really are not doing very well .
At least he's shown some sources and offered a concise, clear argument.

Since in this forum on the subject of war crimes I have "nitpicked" with Redleg over different elements and applications of the German commando directive and how parts of it do comply with the laws of war you once again fall flat on your face (curiously enough it was over the parts which on specifics designated certain captured aircrew as war criminals and subject to punishment under those terms) .

The vast majority of the "nitpicking" you have done has been when we bring up crimes the Allies have committed. You and RedLeg are both perfectly content to paint every German soldier as a war criminal.

Since a scummy nazi sympathiser like Irving can do a reasonable job of dressing it up , why on earth do you think that anyone else couldn't ?

Really? He dressed up Dresden to make it look like it was legal?

Anyhow, it doesn't matter. If you do read any sources, you should know that Dresden was an attack largely against civilians and hospitals, chosen on purpose (as I have quoted - didn't respond to that, did you? How about doing that?) to cause massive casualties, destruction, and panic among the German population. If anything Germany did was a war crime, than so was Dresden.

No Mars , it was you who didn't make any sense when you said it was impossible , it was not impossible , it did carry grave consequences .
I made perfect sense, though my terminology could have been different. If a soldier disobeyed a direct order, he could be executed on the spot, and then someone else would've been asked.

But since you have this thing about "honour" then you should understand that the honourable thing would be to do the right thing and face those consequences .
If you look back, you'll see I'm not the one who brought up honour. My claim is simply that Allied and German soldiers were roughly equal in the honour department, difficult to measure as it is.

edit to add .....
That is something that is repeatedly being written here , it is a bollox claim isn't it .
It's not a bullox claim, which is why there were no trials and everyone was convinced that the firestorms were OK (except immediately after it happened), false information was spread to lower the death toll (you realize nobody took into account the many bodies that were turned into ash), and the general moral agreement was that Dresden was the right thing to do.

If it were true there wouldn't be such a variety of histories written from all perpectives and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all based on those different perspectives .
Historians trying to give a different perspective from the Allied governments are looked at as "loony" or "deniers" or "Nazis", just because they actually try to tell us something that happened from your different perspective. Historians who lower the death toll are still, to this day, lauded as great authors and historians. Those who tell a more neutral perspective are still ridiculed.

Caerfanan

03-12-2008, 16:38

Give me ten Texans and I could take over France, Poland and pentrate 300 miles into Russia. Hell I dont even need the head start yall got I will fax the indivudial countries my batallions movements two weeks in advance. The fact of the matter is that all these German fan boys going around singing the praises of the mighty war machine that was Germany are sorley mistaken. The US buried Germany in everything. Personally I dont think its just Germany I think all of Europe has a little Napoleon complex and its becuase despite all there history and perstige They could never take down the Russians or the Americans. Give me a Japeneese solider now that was an enemy.
Well, I really think you should read history again. It's with guts and really a lot of bombs that US won the war with its numerous EUROPEANS allies against germany that actually made the mistake (err, tactically speaking, as a French, I'm glad the moustache guy has lost) of not believing that such a stupid plan (massive amphibious attack of a fortified coast) was in progress... And even then, think of Omaha Beach: fist Wave = 0 survivors... But I would gladly see your ten texans invading France. I mean without so much airforce and satellites and 20 logistic guys per soldiers all around... Come on...

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 17:52

So you do believe in God after all?
Who said anything about God ?

retty extensive against Japan and Germany, the two major players. I'm not sure about the minor players.

Now that is interesting , you attempt to lambast people about supposedly not reading enough on the subject of war crimes , and then come out with that :laugh4: :laugh4:
Just out of curiosity ,since you have chosen to ignore axis powers trying axis warcriminals , can you think of some examples of axis powers trying allied war criminals ?
Or are you really just shooting in the dark with your claims ?:inquisitive:

Really? He dressed up Dresden to make it look like it was legal?

Yes , and then did a good job of demolishing most of those claims .

Anyhow, it doesn't matter. If you do read any sources, you should know that Dresden was an attack largely against civilians and hospitals, chosen on purpose (as I have quoted - didn't respond to that, did you? How about doing that?) to cause massive casualties, destruction, and panic among the German population. If anything Germany did was a war crime, than so was Dresden.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Are you tilting at windmills young mars ?

You and RedLeg are both perfectly content to paint every German soldier as a war criminal.

Try again , if your change the sentence structure , add few words to give it a different meaning then you would surprisingly be right ..until then what you wrote there is of the testicular variety .

Tell you what though .....
It's not a bullox claim, which is why there were no trials and everyone was convinced that the firestorms were OK ...you are wrong once again . ~:doh:
Ever since Lubeck it was controversial , there was lots objections to how "OK" it was , lots and lots of very public objections .

Historians trying to give a different perspective from the Allied governments are looked at as "loony" or "deniers" or "Nazis", just because they actually try to tell us something that happened from your different perspective.
Mars you really are giving the impression that you don't read much , especially not books by very esteemed established historians who are widely acclaimed in both academic and military circles .
It is almost as if you are going by some comic book version of history in forming your views .

Husar

03-12-2008, 18:46

Who said anything about God ?
I just did, didn't I? If I go alone into a village, exterminate it and then make sure it can't be traced back to me, who else could be my judge? :inquisitive:

Viking

03-12-2008, 18:54

nvm

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 19:01

who else could be my judge?
I think that went over your head Husar .
Do you need someone else ?

PanzerJaeger

03-12-2008, 21:04

How many countries were on the losing side ?
What was the extent of war crimes tribunals against each of those countries ?

How many countries were on the winning side?
What was the extent of war crimes tribunals against each of those countries ?

No Panzer , I make claims based on a wide variety of sources , even from Nazi apologists , so your attempt at calling it an unrealistic persprctive falls flat .

Well I try not to use Nazi apologists as a basis for my claims.. Regardless, who decided what was legal and what was not after the conflict? There are plenty of arguements both ways, but the results of tribunals such as Nuremburg formed the basis of the legal arguement. Ironically, the same results would have condemned Allied soldiers in the same position. Again, we can review which nations broke "international law" during the conflict, or it might save time to examine those that did not.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Poor Panzer , oh dear you really are not doing very well .

Im doing just fine. :yes:

Since a scummy nazi sympathiser like Irving can do a reasonable job of dressing it up , why on earth do you think that anyone else couldn't ?

Thats the point. If someone can dress up the heinous events of Dresden as legal, don't you think theres a problem? Don't you think actions defined as war crimes should not be so subjective?

The law should be blind to loyalties, but it obviously wasn't.

As I said, had the axis won, they would have certainly dressed up their own actions and dressed down those of the Allies.

That goes back to the original point - what differentiates a war crime and a tactical decision is who gets the option of "dressing up" the events.

That is something that is repeatedly being written here , it is a bollox claim isn't it .

Not at all, in fact. You have thus been unable to address why the Allied atrocities committed against women and children were not brought before a tribunal. The allies won, and the deaths of millions of innocents were buried in a black and white history.

Tribesman

03-12-2008, 21:39

Well I try not to use Nazi apologists as a basis for my claims
Why not ?
Do you not want to get as wide a view of information from all perspectives before you come to conclusions?

That goes back to the original point - what differentiates a war crime and a tactical decision is who gets the option of "dressing up" the events.

No what differentiates them is that some actions cannot be dressed up no matter how hard you try . That is why some people deny that such actions even occured .
I have yet to come across anyone denying that the mass bombing of European cities occured though .

Thats the point. If someone can dress up the heinous events of Dresden as legal, don't you think theres a problem?
No it isn't a problem , since those views will be subject to scrutiny , and where they fall apart they fall apart .
Take for a more recent example Fallujah, you were a cheerleader for that weren't you , it was all allright as far as you were concerned(not to mention your approval of torture) and probably still is in your mind . Redleg also saw nothing wrong with it initially , it was dressed up as legal , within the laws , but on examination it started to fall apart in places, Red changed his views on certain aspects of the legality as evidence emerged .
Did you change your views on how it was dressed up Panzer ?:no:

PanzerJaeger

03-13-2008, 00:12

No what differentiates them is that some actions cannot be dressed up no matter how hard you try . That is why some people deny that such actions even occured .
I have yet to come across anyone denying that the mass bombing of European cities occured though .

And no one is denying that heinous acts were committed by German forces of all different kinds during WW2. What's being disputed is the claims (made mostly by Redleg) that the German military as a whole was a criminal organization and that German soldiers were not honorable.

I made the point that by his standards, none of the major combatants would be considered legal in their actions or honorable.

No it isn't a problem , since those views will be subject to scrutiny , and where they fall apart they fall apart .
Take for a more recent example Fallujah, you were a cheerleader for that weren't you , it was all allright as far as you were concerned(not to mention your approval of torture) and probably still is in your mind . Redleg also saw nothing wrong with it initially , it was dressed up as legal , within the laws , but on examination it started to fall apart in places, Red changed his views on certain aspects of the legality as evidence emerged .
Did you change your views on how it was dressed up Panzer ?:no:

I supported and still do support the actions in Fallujah because the enemy had occupied the city and needed to be eliminated. To be honest, I am not up to date on the specifics, although I do remember some discussion of white phosphorous being used, or some sort of illegal illumination chemical.

But lets assume for the sake of argument that the US forces did commit some ghastly war crimes in Fallujah. As long as the US keeps its grip on power, what are the chances the US soldiers involved will be tried?

And lets say Iraq was somehow able to defeat the US during the opening invasion. Would Chemical Ali have been tried for war crimes?

Thats the point that Redleg seems to be missing. If he wants to paint the German military in such a light, he needs to apply the same treatment to that of the US - and not simply hide behind the fact that Allied forces got away crimes equal to those of the germans because they won. If he thinks stories of Gypsies being thrown into incinerators is compelling, imagine how damning the stories of hundreds of thousands of women and children being incinerated at once would be in a German tribunal. :shame:

Tribesman

03-13-2008, 01:33

I made the point that by his standards, none of the major combatants would be considered legal in their actions or honorable.

And that is where you are wrong .
It is very easy to show that orders issued by the OKW are directly against the rules of war and in no way could be condidered legal , it is also easy to show that these orders were issued to all units .

OK do you follow that ? Its quite easy isn't it .

Can you show the same from the allied side ?

Oh and don't try to atempt anything related to the bombing campaign , because nasty as it was it is totally irrelevant to the subject .(I wonder if you can work that one out~;) ) (or if you will actually make a vain attempt to dispute it) .

I supported and still do support the actions in Fallujah because the enemy had occupied the city and needed to be eliminated. To be honest, I am not up to date on the specifics, although I do remember some discussion of white phosphorous being used, or some sort of illegal illumination chemical.

nah the incendiaries can be dressed up as marker rounds so it wasn't that , it was the stopping civilians and returning them to the area that was to be bombarded that was the crime .

Caerfanan

03-13-2008, 14:52

Err...

What I would want to say:
1/ THE IRON CROSS: why not keep it, but it'll demand some work in erasing the Nazi experience.
2/ GERMAN ARMIES: good armies with a good discipline, and seriously, they did great tactically speaking in WWII. They lost while outnumbered, and because of the invasion of Russia (someone wanted to best Napoleon I think...). I wouldn't get too proud and nationalistic though. This happenned to many armies in many different times...
3/ The bombing of civilians as "part of a port, a road". I think that this was massively done by both armies and probably because that was possible for the first time. I might be wrong about this, but I think so. That became a
crime afterwards (Geneva "treaty"? Someone?). I mean even something like Oradour sur Glanne I can theoritically understand (well I learnt this pretty late, like 6-7 years ago, not very good at listening my teachers, and it took me some time to speak again to german people after learning this)

What was really bad, the real thing, was to decide to individually seek every single person corresponding to a religious or racial criteria and kill them while making some experiments, as if they were some animals. the civilians in the WWII killed during bombing were considered as "enemy victims", not animals.

I don't know if I'm clear, I hope so...

Tribesman

03-13-2008, 15:31

You bad boy Caerfanan ,you spoilt it :thumbsdown:
I was hoping Mars or Panzer were going to attempt the impossible .

KukriKhan

03-13-2008, 16:26

1/ THE IRON CROSS: why not keep it, but it'll demand some work in erasing the Nazi experience.

We're 63 years since anyone was awarded or wore one. How much longer, in your opinion, before "some work in erasing the Nazi experience" is finished? 10 years? 40?

Redleg

03-14-2008, 00:09

And no one is denying that heinous acts were committed by German forces of all different kinds during WW2. What's being disputed is the claims (made mostly by Redleg) that the German military as a whole was a criminal organization and that German soldiers were not honorable.

Laughable - What I said that in total the German Military committed war crimes - a far cry from calling it a criminal organization. As for honorable - there was many things said - one being that some german soldiers were indeed honorable. If your going to try this game do a better job of it.

I made the point that by his standards, none of the major combatants would be considered legal in their actions or honorable.

Oh several were legal - The United States for instance since it was attacked. Then Poland was indeed legal, same as France, Britian, and minus the Finnish Winter War one could even consider Russia was legal in their actions. As for honorable I would say the bombing of cities while necessary was not honorable. Again if your going to attempt this type of game - do a better job of it.

I supported and still do support the actions in Fallujah because the enemy had occupied the city and needed to be eliminated. To be honest, I am not up to date on the specifics, although I do remember some discussion of white phosphorous being used, or some sort of illegal illumination chemical.

But lets assume for the sake of argument that the US forces did commit some ghastly war crimes in Fallujah. As long as the US keeps its grip on power, what are the chances the US soldiers involved will be tried?

Fairily high if one can prove a crime was committed by an American soldier or officer. In fact several have been convicted of crimes and sentenced. The sentences are fairly light given the nature of the crime - but saying that they are not being tried is a false arguement.

Thats the point that Redleg seems to be missing. If he wants to paint the German military in such a light, he needs to apply the same treatment to that of the US - and not simply hide behind the fact that Allied forces got away crimes equal to those of the germans because they won. If he thinks stories of Gypsies being thrown into incinerators is compelling, imagine how damning the stories of hundreds of thousands of women and children being incinerated at once would be in a German tribunal. :shame:

I am missing no point - I just refuse to respond to such attempts, especially when one tries to say equal crimes. For instance where is the equal crime of orders issued by the high command to take hostages and shot them in the occuiped zones?

If your arguement is the terror bombing of Dresden - I would say you haven't been paying attention to what I have written, but attempting a game of false arguements once again. If your going to play that particlur game with me - you have to do a better job of it. I have to much experience in this forum for your attempt here to have much merit. To easy for me to prove what I have stated.

Edit: If you read the actual words you will find my arguement has been consistent. That pre-WW1 discipline of the German Army was not the model to one believes it to be. That such discipline lends itself to illegal orders being issued and obeyed, that it needlessly causes the death of many because of the practice of not allowing any review of the order. And that there is no honor in doing so. Honorable conduct is to refuse to obey illegal or unlawful orders.

Now if your arguement is to justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of others - you have alreadly lost the arguement because you can not defeat the initial premise of my position.

PanzerJaeger

03-14-2008, 07:42

You bad boy Caerfanan ,you spoilt it :thumbsdown:
I was hoping Mars or Panzer were going to attempt the impossible .

Fear not! Twenty pages on strategic management in FedEx is bringing me down, but I will have responses to both you and Redleg hopefully by tommorow.

HoreTore

03-14-2008, 08:11

strategic management

After reading 10 or so books of Dilbert in a row, seeing those two words next to each other makes me chuckle :laugh4:

Caerfanan

03-14-2008, 13:12

You bad boy Caerfanan ,you spoilt it :thumbsdown:
I was hoping Mars or Panzer were going to attempt the impossible .
Err, spoiled something? How so? ~:confused:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-14-2008, 20:15

Err, spoiled something? How so? ~:confused:

He's trying to prove that we're completely wrong, which, if he read as much as he said he did, we would clearly not be.

Let's restate the key points from my (and I presume Panzer's) point of view, just to be clear:

1) German soldiers committed war crimes, but so did Allied soldiers. No army was completely honourable or completely dishonourable, but the Allies and Soviets must take their share of the blame.
2) In relation to point one, trials were carried out against German military men, but none against Allied (and Soviet) military men - essentially, biased justice.
3) Dresden was a war crime specifically targeting the civilian populace of the city. I have cited sources, including contemporary Allies, supporting this viewpoint.
4) Levels of discipline and fitness in the German army need to be improved - how and to what extent I haven't really focused on in this debate.
5) The Iron Cross is an ancient German symbol, and the taint of Nazism should not effect it.

Kralizec

03-14-2008, 20:51

1) They were both terrible, organized murders of innocents.
2) They were both carried out by the all-powerful, who didn't need to listen to anyone
3) They were both carried out by those who dehumanized those they were killing.
4) They were both intentional exterminations, designed with the expressed purpose of mass murder (see #1)

I don't see why I can't compare them. Because one lacked camps? Big deal.

The bombing of German and Japanese cities was done in order to break te people's will to fight (and in case of the Germans, to reduce their industrial output) To the Allied air force, their deaths were a means to an end.

The Holocaust was its own end.

I'm not saying that the end justifies the means- but that these situations are not even remotely comparable seems obvious to me.

Redleg

03-14-2008, 21:22

He's trying to prove that we're completely wrong, which, if he read as much as he said he did, we would clearly not be.

Let's restate the key points from my (and I presume Panzer's) point of view, just to be clear:

Okay I will bite once again.

1) German soldiers committed war crimes, but so did Allied soldiers. No army was completely honourable or completely dishonourable, but the Allies and Soviets must take their share of the blame.

No one has denied that the allies might or even did war crimes. What has been pointed out that the main difference is that Germany had a standing order to committ them.

a) the internment and death of its own citizens
b) the internment and death of civilians taken from occupied lands
c) the order to take and shot hostages from villages and towns that either harbored and/or assisted partisans.

Attempting to justify or excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior is a weak arguement.

2) In relation to point one, trials were carried out against German military men, but none against Allied (and Soviet) military men - essentially, biased justice.

Germany lost the war - hince the justice given to them was very visible. Several crimes could be called war crimes were indeed prosecuted by the allies by the allied country whom the soldier served just not massed informed like the German ones. Also main difference is that most often the trail was done as a violation of the code of military justice versus an official charge of a war crime.

3) Dresden was a war crime specifically targeting the civilian populace of the city. I have cited sources, including contemporary Allies, supporting this viewpoint.

Dresden could be defined as a war crime. However one should look at the documents that established the rules of war, one would have a hard time proving it as a clear cut war crime. Try reading the Hague Convention of 1909 and point out the spefic article that Dresden violates?

From a moral point of view I would call it a war crime also but its one that would be hard for one to prove given the nature of the wording of the Hague Convention for that time.

4) Levels of discipline and fitness in the German army need to be improved - how and to what extent I haven't really focused on in this debate.

Incorrect - you stated that you wanted it to return to pre-WW1 era discipline which brought me into the discussion. You changed your focus once it the discussion turned to war crimes. The discipline you espoused was pointed out to be the same that caused for soldiers and more pointed officers in the German Army to commit acts that were indeed illegal. I even referenced a document from August 1914 that pointed out what that discipline called for.

5) The Iron Cross is an ancient German symbol, and the taint of Nazism should not effect it.

That wasn't the point that brought me into the discussion. If you would of left it to that point - you wouldn't have faced the discussion you have brought about.

Redleg

03-14-2008, 21:25

The bombing of German and Japanese cities was done in order to break te people's will to fight (and in case of the Germans, to reduce their industrial output) To the Allied air force, their deaths were a means to an end.

The Holocaust was its own end.

I'm not saying that the end justifies the means- but that these situations are not even remotely comparable seems obvious to me.

Hince the reasoning that attempting to counter argue by pointing out other bad behavior is rarely a sound arguement to pursue.

Tribesman

03-14-2008, 22:05

He's trying to prove that we're completely wrong, which, if he read as much as he said he did, we would clearly not be.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
OK mars , can you cite the articles covering bombardment of towns and cities and show how the attacks were a violation of those articles and as such constitute a war crime .

You really should have dropped it :yes: because you may well write...
3) Dresden was a war crime specifically targeting the civilian populace of the city. I have cited sources, including contemporary Allies, supporting this viewpoint.
...but unless you can show that they were war crimes according to the laws of war then they are not war crimes .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-14-2008, 22:13

No one has denied that the allies might or even did war crimes. What has been pointed out that the main difference is that Germany had a standing order to committ them.

To me, you seem to be implying by this that the Allies had no standing order to bomb German cities, and pilots did it of their own free will. I'd rephrase that if I were you.

a) the internment and death of its own citizens
b) the internment and death of civilians taken from occupied lands
c) the order to take and shot hostages from villages and towns that either harbored and/or assisted partisans.

These are all true, without a doubt. The only issue that can possibly be debated is scale, and that's probably rather pointless due to varying degrees of evidence. However, the Waffen-SS and Einsatzgruppen were responsible for the majority of deaths, and not the Wehrmacht.

Attempting to justify or excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior is a weak arguement.

Indeed. That is why I'm so confused about you with Dresden. However, I never tried to justify German war crimes - only point out Allied ones.

Several crimes could be called war crimes were indeed prosecuted by the allies by the allied country whom the soldier served just not massed informed like the German ones.

Yes, they did. The problem was that the actual large was crimes were not prosecuted. In other words, most of the Allied criminals, and all of the major ones, were never tried.

Also main difference is that most often the trail was done as a violation of the code of military justice versus an official charge of a war crime.

Which is one of the problems...

Dresden could be defined as a war crime. However one should look at the documents that established the rules of war, one would have a hard time proving it as a clear cut war crime. Try reading the Hague Convention of 1909 and point out the spefic article that Dresden violates?

Perhaps you meant the Hague Convention of 1907 (there was none in 1909). In the full text of the document, civilians are mentioned once in name, and non-combatants also only once. Now, the Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", which was adopted in 1949, clearly states that civilians are to be treated humanely and with dignity:

(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.

Now, since this was adopted in 1949, you will probably say it was null and void for the bombings. However, unless you can cite another relevant international document signed by Germany, you will notice that this was the first document specifically dealing with the treatment of civilians under cases such Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, by this very logic and the loopholes in the treaty, Einsatzgruppen are not covered, and therefore legal. This does not make it right. I am simply making a comparative point. Now, in retrospect, the Allies criminalized their own actions at Dresden.

From a moral point of view I would call it a war crime also but its one that would be hard for one to prove given the nature of the wording of the Hague Convention for that time.

From what I have read, the Hague Conventions have little if anything to do with civilians caught in combat.

Incorrect - you stated that you wanted it to return to pre-WW1 era discipline which brought me into the discussion.

Pre-WWI era levels of obedience and fitness. As you are without a doubt aware, Allied soldiers were also expected to obey orders from their commanders without question. :bow:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-14-2008, 22:19

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
OK mars , can you cite the articles covering bombardment of towns and cities and show how the attacks were a violation of those articles and as such constitute a war crime .

Even if I couldn't, you wouldn't agree that a deliberate mass murder of civilians (as proven by the documents of Bomber Command) was a war crime? That makes you a really big hypocrite.

You really should have dropped it :yes: because you may well write......but unless you can show that they were war crimes according to the laws of war then they are not war crimes .

See above post.

Tribesman

03-15-2008, 04:07

Even if I couldn't
Even if you couldn't ?????? You can't , its as simple as that .

you wouldn't agree that a deliberate mass murder of civilians (as proven by the documents of Bomber Command) was a war crime?
If there is no legislation making it a war crime it isn't a war crime .
But since you are still fixating on Dresden .... What are the provisions that made the bombardment of that city legal ?
What is the bomber command(and USAAF) list of military targets in Dresden that made that legal ?
Was Dresden an undefended town ?

See above post.
Yes and ??????
you will notice that this was the first document specifically dealing with the treatment of civilians under cases such Einsatzgruppen.

incorrect :yes: try the occupation articles.

The main problem in your approach to the topic is pretty well summed up in your words here.... If anything Germany did was a war crime, than so was Dresden.
....it is a nonsensical approach .

HoreTore

03-15-2008, 04:24

But since you are still fixating on Dresden .... What are the provisions that made the bombardment of that city legal ?
What is the bomber command(and USAAF) list of military targets in Dresden that made that legal ?
Was Dresden an undefended town ?

The Assembly,

Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;

Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;

Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;

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

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

You can argue that they did not violate #1 and #2, but I can't see how you can argue that they didn't violate #3.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-15-2008, 04:25

The articles themselves do not deal specifically with aerial bombardment of civilians. This, I believe, stems mainly from the fact that intense aerial bombardment of cities (with or without civilian targets) began largely after the pre-WWII Geneva Conventions and well after the Hague Conventions. I was trying to prove the case based on the documents that RedLeg provided me with, just to prove I could. Technically, from a legal standpoint, I can, though the wording is not perfect. There are other documents (EDIT: That HoreTore showed above) that prove aerial bombing of civilians is a specific crime.

However, I am sure not even you will try to deny that mass murder, in Britain, America, and Germany, is illegal. Under international law, mass murder is a war crime. Dresden was mass murder, plain and simple. Here, have some of the opinions of those you are trying to defend:

“That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and
the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be
emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the
creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of
morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified
bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy,
they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

"an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers" to be carried out on Germany

"If we are going to have a total war, we might as well make it as horrible as possible."

"The reason
you are going there tonight is to finish off the refugees who managed to escape from Dresden."

The aim cannot be argued as anything but the intentional targeting of civilians by a military force, which is a war crime.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-15-2008, 04:28

HoreTore

League of Nations resolution, 1938?

HoreTore

03-15-2008, 04:30

League of Nations resolution, 1938?

League of nations, yup. So "international law".

Shahed

03-15-2008, 05:56

Ein Ziel ! Den Sieg !

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-15-2008, 05:57

Ein Ziel ! Den Sieg !

A completely unnecessary and irrelevant comment. Unless that was a joke, it's also inappropriate.

Shahed

03-15-2008, 06:07

A completely unnecessary and irrelevant comment. Unless that was a joke, it's also inappropriate.

Well then just carry on with your "intellectual" discussion and don't let my sentimental admiration for the Germans who valiantly died fighting for victory, get in your way.

edit: You made me think, and actually yes. It is inappropriate for the discussion because you guys are on about an analysis of the conventions and all, and me being a man of rather few words, of late, just barged in and gave you a shout. So don't be disturbed by it and just carry on. I only had those words to say about the reinstatement of the Iron Cross which I favor because many great men, far better than any of us, died wearing that cross, fighting for what they believed in, doing their duty as men and as soldiers. I completely favor the Iron Cross being reinstated as a symbol of the valor of the German Armed Forces through history, unless they can come up with a "better" one which is equally as representative.

That was my message.

SALUTE!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-15-2008, 06:15

edit: actually yeah. It is inappropriate for the discussion because you guys are on about an analysis of the conventions and all, and me being a man of rather few words, of late, just barged in and gave you a shout.

Alright.

That was my message.

In that case, I am sorry. I interpreted what you were saying as either sarcasm (I'm still not sure), a deliberate dig at myself and Panzer, or a combination of the two. I'm probably being a little paranoid - any trace of nationalism in a German and you're almost considered a fascist there and then.

We (the debaters) seem to have wandered quite a bit astray from the Iron Cross itself... :book: :laugh4:

Tribesman

03-15-2008, 06:33

League of nations, yup. So "international law".
Unfortunately not ......
Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

When were the subsequent regulations drawn up on that basis ?
errrrrrr...not till Geneva .(nice try Hore ,though even if adopted the arguement would turn on the proposed definitions of an undefended city and a military facility)

But for the sake of it go with the proposals (or even the other earlier unadopted ones) does Dresden qualify as a war crime if those pre-war attempts at legislation had come to fruition ?
NO .

Hold on lets think it through again surely that can't be right , Dresden was horrible it must be a war crime ... errrrr...still the answer is no it wasn't.... once more for luck ....no it wasn't .:shrug:

Shahed

03-15-2008, 06:44

EMFM: I am not German, I am not a fascist, I can be sarcastic, but I'm not being sarcastic here.

Lighten up bro, sometimes, I have greeted some of my German friends with "NEUE FUNKSPRUCH HERR KALEUN!!"

That is a joke inspired by a video game (Silent Hunter 3), but it is still a joke with some taste and admiration for the 41 THOUSAND (IIRC) German sailors who sailed to their watery graves in the oceans of the world. Did they know they would not return. Certainly beyond 1942 they knew, the avg age of a recruit on patrol was something ridiculous (which I've forgotten now), I think it was a month. So you join the Navy, you get your training, you get assigned to a boat, you sail on your maiden voyage and you ... die. That's it.

These men went ahead, they had very little chance and they still did whatever they could, they did everything they could. They deserve respect for that. They did so under orders, if they could have backed out they probably would have, but they had orders to carry on the war, and they DID!

They pledged an oath when they joined the military and they fulfilled that oath, above and beyond the call of duty.

Many Nazis wore the Iron Cross but so did many men who were not Nazis. Regardless of their political affiliation the men who displayed valor in combat deserve recognition, in history, and today. Germany has a military history to be very proud of. I'm talking about MILITARY history and achievements, not war crimes, not conventions, not political affiliations etc.

HoreTore

03-15-2008, 06:50

Bah Tribesey.

You know very well that international law is an international loophole. The few laws we have, are horribly lacking and vague, and a good lawyer could probably get you out of most, assuming you have popular support. It's barely working now, it was completely dysfunctional in the 1930's.

Therefore, to define war crimes must be done on a moral basis, not a legal basis, as the latter is rubbish. And you honestly cannot say that bombing thousands of civilians willingly should not constitute a war crime. Forget about what the legal status is, focus on what it should be.

The point of the war crime laws is to avoid massacres in war and punish those responsible. Well, the carpet bombing was a massacre of civilians. If that should not be counted as a war crime, the whole war crime thingy becomes utterly irrelevant and reduced to a tool the victors use against the defeated. Is that an ideal situation?

Tribesman

03-15-2008, 11:09

Bah Tribesey.
:2thumbsup:

The few laws we have, are horribly lacking and vague, and a good lawyer could probably get you out of most, assuming you have popular support.

out of that line which is the really really important word ?

Therefore, to define war crimes must be done on a moral basis, not a legal basis, as the latter is rubbish.
actually it needs a combination of the two .

The point of the war crime laws is to avoid massacres in war and punish those responsible. Well, the carpet bombing was a massacre of civilians.
well yes but no but yes but no but ..errrrrr....Carpet bombing was among other things a massacre of civilians , its the among other things that makes it a sticky issue legally and morally . The same cannot be said of the vast majority of the war crimes that the axis powers were guilty of .

But anyway don't you see the funny side of it ?
You can get people writing stuff like ....
your average German soldier when faced with a decision to commit a "war crime"(by today's standards)....when what is being used are the standards of the time not todays .
Its even funnier when that poster regularly supports bombing civilians (and other war crimes) in modern times under todays standards

HoreTore

03-15-2008, 14:11

well yes but no but yes but no but ..errrrrr....Carpet bombing was among other things a massacre of civilians , its the among other things that makes it a sticky issue legally and morally . The same cannot be said of the vast majority of the war crimes that the axis powers were guilty of .

What is the spirit of the laws? To me, it is that armed forces should do their utmost to avoid the loss of civilian lives. Did the planes bombing Germany do their utmost to avoid german civilian casaulties? No, they did not. Bombing the place was the easy choice. If the germans held London, do you really think the RAF would carpet bomb London to take it back? Of course they wouldn't. They would do their utmost to ensure that their countrymen, friends and family survived. They did not do that when they invaded Germany. IMO, that constitutes a war crime, if not legally, then certainly morally, They could have broken Germany without carpet bombing. They could have done it while at the same time minimizing civilian casaulties. It would have been harder, it may have taken longer time. But they did not, and instead took the easy path. Which is wrong, IMO.

But then, to compare that to the Nazi warcrimes is ridiculous. The carpet bombing did have a legitimate goal, I cannot see how any of the german army's massacres had any such thing. That was a pure terror/genocide campaign, which the carpet bombing was not.

Redleg

03-15-2008, 16:37

To me, you seem to be implying by this that the Allies had no standing order to bomb German cities, and pilots did it of their own free will. I'd rephrase that if I were you.

Correct there was no standing order - each was an independent decision based upon the tactical and stagatic value. And again read the rules of war - there is nothing that prevents the bombing of enemy cities given certain conditions. A far cry from a standing order that authorizes the taking of hostages and execution them in occuiped lands - there is an article that does cover that particuler circumstance directly.

These are all true, without a doubt. The only issue that can possibly be debated is scale, and that's probably rather pointless due to varying degrees of evidence. However, the Waffen-SS and Einsatzgruppen were responsible for the majority of deaths, and not the Wehrmacht.

The point is that the Wehrmacht was involved in committing such acts themselves

Indeed. That is why I'm so confused about you with Dresden. However, I never tried to justify German war crimes - only point out Allied ones.

Pointing to bad behavior to explain away bad bahavior is a weak arguement. Again Dresden while terrible only falls into the catergory of might be a war crime. I can even feel that its a war crime, but point to the article of war that Dresden violated - you will have difficultly with that one.

Yes, they did. The problem was that the actual large was crimes were not prosecuted. In other words, most of the Allied criminals, and all of the major ones, were never tried.

You say this - but again you have no actual proof. What constitutes a war crime - the standard of WW2 was the Hague Convention of 1907 and The Geneva Convention of 1929.

Which is one of the problems...

Only a surface look - prosecution was done, criminal behavior was punished, which in essence makes your earlier statement not completely true. Something that you just agreed to in essence

Perhaps you meant the Hague Convention of 1907 (there was none in 1909). In the full text of the document, civilians are mentioned once in name, and non-combatants also only once. Now, the Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", which was adopted in 1949, clearly states that civilians are to be treated humanely and with dignity:

Therefore you can not claim a war crime was committed - retroactive judgement is possible - but Germany was tried on the standards of the time. Anyother judgement is revision - something that you attempted to accuse me of or was it panzer. Now you will get a clue at the end about where the document has articles concerning the treatment of civilians

Now, since this was adopted in 1949, you will probably say it was null and void for the bombings. However, unless you can cite another relevant international document signed by Germany, you will notice that this was the first document specifically dealing with the treatment of civilians under cases such Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, by this very logic and the loopholes in the treaty, Einsatzgruppen are not covered, and therefore legal. This does not make it right. I am simply making a comparative point. Now, in retrospect, the Allies criminalized their own actions at Dresden.

Nice try but not good enough - try reading the Hague Convention in detail. Obligation to civilians in occupied zones are mentioned quite clearly.

From what I have read, the Hague Conventions have little if anything to do with civilians caught in combat.

Again incorrect, since I have clearly stated occupied terrority. Try reading articles 42 to 53

Pre-WWI era levels of obedience and fitness. As you are without a doubt aware, Allied soldiers were also expected to obey orders from their commanders without question. :bow:

And again I have pointed out how absurb that standard is. Desires to go back to that standard are therefor just as absurb in my opinion

Louis VI the Fat

03-15-2008, 18:17

Redleg

03-15-2008, 21:30

What is the spirit of the laws?

I seperated the sentence out because its a good question.

To me, it is that armed forces should do their utmost to avoid the loss of civilian lives. Did the planes bombing Germany do their utmost to avoid german civilian casaulties? No, they did not. Bombing the place was the easy choice. If the germans held London, do you really think the RAF would carpet bomb London to take it back? Of course they wouldn't. They would do their utmost to ensure that their countrymen, friends and family survived. They did not do that when they invaded Germany.

You have the meat of it in your first sentence - that was the spirit of the convention

IMO, that constitutes a war crime, if not legally, then certainly morally, They could have broken Germany without carpet bombing. They could have done it while at the same time minimizing civilian casaulties. It would have been harder, it may have taken longer time. But they did not, and instead took the easy path. Which is wrong, IMO.

Morally we can be upset with the allies for the tactics used during WW2. However to call it the easy path would be incorrect. The war was brutal in the scope of it because all the nations particapating began to subscribe to the theory we now call Total War. Populations were mobilized to fight and support the conflict in a scale that suppased all other conflicts. The nature of WW2 required a destruction that the world had yet to see up to that time. Ground combat in the nature that was being conducted would of resulted in more destruction when cities became battlegrounds, which they often were depending upon the axis of advance of the allied armies. Just as many civilians causalities would of been the result of the type of ground combat that was happening as from the air campaign. Net result would of been greater destruction.

But then, to compare that to the Nazi warcrimes is ridiculous. The carpet bombing did have a legitimate goal, I cannot see how any of the german army's massacres had any such thing. That was a pure terror/genocide campaign, which the carpet bombing was not.

Good point - happens to be one that I have been making myself. Just slightly different in definition in the details

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 02:00

We (the debaters) seem to have wandered quite a bit astray from the Iron Cross itself...
Would you like to get back to that since you are not doing very well on the laws of war covering the 39-45 period ?

Bring back the Iron Cross :yes:
Slight problem there as it was never done away with ~:doh: , the design was altered just as it has been altered several times in its history , the thing with it is that it has not been issued as the criteria for the award have not been met and cannot be met unless circumstances change .

So what this story boils down to is wanting a new medal suitable for the current circumstances that would reflect actions beyond the scope of the honour or merit crosses (which are also slightly diffent in design to their earlier versions that were in turn slightly different in design to their earlier versions....), yet that do not meet the Iron cross award requirements .

Surely Mars as someone who claims to want tradition kept you should be in favour of a new award rather than wanting to change the tradition of awarding the Iron cross .:inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-16-2008, 05:26

Unfortunately not ......
A unanimous resolution of the League of Nations, signed by Britain, was considered binding to that nation in the membership. Really, it seems to me you're grasping for straws - if you sign a resolution, and you don't keep to it, you're in breach of the international resolution. That resolution spells out very clearly what actions are required to breach it. The terror bombings of Dresden broke one for sure, and quite possibly the rest.

When were the subsequent regulations drawn up on that basis ?
errrrrrr...not till Geneva .
In other words, they were adopted on the next opportunity.

(nice try Hore ,though even if adopted the arguement would turn on the proposed definitions of an undefended city and a military facility)
The purpose of the bombing of Dresden was not to hit any sort of military facility, but to cause terror and death.

Hold on lets think it through again surely that can't be right , Dresden was horrible it must be a war crime ... errrrr...still the answer is no it wasn't.... once more for luck ....no it wasn't .:shrug:
It was. The intentional mass murder of civilians is a war crime, regardless of method. I don't see why you're even trying to argue that.

EMFM: I am not German, I am not a fascist, I can be sarcastic, but I'm not being sarcastic here.

Lighten up bro, sometimes, I have greeted some of my German friends with "NEUE FUNKSPRUCH HERR KALEUN!!"

I know, as I said, I can be a little defensive/paranoid when it comes to that. My sincere apologies.

Correct there was no standing order - each was an independent decision based upon the tactical and stagatic value. And again read the rules of war - there is nothing that prevents the bombing of enemy cities given certain conditions.
However, the only tactical and stragetic value expected of the bombing of Dresden was the murder of civilians and the flight of refugees. The conditions, as mandated by the law above, were clearly not met.

The point is that the Wehrmacht was involved in committing such acts themselves

Yes, the Wehrmacht did commit war crimes, but the Einsatzgruppen were not drawn from the Wehrmacht. Concentration Camp guards were SS or Gestapo.

Pointing to bad behavior to explain away bad bahavior is a weak arguement.
I'm not explaining away anything. Am I not being perfectly clear? Maybe I should bold it.

The Wehrmacht did commit war crimes. This is fact, and terrible things were done. However, I merely argue the fact (and I was not the one who brought up the "blameless and honourable Allies") that Allies committed war crimes. That is all.

Again Dresden while terrible only falls into the catergory of might be a war crime.

The resolution by the League of Nations is clear enough. Britain signed it, and was bound by it.

You say this - but again you have no actual proof.
What? Was Arthur Harris tried? Was Josef Stalin tried? Is the answer no? That's proof enough that criminals were not tried, thank you very much.

What constitutes a war crime - the standard of WW2 was the Hague Convention of 1907 and The Geneva Convention of 1929.

Yes, but a League of Nations resolution is still binding to those who signed.

Only a surface look - prosecution was done, criminal behavior was punished, which in essence makes your earlier statement not completely true.

Prosecution did happen, but far too rarely.

Marocchinate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate)
Dachau Massacre (charges were dismissed) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre)
Katyn Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre)
Heck, why am I linking you to just Katyn? You might as well read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

German prisoners were forced to clear minefields in France and the Low Countries. By December 1945 it was estimated by French authorities that 2,000 German prisoners were being killed or maimed each month in accidents.
How about the Rheinwiesenlager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager)
Utah POW murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salina_Utah_POW_murders)

And of course, the bombings of Dresden and Chemnitz themselves.

How often were those involved prosecuted?

Therefore you can not claim a war crime was committed - retroactive judgement is possible - but Germany was tried on the standards of the time.

I can claim a crime, or at least the violation of an international resolution, was committed when Dresden was bombed.

The mass murder of civilians is a war crime in any case. Don't even bother to deny it, because it's true.

Would you like to get back to that since you are not doing very well on the laws of war covering the 39-45 period ?

Are you kidding me? You're dismissing pieces of legislation and resolutions almost on a whim! Tell me why Britain and America were justified in getting out of what they signed.

Surely Mars as someone who claims to want tradition kept you should be in favour of a new award rather than wanting to change the tradition of awarding the Iron cross .

I am completely in favour of both the Iron Cross and the Blue Max.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 10:58

A unanimous resolution of the League of Nations, signed by Britain, was considered binding to that nation in the membership. Really, it seems to me you're grasping for straws - if you sign a resolution, and you don't keep to it, you're in breach of the international resolution. That resolution spells out very clearly what actions are required to breach it.
Absolute bollox , it is you that are grasping at straws Mars , the unanimous resolution was to draw up laws on the subject , draw up laws at the next meeting on the subject , the next meeting on the topic was in the UN after WW 2:dizzy2:
Oh but you know that don't you ...looky
In other words, they were adopted on the next opportunity.
..are you just demonstrating in easy stages how what you wrote is bollox ?

The terror bombings of Dresden broke one for sure, and quite possibly the rest.

No it didn't , in fact no bombing of Germany after 1943 broke it even if it had been made law(which it wasn't) .

The purpose of the bombing of Dresden was not to hit any sort of military facility, but to cause terror and death.

the bombing of Dresden had many purposes .

It was. The intentional mass murder of civilians is a war crime, regardless of method. I don't see why you're even trying to argue that.

If it was a crime then there must be legislation making it so ? But there wasn't was there . That is why your argument is falling flat on its face .
As I said earlier , the bombing of cities during WW2 must be looked at on a case by case basis to determine if each constitutes a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time , and while you have chosen a particularly nasty example the example does not fit the criteria you wish to fit it to .

Perhaps you need to work from a different perspective , say for example if you took the extention of the commando directive that applied to airmen and fitted the provisions that the Germans considered as an air attack constituting a war crime then applied that to specific raids then you might be able to make a case by case assesment on some raids that you can call war crimes , but you most certainly cannot do that about Dresden .

However, the only tactical and stragetic value expected of the bombing of Dresden was the murder of civilians and the flight of refugees. The conditions, as mandated by the law above, were clearly not met.

You really do need to read more , you could go with the tactical /strategic assessment by the Allies, or you could go with the tactical/strategic assessment by the Germans , either way your claim is wrong .
Though curiously the Germans assessed the value higher than the allies , but that may because they had more details .

The resolution by the League of Nations is clear enough. Britain signed it, and was bound by it.

Again ??????:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Are you kidding me? You're dismissing pieces of legislation and resolutions almost on a whim! Tell me why Britain and America were justified in getting out of what they signed.

And again:dizzy2:
What did they sign ?
What was its standing ?
How on earth did they get out of it when it was acted on at the next meeting just as it was written to be acted on at the next meeting .
Hey if you want to complain about the delay in having the next meeting fair enough , blame that Austrian prick and his armed forces for the delay .:yes:

Now what is really ironic since you are focusing on the '38 proposals (or you could go with the american '39 proposals) , which countries actions led to those proposals being put forward for future legislation ?

I am completely in favour of both the Iron Cross and the Blue Max.
Why ?
They still have the Iron cross .:yes:
Would you be in favour of reinstitution other traditional medals similar to the Blue Max ?

Furious Mental

03-16-2008, 13:08

Whether or not the bombing was a war crime is neither here nor there. No one has ever or will ever be held to account for it if it was. One can only judge it on its merits, and whether or not it was a war crime has zero bearing on whether or not it was morally justified.

Fragony

03-16-2008, 13:27

Of course it was a warcrime, widely considered here at least. Rotterdam was also a warcrime but less so, it was to enforce a surrender that is defendable.

Redleg

03-16-2008, 13:56

The purpose of the bombing of Dresden was not to hit any sort of military facility, but to cause terror and death.

That sounds like a subjective opinion. Provide the apporiate official source document to prove your point.

It was. The intentional mass murder of civilians is a war crime, regardless of method. I don't see why you're even trying to argue that.

Because simply it was not a violation of the Hague Convention of 1907. Therefore it was not a crime during that time period. That the world community after the war realized that it left this out made it an act against the principles of war is a good thing. Retroactive judgements in a historical view does not equate to a crime being committed during that time. Your arguement is that they committed a war crime, you have yet to show the document that makes their act a crime that was in force during the time period.

Again I have argued that it was morally wrong - but it might or might not be a war crime. No-one has proved here that it violated the agreements or laws of the time.

However, the only tactical and stragetic value expected of the bombing of Dresden was the murder of civilians and the flight of refugees. The conditions, as mandated by the law above, were clearly not met.

Was Dresden defended by military assets? Did Dresden house a command and control center? Did Dresden hold any military asset at all? You will find that there was indeed some military presence in Dresden.

Yes, the Wehrmacht did commit war crimes, but the Einsatzgruppen were not drawn from the Wehrmacht. Concentration Camp guards were SS or Gestapo.

Theremore my arguement is valid - in Total the German Military was involved in War Crimes

I'm not explaining away anything. Am I not being perfectly clear? Maybe I should bold it.

The Wehrmacht did commit war crimes. This is fact, and terrible things were done. However, I merely argue the fact (and I was not the one who brought up the "blameless and honourable Allies") that Allies committed war crimes. That is all.

The your arguement is invalid - since no-one here has denied that war crimes were committed.

The resolution by the League of Nations is clear enough. Britain signed it, and was bound by it.

Did the League of Nations hold a war crimes tribunal?

What? Was Arthur Harris tried? Was Josef Stalin tried? Is the answer no? That's proof enough that criminals were not tried, thank you very much.

Stalin has been disgraced by his own nation many years after the fact. So in essence his own people have tried and convicted him for his acts.

As for Arthur Harris - you have not provided evidence that he actually committed a war crime.

Prosecution did happen, but far too rarely.

Marocchinate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate)
Dachau Massacre (charges were dismissed) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre)
Katyn Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre)
Heck, why am I linking you to just Katyn? You might as well read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

How about the Rheinwiesenlager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager)
Utah POW murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salina_Utah_POW_murders)

And of course, the bombings of Dresden and Chemnitz themselves.

How often were those involved prosecuted?

Your arguement initially was no allied soldiers were prosecuted. That has been shown to be false as you yourself have just proven. As for what why not more - one would have to look at each case, determine if the crime was indeed not punished or in fact was a crime.

I can claim a crime, or at least the violation of an international resolution, was committed when Dresden was bombed.

The mass murder of civilians is a war crime in any case. Don't even bother to deny it, because it's true.

You have not shown that it is indeed a crime according to the conventions that established the rules of war. I have said you can make a moral claim - but the actual claim has to be proven using the standards of the time. Now as for mass murder - yes indeed its a crime, however one has to show that Dresden had absolutely no military significance to prove it a crime. Can you demonstrate that Dresden had absolutely no military presence when the bombing took place.

Husar

03-16-2008, 14:50

Interesting how Dresden was a warcrime. Düren, where I was born had a theater etc. and the whole inner city was turned into a dirty parking lot in 1944, makes you wonder why they would bomb a theater and houses people live in.
That argument about the cities being defended, well, you don't usually use a whole lot of incendiary bombs to take out defenses, those were made to burn down houses. Tokio, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't fortresses either and though the reason to bomb them was mostly to keep thousands of American soldiers from dieing, one might say Hitler also wanted to prevent german soldiers from dieing. :sweatdrop:

I'm still glad the allies won, no hard feelings but it's not like they were the shining knights in white armour who never ever did anything wrong for this reason or another. And Dresden wasn't the only city where civilian areas were flattened.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 15:06

Whether or not the bombing was a war crime is neither here nor there.
But it is when someone claims categoricaly that it was , then repeatedly attempts the impossible by trying to show that it really was .
Even if Mars could show that there was no military materials in Dresden , that there was no vital infrastructure used for the war effort , that he city was undefended and as such meets the criteria for being a war crime (which he simply cannot do) he still cannot make the claim that he is making about Dresden.

He would do better if he can show all those things about any other raid on Germany that happened before the German government made a statement in 1943 , because making a statement that every man woman and child , every home and every factory are a vital part of the German war effort means that they all have become legitimate targets under the laws of war in effect at that time.

Rotterdam was also a warcrime but less so, it was to enforce a surrender that is defendable.
Now thats a strange statement :inquisitive:
So now Frag if it was to enforce a surrender does that mean that they had already surrendered ?
Or was it that they bombed the city to make them hurry up and surrender ?

Düren, where I was born had a theater etc. and the whole inner city was turned into a dirty parking lot in 1944, makes you wonder why they would bomb a theater and houses people live in.

Well you know why that was Husar , apparently the theater was putting on a really bad production in 1944 , critics really panned the play , they said it really bombed out in the reviews .

Though of course less critical reviews have said that the play wasn't that bad really , its just that staging it in the main frontline supply depot to a long running battle raging across the river is a case of bad timing for a commercial venture as the crowds don't really want to spend time at the playhouse under those conditions , apparently the incessant gunfire makes the dialogue hard to hear .

Fragony

03-16-2008, 15:42

Now thats a strange statement :inquisitive:
So now Frag if it was to enforce a surrender does that mean that they had already surrendered ?
Or was it that they bombed the city to make them hurry up and surrender ?

I admit that was kinda dumb we were already beaten at that point as well. It's just that I can't help sympathising with the germans when it comes to these things, they suffered under the nazi's as well. In english you have the proverb 'two wrongs don't make a right' or something like that, that would apply brilliantly when it comes to Dresden. Dresden-memorials have now been hijacked by neo-nazi groups and there is something very wrong with that, there was no reason to bomb Dresden and germans should be able to say that.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 15:57

Dresden-memorials have now been hijacked by neo-nazi groups and there is something very wrong with that
Not really as the normal memorials and the anti nazi demonstrations are each bigger than the neo-nazi ones so it just makes the fascists look sillier than they normally do .
For example do the neo-nazis get more nazis from Britiain in attendance than the others do from cities like coventry that were bombed ?

there was no reason to bomb Dresden and germans should be able to say that.
No they shouldn't , what they can say is that the reasons for bombing Dresden are questionable .

Fragony

03-16-2008, 16:12

An entire city was bombed what's there to question, these people didn't do anything to anyone. Why the backlash when germans bring that up.

Husar

03-16-2008, 16:19

Though of course less critical reviews have said that the play wasn't that bad really , its just that staging it in the main frontline supply depot to a long running battle raging across the river is a case of bad timing for a commercial venture as the crowds don't really want to spend time at the playhouse under those conditions , apparently the incessant gunfire makes the dialogue hard to hear .
Since the norden bombsight was apparently able to deliver a bomb into a small barrel, I wonder why they didn't just hit the theater then but instead leveled the whole inner city with incendiary bombs?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-16-2008, 16:41

Absolute bollox , it is you that are grasping at straws Mars , the unanimous resolution was to draw up laws on the subject , draw up laws at the next meeting on the subject , the next meeting on the topic was in the UN after WW 2:dizzy2:

Hey, Tribes? How about reading the text of the resolution? Or do you want me to quote it for you?

Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;

the bombing of Dresden had many purposes .
I can think of killing of civilians, clogging roads, and destroying civilian infrastructure. Of course, there were cover reasons at the time, but afterwards even the Allied commanders admitted they were bullox.

Once again:

“That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and
the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be
emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the
creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of
morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified
bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy,
they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

"The reason
you are going there tonight is to finish off the refugees who managed to escape from Dresden."

How the hell can you possibly deny that civilians were the target?

If it was a crime then there must be legislation making it so ? But there wasn't was there . That is why your argument is falling flat on its face .

See above.

As I said earlier , the bombing of cities during WW2 must be looked at on a case by case basis to determine if each constitutes a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time ,

That is fair enough, though Dresden does fit the criteria.

You really do need to read more , you could go with the tactical /strategic assessment by the Allies, or you could go with the tactical/strategic assessment by the Germans , either way your claim is wrong .
Though curiously the Germans assessed the value higher than the allies , but that may because they had more details .

Again ??????:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yes, again, and see above.

How on earth did they get out of it when it was acted on at the next meeting just as it was written to be acted on at the next meeting .
You will want to actually read the text of the document above.

Now what is really ironic since you are focusing on the '38 proposals (or you could go with the american '39 proposals) , which countries actions led to those proposals being put forward for future legislation ?
What was said earlier? Pointing to the wrongs of one country does justify the actions of another? Yes, that was it.

Would you be in favour of reinstitution other traditional medals similar to the Blue Max ?

Probably, yes.

That sounds like a subjective opinion. Provide the apporiate official source document to prove your point.

Well, let's see, I've quoted Chief of Bomber Command, I've quoted Churchill, I've quoted the Chemnitz briefing...really, come on. Anyways:

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most...and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.

From a firestorm there is small chance of escape. Certain conditions had to be present, such as the concentration of high buildings and a concentration of bombers in time and space, which produced so many huge fires so rapidly and so close together that the air above them super-heated and drew the flames out explosively. On the enormous scale of a large city, the roaring rush of heated air upwards developed the characteristics and power of a tornado, strong enough to pick up people and such them into the flames.

The Allies knew that. They did their best to spread a firestorm, whereas a military target could be perfectly adequately dealt with by the use of conventional bombs. Starting a firestorm in the downtown of a city seems to me like it is targeting civilians.

Was Dresden defended by military assets?

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns.

But that's probably not good enough for you. How about a MEMBER OF THE BOMBER CREWS?

It struck me at the time, the thought of the women and children down there. We seemed to fly for hours over a sheet of fire - a terrific red glow with thin haze over it. I found myself making comments to the crew: "Oh God, those poor people." It was completely uncalled for. You can't justify it.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.

Here he was essentially stating that terror bombing of civilians was happening, and what few military targets were at cities like Dresden could be otherwise dealt with.

Why is it invalid? It's correct, isn't it?

Stalin has been disgraced by his own nation many years after the fact. So in essence his own people have tried and convicted him for his acts.

Yes, but think carefully. Was that because of the war (doubt it), or maybe the Gulags and his intense control of everything in Soviet life?

That has been shown to be false as you yourself have just proven.

Look at each case. Out of those, how many people were punished? A small fraction at best.

You have not shown that it is indeed a crime according to the conventions that established the rules of war.

That just changed, see above.

I'm still glad the allies won, no hard feelings but it's not like they were the shining knights in white armour who never ever did anything wrong for this reason or another.
That's probably one of the best statements made today.

Can you demonstrate that Dresden had absolutely no military presence when the bombing took place.
The question is not "did Dresden have a military presence" (which it did, albeit a very small one), but whether that military presence was targeted (I'm sure not even you can say that using firebombs on a city core populated by civilians was targeting a military center.

An entire city was bombed what's there to question, these people didn't do anything to anyone. Why the backlash when germans bring that up.
Thank you. :bow:

No they shouldn't , what they can say is that the reasons for bombing Dresden are questionable .

It looks like we can say it was a war crime.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 18:39

Hey, Tribes? How about reading the text of the resolution? Or do you want me to quote it for you?

Quote it as much as you like , it would help if you actually understood it though:yes:
The laws on bombardment as recognised under those principles are quite specific , and Dresden fails to fit the criteria under each and every one of them .

I can think of killing of civilians, clogging roads, and destroying civilian infrastructure.
So you don't consider the 127 facilties under Speer , neither do you consider the very major rail facitlies that under reichs ordinances only have a secondary civilian purpose due to their needs for the war effort .

Oh and you can quote Harris as much as you like , but look at the date , is it before or after the reich had declared that every person and every house was part of the war machinery of Nazi Germany ?

That is fair enough, though Dresden does fit the criteria.

~:rolleyes: No it doesn't .
Can't you understand something that simple ?
Was it an undefended town ? NO
Did it contain war support and production materials and facilities ? YES
Did it contain vital infrastructure for the prosecution of conflict that as a neccesity are a target ?YES
Now you can claim that the Civilians who were not involved with any aspect of the military support effort would indeed be exempt , apart from being close to anything that was a target and as such being what is now termed collateral damage , but once Germany had declared that all citizens were part of the war machine that little distinction disappears .
So Mars if you want to show that your arguement has any merit , you will have to drop Dresden from you claim and also any other raid from mid-'43 onwards .

It looks like we can say it was a war crime.
You can say it is , but it doesn't make it true .

Look even your quoted sources undermine you .

He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns.

Virtually undefended , virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns isn't undefended is it ?:no:
OK some simple stuff to see if you can grasp anything at all Mars .
In their pre-raid briefing what were the pilots/aircrew told of the defences ?
Were they told
a there is none
b there is none
c there is none
Hmmm ....simple stuff isn't it .
Unless of course they were told that the diversionary raid that preceded the actual bomber stream heading for Dresden should pull most of the night fighters out to the North of the city , and that although intelligence suggests most of the heavy flak units had been moved , due to the large numbers of units passing through the tranport hub there may indeed be heavy flak units present , but that lighter flak units will be in abundance both with the units stationed there , and attatched to the large number of military transports passing through there .
Now thats curious isn't it , there does seem to be a suggestion that there was a large military presence , I can't quite fathom that one:inquisitive:

I don't suppose that would be because Dresden was a vital major rail hub and one of the few in the whole of continental europe that was still intact and fully functional (and as such very very busy with military traffic) :idea2:

Now then since you clearly think you know your stuff on this subject , could you possibly tell me what the aiming point was in the city ?
You know the point which the master bombers would mark and keep on marking throughout the raid so that all the other bombers had someting to guide them ?
Was it chosen as being next to Frau Grubers house and all her little Grubers ? Surely it must be because according to you they were clearly the target ......or was it possibly something else(though of course you would be correct if you said that the chosen landmark was certainly not a military facility) .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-16-2008, 19:09

Quote it as much as you like , it would help if you actually understood it though:yes:
The laws on bombardment as recognised under those principles are quite specific , and Dresden fails to fit the criteria under each and every one of them .

I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand it. The criteria are quite clear:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

#3 the Allies violated undebateably and without question, and therefore it is already a war crime. #1 is debateable, though showing you the quotes by Mr. Harris should show you the intended targets. Unfortunately, you choose not to respond to them - perhaps because you can't argue against those you're defending? #2 is the most debateable, and can be argued to death. On the other hand, #2 doesn't matter, because the breach of #3 has already made it a crime.

So you don't consider the 127 facilties under Speer , neither do you consider the very major rail facitlies that under reichs ordinances only have a secondary civilian purpose due to their needs for the war effort .

Funny Tribes. They were still civilians. That's like saying bombing London flat was completely justified because the docklands were in war production.

Oh and you can quote Harris as much as you like , but look at the date , is it before or after the reich had declared that every person and every house was part of the war machinery of Nazi Germany ?

How about the internal memo I quoted above? Anyways, they were still civilians, regardless of what Hitler may have said. You are citing international documents when it suits you, but you're perfectly content to take a Nazi order that was mere months before the war ended as completely accurate and truthful to what was happening, and a casus belli, if you will, for the bombings.

Ask three year old Fritz who was burned half to death which munitions factory or railyard he was working in. Anyways, here's another quote for you:

Incendiary bombs are not known for their efficiency per pound in destroying heavy equipment such as military hardware or railroad tracks, but are extremely effective in producing maximum loss of human life. The loads carried by the bombers were over 75 per cent incendiaries. In fact, the goal of the first wave of the attack was, according to British air commander Sir Arthur Bomber Harris, to set the city well on fire.

And here, have another:

The railway network led to an important junction, but this, too, passed outside the center of the "Old City," which was the focal point for the bombing attacks. No railway stations were on the British target maps, nor, apparently, were bridges, the destruction of which could have impeded German communications with the Eastern Front.

~:rolleyes: No it doesn't .
Yes, it does.

Can't you understand something that simple ?
Oooh, personal attack, I'm wounded. No, I cannot understand that, because it is not true.

Was it an undefended town ? NO
So having a flak battery scattered here and there is an excuse for levelling an entire town? Do you even understand your own logic?

Did it contain war support and production materials and facilities ? YES
So you intentionally firebomb an entire downtown core, burn tens to hundreds of thousands of people to death, and bomb the refugees that escape because you want to destroy a few factories? Very, very flawed logic.

Did it contain vital infrastructure for the prosecution of conflict that as a neccesity are a target ?YES
It was months before the war was over, Nazi Germany's back was broken, there is no evidence that the bombing of Dresden in any way contributed to a quicker end. Wait a minute - you usually firebomb the entire downtown core to destroy a railroad?

Now you can claim that the Civilians who were not involved with any aspect of the military support effort would indeed be exempt , apart from being close to anything that was a target and as such being what is now termed collateral damage , but once Germany had declared that all citizens were part of the war machine that little distinction disappears .
That's bullox. The question isn't whether all citizens were declared to be part of the war machine (which, by the way, still makes them civilians - they could be working in factories or on repairing homes, for example), but whether they actually were.

So Mars if you want to show that your arguement has any merit , you will have to drop Dresden from you claim and also any other raid from mid-'43 onwards .
My argument is all about Dresden.

You can say it is , but it doesn't make it true .
No, but sources do.

Look even your quoted sources undermine you .
How about reading them?

Virtually undefended , virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns isn't undefended is it ?:no:
Again, so destroying an entire city and killing thousands of civilians is justified because the city had anti-aircraft guns? Honestly, what is wrong with you?

In their pre-raid briefing what were the pilots/aircrew told of the defences ?
Were they told
a there is none
b there is none
c there is none
Of course not, but why do you think a flak gun is an excuse for levelling a city? Well, it's a good thing the Luftwaffe bombed London then! They had flak batteries, it must have been justified!

Now thats curious isn't it , there does seem to be a suggestion that there was a large military presence , I can't quite fathom that one:inquisitive:
A large military presence? Within the city? At the time of the bombings? Within the civilian core of the city? Really? Think again.

I don't suppose that would be because Dresden was a vital major rail hub and one of the few in the whole of continental europe that was still intact and fully functional

(and as such very very busy with military traffic)

You know the point which the master bombers would mark and keep on marking throughout the raid so that all the other bombers had someting to guide them ?

Actually, I do.

The attack was to be centered on the sports stadium, next to the city's medieval Altstadt (old town), with its congested, and highly combustible, timbered buildings.

Doesn't sound like the intended target of that is a factory, military facility, etc., now does it? It sounds like it was an attack on a residential area with the intent of causing a firestorm. You essentially disproved your own argument.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 20:11

So having a flak battery scattered here and there is an excuse for levelling an entire town? Do you even understand your own logic?

You clearly havn't got the faintest idea what you are talking about, the laws regarding bombardment only covered undefended towns .
That was why they were putting forward the proposals for new laws at the league . Laws that were not drawn up .

Doesn't sound like the intended target of that is a factory, military facility, etc., now does it? It sounds like it was an attack on a residential area with the intent of causing a firestorm. You essentially disproved your own argument.
Might I suggest you show a map of the location of the stadium :yes: Perhaps to demonstrate that the marshalling yards , stations and fasctories were not in residential areas .

Of course not, but why do you think a flak gun is an excuse for levelling a city? Well, it's a good thing the Luftwaffe bombed London then! They had flak batteries, it must have been justified!

It makes it a defended city , plus of course London had naval dockyards , Military barracks , rail infrastructure , lots of war factories , not to mention the military and adminstrative headquarters for the British Isles and Empire .
Perhaps thats why no one was ever charged with bombing London as a war crime .

My argument is all about Dresden.

And that is where you fall flat on your face .:yes:

Again, so destroying an entire city and killing thousands of civilians is justified because the city had anti-aircraft guns? Honestly, what is wrong with you?

Whats wrong with you more like?
Can you not read , where did I say it was justified , I said it wasn't a war crime .

Husar

03-16-2008, 20:53

So basically we all agree that the firebombing wasn't justified but some say that by the laws and international agreements of the time, it wasn't a war crime by the book.
Fine with me, hope we changed that though and whether there was military in London or not, I never thought firing V2s at London was justified either but then that was intended to hit the population anyway IIRC.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-16-2008, 20:57

You clearly havn't got the faintest idea what you are talking about, the laws regarding bombardment only covered undefended towns .
That was why they were putting forward the proposals for new laws at the league . Laws that were not drawn up .

The resolution nowhere mentions the aerial bombing of civilians is OK because of the presence of flak guns, or any other absurd notion such as that. Perhaps you would like to read it again? It also states:

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

Which, by the scale and damage caused by the attack, they clearly were not.

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

Regardless, rule three still applies. All you're doing is restating over and over again the same opinion, and refusing to read the quotes or sources I cite. Read the resolution.

The railway network led to an important junction, but this, too, passed outside the center of the "Old City," which was the focal point for the bombing attacks. No railway stations were on the British target maps, nor, apparently, were bridges, the destruction of which could have impeded German communications with the Eastern Front.

Might I suggest you show a map of the location of the stadium Perhaps to demonstrate that the marshalling yards , stations and fasctories were not in residential areas .

Perhaps you would like to prove that they were? Regardless, firebombs are not largely effective against military ordinance, leading to the conclusion that the firebombs were directed against humans. Perhaps it is coincidence that, when Dresden was flattened, it was full of civilians? Perhaps it is coincidence that the firestorms destroyed, for the large part, houses? Perhaps it is coincidence that the bombings took place three months before WWII ended, and politicians at the time had a stated claim of creating a refugee crisis? If Dresden was such an important town, why was it left alone until then? Perhaps it is coincidence that the bombs used were bombs that could cause people to boil or asphyxiate within their bunkers, and not conventional bombs that would have been used to much greater effect if factories were the target? There is no answer to these questions that stands in favour of your argument.

Once again, I quote:

“That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and
the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be
emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the
creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of
morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified
bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy,
they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

And that is where you fall flat on your face .

:laugh4:

Really? Because I choose to argue Dresden? Pray tell why?

Can you not read , where did I say it was justified , I said it wasn't a war crime .

Would you agree, then, that the charges of premediated mass murder in the first degree would be an accurate charge to have levelled against Allied Bomber Command in this case?

Redleg

03-16-2008, 21:27

Well, let's see, I've quoted Chief of Bomber Command, I've quoted Churchill, I've quoted the Chemnitz briefing...really, come on. Anyways:

Again address the proof that Dresden was not a valid target. I can quote a whole bunch of stuff said by a whole bunch of people, but that does not necessarily equate to a war crime. Now can you provide proof that Dresden had no military targets contained within it? Can you provide proof that no defensive works were in the city? Until then the quotes are supporting evidence toward intent - but once again does not mean its an actual crime.
As I have stated several times, on a moral level its a terrible instance, but proving it as a crime means that you must prove that allies violated the Hague Convention.

The Allies knew that. They did their best to spread a firestorm, whereas a military target could be perfectly adequately dealt with by the use of conventional bombs. Starting a firestorm in the downtown of a city seems to me like it is targeting civilians.

Read the conventions again - while its a horrible use of the weapons - it does not consitute a war crime all by itself.

But that's probably not good enough for you. How about a MEMBER OF THE BOMBER CREWS?

Virtually undefended does not equate to undefended. Beside I have seen that document and better from my own research on different subjects concerning WW2. I find it strange that you equate virtually undefended as meaning completely undefended. Now I ask again was their anti-aircraft positions around Dresden?

Why is it invalid? It's correct, isn't it?

the question is not one of morality but of legality.

Yes, but think carefully. Was that because of the war (doubt it), or maybe the Gulags and his intense control of everything in Soviet life?

Both - more toward his own people - but both is the answer.

Look at each case. Out of those, how many people were punished? A small fraction at best.

A quibble - you yourself have proven that your initial statement was incorrect.

That just changed, see above.

And answered - you have shown morally why it was incorrect, which I already agreed with. Your still having problem proving the legality claim that you have made.

The question is not "did Dresden have a military presence" (which it did, albeit a very small one), but whether that military presence was targeted (I'm sure not even you can say that using firebombs on a city core populated by civilians was targeting a military center.

You have just answered why Dresden can not be called a war crime. A military presence allows for the bombing of a city in accordance with the Hague Conventions.

Thank you. :bow:

So now to read the rest of the posts

Edit: To address the League of Nations bombing resolution of 1938. Notice what it states.

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

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

The wording indicates that an agreement to meet to draft agreements to meet this resolution has been agreed upon, and that the principles listed would be the main consideration.

In other words not an agreement to change the rules only an agreement to meet to change the rules. Which is why its a moral issue concerning bombing cities in WW2 not a legal one if the city had any military targets in it.

From the same link

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

In other words a signator of the League of Nations understood that no agreement was made to restrict bombing as per your referenced League of Nations resolution.

Tribesman

03-16-2008, 22:01

The resolution nowhere mentions the aerial bombing of civilians is OK because of the presence of flak guns, or any other absurd notion such as that. Perhaps you would like to read it again? It also states:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Read the resolution.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Understand what it is Mars , it is nothing , it is a statement of intent for future legislation nothing more . Until further legislation comes into effect all there is is the existing ones , all they define regarding to the legality of bombardments hinge solely on if the town is defended or not . That is the only avenue you can attempt to explore if you want to claim that it was indeed a war crime, since that avenue is a dead end it means your position is stuck into a cul-de-sac with no room for turning .

Which, by the scale and damage caused by the attack, they clearly were not.

The scale was comparable or even smaller than other raids , the damage was comparable too .
The only difference in the nature of the resulting damage was that due to material considerations the fire prevention measures had been concentrated(and by that time largely exhausted) on towns and cities that were more within the operational range of earlier air raids .

All you're doing is restating over and over again the same opinion, and refusing to read the quotes or sources I cite. Read the resolution.

Now that statement is either the height of arrogance or the depths of stupidity .
What on earth possesses you to think that I havn't read the quotes or sources you cite ?

Perhaps you would like to prove that they were?
Awww...whassamatter Mars did you find out where the railways were in relation to the stadium the factories and the old town?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Regardless, firebombs are not largely effective against military ordinance, leading to the conclusion that the firebombs were directed against humans.
Actually they are directed against structures , they experimented a lot after Lubeck to get the right mix , high explosives to shatter and incediaries to burn .

If Dresden was such an important town, why was it left alone until then?
Many reasons , range being one , priorities being the other , the priorities at that time shifted to the major eastern transport links , Berlin , Leipzig and errrr.....Dresden .
See changing priorities
Why not ask why Duren was bombed when it was , after all it cannot really have been a bad show at the theatre can it . Perhaps it was because the road and rail links became really important for operational reasons .:idea2:

Perhaps it is coincidence that the bombs used were bombs that could cause people to boil or asphyxiate within their bunkers, and not conventional bombs that would have been used to much greater effect if factories were the target? There is no answer to these questions that stands in favour of your argument.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
If you had read as much as you seem to think you have you would know why:yes:
So lets see eh , a few simple questions .
What was the main problem regarding the use of high explosives to damage industrial production ?
What were Speers views regarding the comparative impacts on production ?(after all it was his portfolio wasn't it , his concern , he should know)
What was the effect on bunkers of the RAFs big high explosive bombs ?

Really? Because I choose to argue Dresden? Pray tell why?

Apart from it being after 1943 the main reasons are
ait was a defended town(now I could just repeat that as that is all the laws of the time required)
bit was a vital transport hub
cit had a wide range of military production facilities
dit was the seat of the local government of the reich
eit was a garrison town
fit had a large military presence and strategic significnce .

BTW Mars , I used to share your views on this subject , Dresden was atrocious , despicable , needless , it was a war crime .

I no longer hold to that bolded part...simply because it isn't true .
Perhaps if you stop and think , do some more studying of the subject with an open and inquisitive mind then you too will change your views on that aspect of it .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-16-2008, 22:19

Do you want my honest opinion on Dresden that I've formulated over the years?

Dresden was a despicable, atrocious act of callous murder. The legality of it can (as shown) be debated, and has been by historians for a long time. That is an argument that I believe should have been taken up at the time. I believe that trials should have happened. If the defendants were acquitted based on fair evidence, that would be fine with me. All I wish was that we had seen some justice on both sides. Nonetheless, I'm glad the Allies won.

Today is too late to necessarily debate the legality, because nothing can be done anymore. The time has passed for vengeance, and most of the perpetrators that would have been tried are now dead. Today, we should not see the same bombings, because treaties written since the bombings show that this type of activity is now illegal, regardless of it's perceived legality or illegality at the time.

In short, I believe Dresden was a terrible crime against humanity, certainly in a moral sense - whether it was a war crime specifically is, as shown, a matter for debate. I would prefer to leave the debate we have been having as it stands - we have shown that we can continuously go on, we can both cite sources to prove our points, and we can argue this to death. I have stated my opinion, and I'm growing weary of this argument. I do not consider anyone to have won or lost this debate, but I'm growing less and less sure if it's really worth debating.

Tribesman

03-17-2008, 00:32

I believe that trials should have happened. If the defendants were acquitted based on fair evidence, that would be fine with me.
Bloody hell , don't you get it , there couldn't have been a trial , there were no charges that could be brought under the laws of war , any judge would take one look at the laws regarding the incidents and throw it straight out .
If you cannot charge someone then you cannot aquit them because there is nothing to aquit them of .

One final time Mars ...All relevant legislation that could be used to bring any charges revolved on the one simple thing ...... was Dresden defended ?
Yes it was ...case dismissed .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-17-2008, 00:47

Bloody hell , don't you get it , there couldn't have been a trial , there were no charges that could be brought under the laws of war ,

I get what you're trying to say. That is your opinion. I have shown mine - show me the sources you base yours on. HoreTore has kindly posted mine, which contains reference to international law that terror bombing is illegal. One of the conditions making terror bombing illegal was met in the bombings, completely undebateably. The document in question does not mention that if the city is defended that the resolution is null and void.

any judge would take one look at the laws regarding the incidents and throw it straight out .
Pity no judge ever had the opportunity.

If you cannot charge someone then you cannot aquit them because there is nothing to aquit them of .
They could quite easily have been charged, and there could have been a fair trial. Not necessarily with war crimes, but with crimes against humanity for sure.

One final time Mars ...All relevant legislation that could be used to bring any charges revolved on the one simple thing ...... was Dresden defended ?
Yes it was ...case dismissed .

The defense of a city (defense being the operative point) does not make the city a legitimate target. There is no evidence whatsoever that the bombings hampered Germany's war effort, no evidence that it was a descisive blow against anything but the civilian population, and both logic as well as...let's see...every single source mentioned indicates that a flak battery being present does not a legitimate target make.

Redleg

03-17-2008, 03:57

I get what you're trying to say. That is your opinion. I have shown mine - show me the sources you base yours on. HoreTore has kindly posted mine, which contains reference to international law that terror bombing is illegal. One of the conditions making terror bombing illegal was met in the bombings, completely undebateably. The document in question does not mention that if the city is defended that the resolution is null and void.

The problem Evil_Maniac From Mars is that you are using definitions and conditions of after the war, not of the conventions and definitions of before and during the war. Your arguement is also reaching, since the document in question is not the one that the War Tribunals after the war were founded upon. Germany was not tried under that resolution, since that resolution never had the process that would have made it an agreement binding to all signator nations. Reference the FDR quote concerning just that - no nation agreed to that other then to talk about it in the future using those conditions as definitions for consideration.

Pity no judge ever had the opportunity.

Judges rarely see cases that do not have legal merit. If one can not demonstrate that the case has merit - it is rarely taken to trail for a judge to throw it out.

They could quite easily have been charged, and there could have been a fair trial. Not necessarily with war crimes, but with crimes against humanity for sure.

Crimes against humanity is a catergory that one might be able to fit it into - however again one would have to prove that it violated one of the laws of the time. Since the action was considered as part of the war - it would be a hard thing to charge anyone under that area in the tribunals held after the war.

The defense of a city (defense being the operative point) does not make the city a legitimate target. There is no evidence whatsoever that the bombings hampered Germany's war effort, no evidence that it was a descisive blow against anything but the civilian population, and both logic as well as...let's see...every single source mentioned indicates that a flak battery being present does not a legitimate target make.

Again incorrect - you have a fundmental flaw in your understanding of the laws of war that were in place prior to the start of WW2. In fact every source, including the primary source for the Laws of War, Hague Convention of 1907, indicates that a military presence allows the city to be targeted.

If you now wish to argue a crime against humanity do so, but dont attempt this direction since you are clearly wrong when one looks at the Hague Convention of 1907, which was the primary document used to develope war crime charges against the Germans at Nurmeburg.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-17-2008, 04:02

Once again, the interpretation of the documents is the key. The resolution pointed out also clearly says that a violation of the criteria is a crime.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that Dresden should have been a crime, though you believe it wasn't?

Redleg

03-17-2008, 04:15

Once again, the interpretation of the documents is the key. The resolution pointed out also clearly says that a violation of the criteria is a crime.

One can not interpretate a document that had no legal bearing into a case for a war crime. You should know from reviewing Nuremburg that the resolution was not the documents used to charge Germans with warcrimes.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that Dresden should have been a crime, though you believe it wasn't?

A legal judgement can only be made from reviewing the documents and events of the time, to do otherwise is to attempt to revise history. So in essence I could never call Dresden a crime since it does not violate the Law of War as stated in the Hague Conventions of 1907. Demonstrate that it violated that convention and you have begun to build a case for a warcrime.

Now if you are asking do I find Dresden wrong from a moral standpoint - I would say yes.

Tribesman

03-17-2008, 05:04

Once again, the interpretation of the documents is the key.
That is correct . Thoughofcourse youhaveto cite the correct document
The problem you have is that you are repeatedly focusing on a document that has absolutely no bearing whatsover on the laws in question during the time covered , what you are focusing on is a proposal to make laws in the future , that amounts to nothing .
The document itself says it , its quite plain, why can you not undertand something so simple ?

Look follow the line ....
Existing document in force
An amendment to the document in force
Another amendment to the document in force
A proposed amendment that never came into force
a proposal to amend existing documents in force at the next meeting(which would have been in Sept 1939)
Word war 2
Then the delayed next meeting and a new document .

See what happened , there was a bloody big war that meant the proposal you are concentrating on didn't get anywhere at all until after the conflict was over and as such is entirely irrelevant as it had no standing at the time .

Now I wonder , do you know which bombing campaign got things going that finally led to that meeting in 1938 ? (though of course in the nature of beaurocracy by the time the meeting took place two more campaigns had been bought into the equation), it was a rather nasty episode where completely undefended towns and vilages with no war industry(or any industry for that matter)were being relentlesly bombed .
Apparently certain countries thought that since the existing laws only covered land and naval bombardment they could get away with it rather than following the consensus that airbombardment was an extention of those actions already covered .

Caerfanan

03-17-2008, 11:56

We're 63 years since anyone was awarded or wore one. How much longer, in your opinion, before "some work in erasing the Nazi experience" is finished? 10 years? 40?
I don't know. I think it'll be done when the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" doesn't come in mind within the 5 first words when you say "Germany" to someone? My opinion is that it's a military decoration and I'm not against its use, of course not. I just say it's probably stil hard to wear it. Hence the big topic here... Ifit wasn't somehow a big deal, this thread wouldn't be here in the backroom, would it?

Fragony

03-17-2008, 12:13

I don't know. I think it'll be done when the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" doesn't come in mind within the 5 first words when you say "Germany" to someone?

A german soldier is getting a statue here, saved two kids during a bombartment, got killed himselve. Good. Germans are well liked here, but some country's are less forgiving, noticed a lot of anti-german sentiments in Denmark. Once they figure out you are dutch they get much more friendly.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-17-2008, 21:11

Crimes against humanity is a catergory that one might be able to fit it into - however again one would have to prove that it violated one of the laws of the time.

It's possible we have a misunderstanding. Here is a defininition of war crime:

war crime

noun
a crime committed in wartime; violation of rules of war

You seem to have been arguing the second half - I was arguing the first half. By war crime, I meant more (with my initial argument - I later tried to prove you wrong, and on the precident that the resolution was not used to prosecute Germans, a judge would probably rule in your favour) that it was a crime taking place in war, rather than necessarily an actual violation of the laws of war. As I have not finished reading the Hague Convention (that's what happens when you debate all night - a little tough to concentrate on stuff like that), I cannot make the judgement. Regardless, I would agree that this would fit into crimes against humanity more than the definition of a war crime as a violation of the laws of war.

[Crimes against humanity]..."are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion."

Therefore, crimes against humanity, which may or may not happen during a war, can be argued quite easily, as we know, and the majority of historians will most likely acknowledge, that the bombing of German (and Japanese) cities and civilians was a policy of Bomber Command, instead of a sporadic occurence..

Regardless, here is a summary of why Dresden could be considered a breach of international law.

Donald Bloxham has argued that there was a strong prima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case the he could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."

Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have called the bombing a war crime.

Proponents of the "war crime" position argue that the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified military necessity alone, and that that establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz. "War crime" proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre, and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.

British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front. In Fire Sites, German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich agrees that the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.

Vladimir

03-17-2008, 21:20

The bombing of German and Japanese cities was done in order to break te people's will to fight (and in case of the Germans, to reduce their industrial output) To the Allied air force, their deaths were a means to an end.

The Holocaust was its own end.

I'm not saying that the end justifies the means- but that these situations are not even remotely comparable seems obvious to me.

Japan was different. There were no industrial centers to bomb. We started nice, safe, high altitude bombing but the diffuse nature of their industry called for different tactics.

Tribesman

03-18-2008, 02:27

Don't Attack The Medium, Read The Authors

Bloxham writes a lot on war crimes , its his speciality (especially the holocaust), he contradicts any claims that from a legal standpoint war crimes charges could be brought in this case .
Read the authors not the wiki quote .

Oh and this bit....
"War crime" proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison
Says a lot about the proponents , Dresden has a well known historical barracks complex , part of it was destroyed in the raid ,at the time of the raid the actual city barracks was garrisoned in divisional strength .

Vlad

Japan was different. There were no industrial centers to bomb.
Yes there was , lots of them .

We started nice, safe, high altitude bombing but the diffuse nature of their industry called for different tactics.
The change in tactics was due to local weather conditions , lots of extreme wind variations at different altitudes made high altitude bombing a complete waste of bombs .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2008, 02:34

Tribesman, how about responding to the majority of my argument, not the small summary in the spoiler at the bottom?

Anyways, Bloxham is the only one of those authors who I have not read. Anyways, perhaps if he contadicts them, he has good reasons? I will have to read his publications, I suppose.

Tribesman

03-18-2008, 02:49

Tribesman, how about responding to the majority of my argument
Oh I don't know really , perhaps this might be a good indication of why you arguement from the outset has been completely flawed......
I have not finished reading the Hague Convention :dizzy2:

It isn't exactly war and peace is it , it doesn't take that long , it is generally a good idea to read about the laws of war before you try and debate them , especially if you want to repeatedly throw in ridiculous claims that other people havn't read enough on the subject .~:doh:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2008, 03:30

Respond to my post about crimes against humanity, which even RedLeg, who has read the entire convention (I presume) admits a case is possible.

PanzerJaeger

03-18-2008, 06:54

Wow - this conversation has progressed quite a bit in the last two days and I don't have much time but I'll try and comment the best I can.

It seems as though you guys have given up trying to defend the massacre of millions of civilians, and are citing technicalities. Who holds the moral ground again? :no:

A lot has been made of whether Dresden was defended or not. What about the other statutes?

Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

Were these followed? Of course not. War Crime. And we haven't even moved on to things such as the London Cage and Nagasaki.

Regardless, I think the point has been made. Many in the Allied militaries killed civilians without regard, which demonstrates that they were no better or worse on a moral basis than the Axis militaries.

That being the case, if one wants to make blanket statements such as:

You espouse the honorable combat of the German soldier but you fail to acknowledge that he in essence was not a honorable warrior.

...such condemnation should be applied indiscriminantly. You know, like American bombs were.

Conradus

03-18-2008, 10:28

Who holds the moral ground again? :no:

Are you actually asking who held the moral ground in a war where one sides systematically butchered people based on their belief or preferences and the other side mass-bombed and butchered purely on the nationality?

I'd say there wasn't any.

Tribesman

03-18-2008, 10:58

Were these followed? Of course not. War Crime.
No Panzer , 4 words in 27 make all the difference (btw why not quite all of 27 ?) , also 26 is undermined by the naval bombardments provisions .

It seems as though you guys have given up trying to defend the massacre of millions of civilians, and are citing technicalities.
Who was defending massacres ?

and are citing technicalities.
When it is a question of legality everything rests on the detail of the appropraite laws , since the claims made consistantly have been that it was a crime then there is nothing else to cite but the laws .

Who holds the moral ground again?
Certainly not someone who regularly defends the killing of civilians , the use of torture and a pile of other actions that break the laws of war ....such as yourself Panzer .:thumbsdown:

Conradus ..
Are you actually asking who held the moral ground in a war where one sides systematically butchered people based on their belief or preferences and the other side mass-bombed and butchered purely on the nationality?

If the mass bombing was purely on nationality there would't have been bombing of non axis cities and there wouldn't have been non-axis casualties .

Caerfanan

03-18-2008, 12:01

A german soldier is getting a statue here, saved two kids during a bombartment, got killed himselve. Good. Germans are well liked here, but some country's are less forgiving, noticed a lot of anti-german sentiments in Denmark. Once they figure out you are dutch they get much more friendly.
My opinion is that in certain parts of France, another generation would be needed to heal... I'm 33, if I'm all "please stop feeling bad that wasn't you" to my german friends, my parents are a little bit touchy (but weren't born during WW2) but "forgiving". Those who are 65 years old and more are probably still "hurt" by what happenned. That was the first time that war killed deliberately civilians, so each country involved is probably badly hurt there...

Fragony

03-18-2008, 12:32

My opinion is that in certain parts of France, another generation would be needed to heal... I'm 33, if I'm all "please stop feeling bad that wasn't you" to my german friends, my parents are a little bit touchy (but weren't born during WW2) but "forgiving". Those who are 65 years old and more are probably still "hurt" by what happenned. That was the first time that war killed deliberately civilians, so each country involved is probably badly hurt there...

Well it's part shame I think, if we are to judge the germans we would have to judge ourselve as well, and it's no secret that we had a rather high number of collaborators, the dark side of dutch pragmatism. It's probably the same pragmatism that allows us to move on so quikly. Besides, the germans weren't that bad here, there have been atrocities but not like in other countries. They helped harvesting, payed for their groceries was the same old life for a lot of people.

Redleg

03-18-2008, 13:19

It's possible we have a misunderstanding. Here is a defininition of war crime:

Yes indeed - you have misunderstood what makes a war crime. The semicolon means that the definition requires both parts, that both parts of are equal value to the definition and both must be considered. If the definition had two different meanings - there would be a number or letter seperating them.

http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/Semicolons.html

You seem to have been arguing the second half - I was arguing the first half. By war crime, I meant more (with my initial argument - I later tried to prove you wrong, and on the precident that the resolution was not used to prosecute Germans, a judge would probably rule in your favour) that it was a crime taking place in war, rather than necessarily an actual violation of the laws of war. As I have not finished reading the Hague Convention (that's what happens when you debate all night - a little tough to concentrate on stuff like that), I cannot make the judgement. Regardless, I would agree that this would fit into crimes against humanity more than the definition of a war crime as a violation of the laws of war.

Incorrect - I am argueing the sum of the definition. I am agrueing what is contained in the Hague Convention of 1907 generally called the Rules of War. One might make a case about a crime against humanity, but it would also be hard to get a conviction for one simple fact - the act was covered by one of the articles in the Hague Convention. Again finding something morally wrong such as the bombing of Dresden does not necessarily make it a war crime or a crime against humanity.

Therefore, crimes against humanity, which may or may not happen during a war, can be argued quite easily, as we know, and the majority of historians will most likely acknowledge, that the bombing of German (and Japanese) cities and civilians was a policy of Bomber Command, instead of a sporadic occurence..

One must look at each case - and ask simply did the city have a military presence?

Regardless, here is a summary of why Dresden could be considered a breach of international law.

The summary contains the same flaws in their arguement. Their only valid point is was the bombing method beyond what was necessary? A difficult position to prove.

Redleg

03-18-2008, 13:26

It seems as though you guys have given up trying to defend the massacre of millions of civilians, and are citing technicalities. Who holds the moral ground again? :no:

Hmm I wonder what finding something morally wrong means then?

Oh by the way the arguement about a war crime is one of technicalities. Moral judgements are fine, calling something a war crime means it has to fall within the scope of what constitutes a war crime under the laws of the time. To do otherwise is to revise history - something you tried to accuse me of.

A lot has been made of whether Dresden was defended or not. What about the other statutes?

Were these followed? Of course not. War Crime. And we haven't even moved on to things such as the London Cage and Nagasaki.

First one has to have an understanding of the Hague Convention and each article.

Regardless, I think the point has been made. Many in the Allied militaries killed civilians without regard, which demonstrates that they were no better or worse on a moral basis than the Axis militaries.

That being the case, if one wants to make blanket statements such as:

...such condemnation should be applied indiscriminantly. You know, like American bombs were.

Good thing I have not said all allied armies acted honorably now is it? To bad you haven't paid attention to what is actually stated.

KukriKhan

03-18-2008, 14:29

My opinion is that in certain parts of France, another generation would be needed to heal... I'm 33, if I'm all "please stop feeling bad that wasn't you" to my german friends, my parents are a little bit touchy (but weren't born during WW2) but "forgiving". Those who are 65 years old and more are probably still "hurt" by what happenned. That was the first time that war killed deliberately civilians, so each country involved is probably badly hurt there...

So, by your estimate, about a total of 100 years need to have passed for the "grass to grow over" nazi germany. And we have about 20-25 years to go yet?

Husar's children may grow up in a world that no longer goes: "German? (gasp!) Hitler!..."

I guess it took about that long for our North and South ex-civil war sides to quit automatically hating each other.

Redleg

03-18-2008, 14:53

So, by your estimate, about a total of 100 years need to have passed for the "grass to grow over" nazi germany. And we have about 20-25 years to go yet?

Husar's children may grow up in a world that no longer goes: "German? (gasp!) Hitler!..."

I guess it took about that long for our North and South ex-civil war sides to quit automatically hating each other.

Problem we have is some still think that the South will raise again

Vladimir

03-18-2008, 17:20

So, by your estimate, about a total of 100 years need to have passed for the "grass to grow over" nazi germany. And we have about 20-25 years to go yet?

Husar's children may grow up in a world that no longer goes: "German? (gasp!) Hitler!..."

I guess it took about that long for our North and South ex-civil war sides to quit automatically hating each other.

It's passed from hate but many on the loosing side are still resentful. I think Europeans have a much better long term memory.

Conradus

03-18-2008, 20:29

So, by your estimate, about a total of 100 years need to have passed for the "grass to grow over" nazi germany. And we have about 20-25 years to go yet?

Husar's children may grow up in a world that no longer goes: "German? (gasp!) Hitler!..."

I guess it took about that long for our North and South ex-civil war sides to quit automatically hating each other.

As my teacher used to say: "Infinity is three generations."

If the grandchildren of those who suffered in the war die out, there are no real memories of it anymore and it'll become just a fact in the books.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2008, 21:02

NOTE: I have read the relevant sections of the Hague Convention, 1907.

No Panzer , 4 words in 27 make all the difference (btw why not quite all of 27 ?) , also 26 is undermined by the naval bombardments provisions .

@ Article 26: Hague IX, which you speak of, only deals with naval bombardments. Article 26 in Hague IV is worded in such a way that it can deal with artillery, naval, or aircraft.

@ Article 27: It's time for my side of the debate to claim a technicality. The German government published maps of Dresden, correct? Maps were widely available to both aircrews (I can show you one), and to the Bomber Command. On this basis, since the Allies already knew of the presence of these buildings, the clause in Article 27 does not apply. A map is a distinctive sign. The "beseiged" did, technically, "notify the enemy beforehand".

Certainly not someone who regularly defends the killing of civilians , the use of torture and a pile of other actions that break the laws of war ....such as yourself Panzer .:thumbsdown:

Since when has he done that?

If the mass bombing was purely on nationality there would't have been bombing of non axis cities and there wouldn't have been non-axis casualties .

You bomb a city with the intent to kill civilians, but not German civilians, regardless of the fact it was a German city? It was repeatedly stated by Allied commanders that the raids were targeting German civilians.

I have another section in the Hague Convention for you:

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

If you can bring me an argument calling firebombs targeting civilians being approved for "not causing unnecessary suffering", I would be happy to be accurate - in other words, to call you a liar.

In short, the Allies did break conventions regarding the Hague Convention, making this a war crime. Just because they did not break Article 25 does not mean it wasn't a war crime, as you can clearly see above.

Vladimir

03-18-2008, 21:15

In short, the Allies did break conventions regarding the Hague Convention, making this a war crime. Just because they did not break Article 25 does not mean it wasn't a war crime, as you can clearly see above.

Generally speaking I understand and agree with what you're saying. However enforcement by the exercise of authority is the other side of the coin. The only thing that can be won here is a collective "I'm sorry." Financial reparations have already been paid.

Redleg

03-18-2008, 21:49

NOTE: I have read the relevant sections of the Hague Convention, 1907.

Good - but did you read the complete convention. Some articles are quiet interesting in themselves and its also interesting to see how some contradict each other.

@ Article 26: Hague IX, which you speak of, only deals with naval bombardments. Article 26 in Hague IV is worded in such a way that it can deal with artillery, naval, or aircraft.

You have to use the wording that was in effect prior to the start of WW2. As per the other referenced League of Nations resolution - you will notice that an attempt was made to address this prior to the start of the war, to bad it didnt happen. If it would of - we would not be having this discussion.

@ Article 27: It's time for my side of the debate to claim a technicality. The German government published maps of Dresden, correct? Maps were widely available to both aircrews (I can show you one), and to the Bomber Command. On this basis, since the Allies already knew of the presence of these buildings, the clause in Article 27 does not apply. A map is a distinctive sign. The "beseiged" did, technically, "notify the enemy beforehand".

Go to a different article - it covers the bombing of a city within enemy terrority that is not besieged. Oh btw a map is not a distinctive sign, it is often something else.

You bomb a city with the intent to kill civilians, but not German civilians, regardless of the fact it was a German city? It was repeatedly stated by Allied commanders that the raids were targeting German civilians.

Who claimed that German Civilians were part of the war effort? Now also read into the convention - where does it say that one can not bomb cities to kill civilians if the town meets a defined criteria.

I have another section in the Hague Convention for you:

If you can bring me an argument calling firebombs targeting civilians being approved for "not causing unnecessary suffering", I would be happy to be accurate - in other words, to call you a liar.

Ah very good - a nice attempt to use Article 23. Now what does that article mean, how are you applying that article, and when was the use of fire bombs began? Then one has to prove that the weapon was designed for a certain purpose and that the tactic of use was to primarily do what. This will be very difficult to prove, given that the nature of the weapon was to destroy infrastructure of a city. Your almost able to prove a war crime using this article, except for that key component.

Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Give you another hint - Fire bombs are still in many militaries weapon inventory for use.

In short, the Allies did break conventions regarding the Hague Convention, making this a war crime. Just because they did not break Article 25 does not mean it wasn't a war crime, as you can clearly see above.

Again no one is denying that war crimes were committed by the allies - the point of discussion is that Dresden does not meet the requirements of a war crime that was used against the Germans at Nuremberg. To put it in prespective - war crime charges were being stated about Fullujah (SP), a possible war crime did indeed happen, just not the one everyone was stating. Check into that situation and you will see the main difference between the two events.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2008, 22:05

Generally speaking I understand and agree with what you're saying. However enforcement by the exercise of authority is the other side of the coin. The only thing that can be won here is a collective "I'm sorry." Financial reparations have already been paid.

I realize this, and I've included it somewhere before in my argument. :bow:

@Redleg - I'll get back to that when I can.

Tribesman

03-18-2008, 23:17

@ Article 27: It's time for my side of the debate to claim a technicality. The German government published maps of Dresden, correct? Maps were widely available to both aircrews (I can show you one), and to the Bomber Command. On this basis, since the Allies already knew of the presence of these buildings, the clause in Article 27 does not apply. A map is a distinctive sign. The "beseiged" did, technically, "notify the enemy beforehand".
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Wow you finally looked at a map and at the relevant documents , well done (did you note the locations of the factories , marshalling yards and transport hubs? their relation to the aiming point and the old town ?)
So then Mars , what 4 words in that particular article fatally undermine your attempt ?

Who claimed that German Civilians were part of the war effort?
That was Goebells , Hiltler, Goebells again , Speer ,then Geobells again , Hitler once more ....oh it just goes on and on .
I do wish the idiots had thought before they spouted such nonsense , then again by that time they had been spouting nonsense for so long and having their people believe it they maybe thought it was true themselves given all the other crap they thought was true .

Red already dealt with your firebomb attempt , but to take it further , what were the RAF studies after Lubeck to develop the best mix of HE and Incendiary bombs for their raids ?
Were they based on how best it can burn civilians or was it based on how best it can burn structures ?
Nice try though :2thumbsup:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-19-2008, 00:50

Good - but did you read the complete convention. Some articles are quiet interesting in themselves and its also interesting to see how some contradict each other.

If one article says something that was not amended by 1945/1946, those who violated it can still be prosecuted. That's a weak argument.

You have to use the wording that was in effect prior to the start of WW2.

Seems to me that that wording in the Hague Convention was prior to WWII, or even WWI for that matter. Unless there is a specific amendment that covers all three of the articles cited by Panzer and myself (which I would appreciate if you showed me, if one is there), then my argument stands.

Go to a different article - it covers the bombing of a city within enemy terrority that is not besieged.

I'm going on the basis of that article. It only takes one article.

Oh btw a map is not a distinctive sign, it is often something else.

A map shows the location the buildings in question.

Who claimed that German Civilians were part of the war effort?

Nazi administration. However, they were still legally civilians and were protected under the convention. Speaking that they were "part of the war effort" does not distinguish them from being civilians. If a civilian works in a grocery store, he is "part of the war effort" for selling goods and for freeing up someone else to go to the front line.

Tell three-year-old Fritz that he was not a civilian.

Now also read into the convention - where does it say that one can not bomb cities to kill civilians if the town meets a defined criteria.

Well, you could go into the fact that civilians always have rights to humane and fair treatment, based on Articles 22, 23.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

[It is forbidden] To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissable in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.

Therefore, the rights of the civilians still stand.

Ah very good - a nice attempt to use Article 23. Now what does that article mean, how are you applying that article,

The article means what it says - it is forbidden to employ those arms in an area where they will cause unnecessary suffering. I'd say it Dresden they were not only employed despite causing unnecessary suffering, but to cause unnecessary suffering.

and when was the use of fire bombs began?

Doesn't matter. We're arguing this case.

Then one has to prove that the weapon was designed for a certain purpose and that the tactic of use was to primarily do what. This will be very difficult to prove, given that the nature of the weapon was to destroy infrastructure of a city. Your almost able to prove a war crime using this article, except for that key component.
Give you another hint - Fire bombs are still in many militaries weapon inventory for use.

Even to destroy buildings? I disagree - quotations from Allied commanders clearly show the intended use was against buildings, but the purpose of this was to create a firestorm and civilian casualities. Anyways, that doesn't matter.

In seiges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

Now, Tribesman would argue that they were being used for military purposes.

Well, let's see. Hospitals dedicated to military use? Some, yes, some to civilian. Charitable purposes? Largely towards civilians. Places where the sick and wounded are collected? In the case of Dresden, this could be civilians and soldiers. Religion? Again, no.

The important military locations in Dresden had defined areas, and were not spread enough to have an excuse to carpet bomb a whole city. The Allies had maps, and they chose to bomb houses. If you want to take out a military installation with a 1945 bomber (as someone stated earlier, there were bomb sights to aim for specific targets), creating a firestorm in a city isn't exactly an effective way of doing so, much less one that does not cause unnecessary suffering.

Article 27 is further reinforced by Article 56, which applies to the same institutions, but in a different scenario.

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction of, or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Tribesman

03-19-2008, 01:45

Now, Tribesman would argue that they were being used for military purposes.

would I ?

Well, let's see. Hospitals dedicated to military use? Some, yes, some to civilian.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the Italians tried that one in the 30s, it doesn't work , its in the articles .

The important military locations in Dresden had defined areas, and were not spread enough to have an excuse to carpet bomb a whole city.
What was the spread of those locations in relation to the aiming point used .

If you want to take out a military installation with a 1945 bomber (as someone stated earlier, there were bomb sights to aim for specific targets)

WW2 bomb sights:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: beam riding and radar bombing:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
tell meMars , how many raids were launched at the targets in Dresden?
How many did the job ?

But anyway , back to article 27 , how about something easier , Monte Cassino , war crime yes or no ?

PanzerJaeger

03-19-2008, 01:46

Are you actually asking who held the moral ground in a war where one sides systematically butchered people based on their belief or preferences and the other side mass-bombed and butchered purely on the nationality?

I'd say there wasn't any.

Exactly.

PanzerJaeger

03-19-2008, 01:58

No Panzer , 4 words in 27 make all the difference (btw why not quite all of 27 ?) , also 26 is undermined by the naval bombardments provisions .

Not quite. Nice terminology with less definitive words such as "undermined", though. You're not backing yourself into a corner.

Read in context with Article 25, the intent is clear. What the allies did to Dresden and countless other European and Japanese cities was clearly against the law of the convention.

Anyone who reads the convention, then reads what occurred in Dresden, then reads the intent of the allied forces as stated by both their political and military commanders can clearly see that - by the standards set forth at the Hague - those actions were war crimes.

Who was defending massacres ?

Redleg made a few attemps, and has since backed off and tackled the legal aspects.

When it is a question of legality everything rests on the detail of the appropraite laws , since the claims made consistantly have been that it was a crime then there is nothing else to cite but the laws .

I agree. The language in the convention is certainly debatable, but the spirit is clear. Don't needlessly kill civilians. Don't needlessly destroy cultural monuments. Etc..

Certainly not someone who regularly defends the killing of civilians , the use of torture and a pile of other actions that break the laws of war ....such as yourself Panzer .:thumbsdown:

Seems you've taken on that role in this debate... :thumbsup:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-19-2008, 02:01

I agree. The language in the convention is certainly debatable, but the spirit is clear. Don't needlessly kill civilians. Don't needlessly destroy cultural monuments. Etc..

Agreed. Language in parts of the convention is clearly debateable, but as said earlier in your post, reading the convention and then the intent by Allied commanders clearly shows that this broke the rules of the convention and therefore was a war crime.

If you (Tribesman) have read anything I have quoted earlier, you know the intent was to kill civilians.

PanzerJaeger

03-19-2008, 02:19

Oh by the way the arguement about a war crime is one of technicalities. Moral judgements are fine, calling something a war crime means it has to fall within the scope of what constitutes a war crime under the laws of the time. To do otherwise is to revise history - something you tried to accuse me of.

And it is clear that Dresden does fall within the bounds of a war crime. The Hague and other treaties are clear to read. Technical arguements can be made on both sides as both you and Mars have done, but the spirit is clear.

Firebombing a city filled with civilians and cultural monuments is a war crime, as is doing so without warning.

Regardless, I think the point has been made. Many in the Allied militaries killed civilians without regard, which demonstrates that they were no better or worse on a moral basis than the Axis militaries.

That being the case, if one wants to make blanket statements such as:

You espouse the honorable combat of the German soldier but you fail to acknowledge that he in essence was not a honorable warrior.

...such condemnation should be applied indiscriminantly. You know, like American bombs were.

Good thing I have not said all allied armies acted honorably now is it?

Now this is the really interesting part. From your above statement, I can only assume:

a)You've been backed into a sort of technical game of semantics of your own. In which case, I can only say that just like your rather weak attempts to justify Dresden, its rathe easy to see through the technicalities straight to the intent of your biased and disrespectful comments about German soldiers.

b)You actually believe that your statement can be applied to the soldiers of the allied forces, who - by your logic - were certainly dishonorable for participating in organizations that murdered millions of civilians across the world. Quite a revelation...

PanzerJaeger

03-19-2008, 02:36

WW2 bomb sights:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: beam riding and radar bombing:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
tell meMars , how many raids were launched at the targets in Dresden?
How many did the job ?

Interesting. If you cannot accurately drop bombs, can you really justify bombing areas with high civilian density? Would such gross negligence or willful neglect constitute a war crime?

Of course none of that is important, as it is clear from the Allied leaders themselves that they were targeting civilians.

Tribesman

03-19-2008, 02:46

Seems you've taken on that role in this debate...
No I leave such stuff as that to people like yourself .

And it is clear that Dresden does fall within the bounds of a war crime.

it is clearly not clear .

Firebombing a city filled with civilians and cultural monuments is a war crime
No , not if it is a defended city .

If you (Tribesman) have read anything I have quoted earlier, you know the intent was to kill civilians.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:There he goes again with his reading thing:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-19-2008, 03:30

Tribesman, bombing a defended city is a war crime if the bombing meets other criteria, namely Articles 23, 26, and 27. You have shown that it is not a war crime under Article 25, but under the rest, it still is. The Articles mentioned above (with the exception of 25) show very clearly that it was a war crime.

There he goes again with his reading thing

Funny. Obviously you have not read the relevant documents by the very people you are trying to defend if you take that view. Allied Bomber Command and politicians made it very clear that the target of the raids was first and foremost civilians.

In addition to the quote I have cited over and over again (which disproves your "factory target" claim), here are some others.

"It has been decided that the primary objective of your operations should now be
focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular, of industrial workers"

"disrupt Germany's
economy, destroy morale and create chaos by leaving millions
shelterless."

"What we want to do is to bring the masonry crashing down on top of the Boche,
to kill Boche and to terrify the Boche."

Expulsion is the method which, in so
far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory
and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause
endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed
by these transferences.

In the context of Eastern Germany, but this logic was used on the refugees at Dresden and Chemnitz, as proven by this:

The reason
you are going there tonight is to finish off the refugees who managed to escape from Dresden.

You cannot deny that and maintain your credibility.

PanzerJaeger

03-19-2008, 07:56

No I leave such stuff as that to people like yourself .

Not to derail the thread, but since you insist on making this a personal attack on my character, I think you and I are more similar than you would like to believe, only I'm a bit more transparent.

My participation in this thread is a bit of a special circumstance, as the staff made it clear in no uncertain terms that my presence in the backroom makes the place "unpleasant". However, pre-ban - had you made a thread about Fallujah and the supposed war crimes committed there by US forces, I would have certainly looked for any and all ways in which to defend them, whether that was resorting to technicalities or complete diversions. For you see, I identify as American just as much as I do German. I believe the country as a whole is good, as is the overall mission in Iraq. I make no bones about being pro-USA, right wing, etc..

You, on the other hand, try to portray yourself as above all that. However, this thread demonstrates that you are just as willing to obfuscate the reality of a situation when you deem it necessary and operate from a biased perspective.

Oh, and we can both be completely arrogant, mean-spirited jackasses in making our points... :yes:

Tribesman

03-19-2008, 08:46

Mars , keep doing the quotes , apart from one junior officer talking about a different raid they actually undermine your claim :idea2:

Redleg

03-19-2008, 13:14

If one article says something that was not amended by 1945/1946, those who violated it can still be prosecuted. That's a weak argument.

A good thing it wasnt my arguement. Pointing out the contradictions within the convention means that one must have an understanding on why the particuler action toook place.

Seems to me that that wording in the Hague Convention was prior to WWII, or even WWI for that matter. Unless there is a specific amendment that covers all three of the articles cited by Panzer and myself (which I would appreciate if you showed me, if one is there), then my argument stands.

You are still missing the key component that defeats your arguement. Military necessity and military tactics is what oversees the Hague Convention.

I'm going on the basis of that article. It only takes one article.

Unless another article allows the action.

A map shows the location the buildings in question.

Maps do indeed show locations and are as accurate as the error marign of the map maker. Again Maps do not mean a war crime was committed

Nazi administration. However, they were still legally civilians and were protected under the convention. Speaking that they were "part of the war effort" does not distinguish them from being civilians. If a civilian works in a grocery store, he is "part of the war effort" for selling goods and for freeing up someone else to go to the front line.

Tell three-year-old Fritz that he was not a civilian.

Making them part of the war effort also makes them legimate targets under the Hague Convention.

Well, you could go into the fact that civilians always have rights to humane and fair treatment, based on Articles 22, 23.

So if an article applies to the conduct - one can not use another article to say they violated the convention. If the target was legimate under the conventions, and the method was legimate under the conventions - the act does not constitute a war crime.

Therefore, the rights of the civilians still stand.

Never said they didn't. Unfortunately for Dresden the Nazi Adminstration made them legimate targets under the Hague Conventions. Military targets within the city also allowed for the bombing.

The article means what it says - it is forbidden to employ those arms in an area where they will cause unnecessary suffering. I'd say it Dresden they were not only employed despite causing unnecessary suffering, but to cause unnecessary suffering.

Your arguement is subjective now. Objective reasoning has to be used to find for a case for a war crime. Was the weapon itself designed to cause unneccessary suffering? Was the weapon not used toward its designed purpose?

Doesn't matter. We're arguing this case.

And its relative to the case. When did the use of aircraft fire bombs begin?

Even to destroy buildings? I disagree - quotations from Allied commanders clearly show the intended use was against buildings, but the purpose of this was to create a firestorm and civilian casualities. Anyways, that doesn't matter.

Oh but it does matter. Attempting to wash away a fact to prove something is not an objective reasoning. Now quotations from allied commanders would indicate something, but one has to prove that the weapons were not used for the intended purpose of their design.

Now, Tribesman would argue that they were being used for military purposes.

Well, let's see. Hospitals dedicated to military use? Some, yes, some to civilian. Charitable purposes? Largely towards civilians. Places where the sick and wounded are collected? In the case of Dresden, this could be civilians and soldiers. Religion? Again, no.

The important military locations in Dresden had defined areas, and were not spread enough to have an excuse to carpet bomb a whole city. The Allies had maps, and they chose to bomb houses. If you want to take out a military installation with a 1945 bomber (as someone stated earlier, there were bomb sights to aim for specific targets), creating a firestorm in a city isn't exactly an effective way of doing so, much less one that does not cause unnecessary suffering.

Article 27 is further reinforced by Article 56, which applies to the same institutions, but in a different scenario.

Now your beginning to get somewhere. The problem with this arguement has also one key failure in proving a war crime was committed. Can you figure out what that one is?

Redleg

03-19-2008, 13:18

Not quite. Nice terminology with less definitive words such as "undermined", though. You're not backing yourself into a corner.

Read in context with Article 25, the intent is clear. What the allies did to Dresden and countless other European and Japanese cities was clearly against the law of the convention.

Read the convention in more detail.

Anyone who reads the convention, then reads what occurred in Dresden, then reads the intent of the allied forces as stated by both their political and military commanders can clearly see that - by the standards set forth at the Hague - those actions were war crimes.

As long as one leaves out a few important facts one can make that arguement. However when you add the key facts the issue becomes very cloudly.

Redleg made a few attemps, and has since backed off and tackled the legal aspects.

Incorrect - I have never defend a massacre from a moral prespective. So if your going to try to put words in my mouth make sure they are accurate.

I agree. The language in the convention is certainly debatable, but the spirit is clear. Don't needlessly kill civilians. Don't needlessly destroy cultural monuments. Etc..

THere is the key word that makes the issue of Dresden cloudy - Was it a neccessity of the war.

Redleg

03-19-2008, 13:24

And it is clear that Dresden does fall within the bounds of a war crime. The Hague and other treaties are clear to read. Technical arguements can be made on both sides as both you and Mars have done, but the spirit is clear.

Technical arguements is what constitute if a war crime was committed or not. Dresden does not fall within the legal definition of a war crime for one very clear reason.

Firebombing a city filled with civilians and cultural monuments is a war crime, as is doing so without warning.

If that was all Dresden was filled with you would be correct. Without warning applies under what conditions - read the article.

Now this is the really interesting part. From your above statement, I can only assume:

a)You've been backed into a sort of technical game of semantics of your own. In which case, I can only say that just like your rather weak attempts to justify Dresden, its rathe easy to see through the technicalities straight to the intent of your biased and disrespectful comments about German soldiers.

b)You actually believe that your statement can be applied to the soldiers of the allied forces, who - by your logic - were certainly dishonorable for participating in organizations that murdered millions of civilians across the world. Quite a revelation...

Incorrect assumptions made on your part.

Try again. For instance I fought in a war - I did some honorable things and I did some things that were necessary because of the nature of war. Because I find something without honor does not mean I find everyone guilty of dishonorable conduct.

The reality of combat is not black and white.

Redleg

03-19-2008, 13:27

Not to derail the thread, but since you insist on making this a personal attack on my character, I think you and I are more similar than you would like to believe, only I'm a bit more transparent.

My participation in this thread is a bit of a special circumstance, as the staff made it clear in no uncertain terms that my presence in the backroom makes the place "unpleasant". However, pre-ban - had you made a thread about Fallujah and the supposed war crimes committed there by US forces, I would have certainly looked for any and all ways in which to defend them, whether that was resorting to technicalities or complete diversions. For you see, I identify as American just as much as I do German. I believe the country as a whole is good, as is the overall mission in Iraq. I make no bones about being pro-USA, right wing, etc..

You, on the other hand, try to portray yourself as above all that. However, this thread demonstrates that you are just as willing to obfuscate the reality of a situation when you deem it necessary and operate from a biased perspective.

Oh, and we can both be completely arrogant, mean-spirited jackasses in making our points... :yes:

I find this amusing when you decide to assume I mean something that I did not state, and even attempted of calling me a history revisionist.

Beware of the Pot calling the Kettle Black my friend.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-19-2008, 21:30

Mars , keep doing the quotes , apart from one junior officer talking about a different raid they actually undermine your claim

Really? Instead of making snide remarks, you might want to point out how? As I see it, those quotes all say that civilians were the target. So how about responding and pointing out why instead making snide remarks to try to weasel your way out?

A good thing it wasnt my arguement. Pointing out the contradictions within the convention means that one must have an understanding on why the particuler action toook place.

I have shown why the action took place. By saying I am wrong, you are saying that those you are trying to defend were unreliable in their words.

Their words said they were targeting civilians.

You are still missing the key component that defeats your arguement. Military necessity and military tactics is what oversees the Hague Convention.

It does not defeat my argument, because Dresden was simply not a military necessity, nor was it done because of military necessity, but with the purpose of (as said by the Allies):

1) Creating a massive refugee wave (which they later bombed at Chemnitz)
2) Killing and driving away civilians.
3) Showing the Russians the might of the Allies.

Unless another article allows the action.

Perhaps you'd like to show which one, because I have yet to find it. The articles are quite clear in that this was illegal.

Maps do indeed show locations and are as accurate as the error marign of the map maker.

We would then have to go into the individual maps and decide.

Making them part of the war effort also makes them legimate targets under the Hague Convention.

You need to look at whether they actually were part of the war effort. Most were not - indeed, most were refugees. Ordinary refugees certainly were not part of the war effort. They were civilians, and protected as such by international law.

So if an article applies to the conduct - one can not use another article to say they violated the convention. If the target was legimate under the conventions, and the method was legimate under the conventions - the act does not constitute a war crime.

However, both the target and the method were not legitimate. The targets were civilians and refugees, and the methods most assuredly caused "unnecessary suffering", and indeed were designed to do so. Dresden was the ideal location to start a firestorm, and this was well known to Bomber Command.

Unfortunately for Dresden the Nazi Adminstration made them legimate targets under the Hague Conventions.

As said before, it does not matter what the belligerent says, but what actually goes. I quote:

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Did the civilians (I highlight this term once more) fit these conditions? The honest answer is no.

Military targets within the city also allowed for the bombing.

We once more return to the part:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

Deliberately causing a firestorm within a city with the stated intent of destroying it and it's civilians is not taking all necessary steps, as far as possible, to save what could have been saved. Burning through an entire city centre is indiscriminate bombing. If the military targets that were in Dresden were bombed as selectively as possible, if a firestorm was not deliberately started in a civilian area with the intent of killing civilians, and the methods had been appropriate, I would not be complaining. However, since the methods were certainly not appropriate, a firestorm was started with the expressed purpose of killing civilians, and since Dresden was bombed indiscriminately instead of selectively (which is easier than Tribesman would admit to, considering that since there were only a few months left in the war Germany couldn't hope to compete with Allied bomber fleets), I am complaining, because what happened is a war crime and clearly violates the Hague Conventions which you brought up.

Was the weapon itself designed to cause unneccessary suffering? Was the weapon not used toward its designed purpose?

The weapon itself had the potential to cause unnecessary suffering. However, you will notice that it says calculated, not designed. The term may seem an insignificant change, but it is not. The way the materials were used was to cause unnecessary suffering - namely a firestorm in which they could burn civilians alive, as was the stated intent. Therefore, the materials were used in such a manner, or calculated, if you will, to cause unnecessary harm in the employ.

And its relative to the case. When did the use of aircraft fire bombs begin?

It's not relevant at all. What matters is, as stated above, how they were calculated to be used by those employing them, not how they were designed. Nonetheless, they were designed to cause firestorms by scattering bomblets over a large area - not exactly a weapon you'd use for discriminate bombing.

Attempting to wash away a fact to prove something is not an objective reasoning. Now quotations from allied commanders would indicate something, but one has to prove that the weapons were not used for the intended purpose of their design.

One does not necessarily have to prove that they were not used for their intended purpose, but one has to prove that they were "calculated to cause unecessary suffering". Quotations from Allied commanders proves that they used these bombs to create a fire storm to kill civilians and gut a city.

I wasn't washing away a fact to prove something - just throwing it out there.

The problem with this arguement has also one key failure in proving a war crime was committed. Can you figure out what that one is?

It would help your side if you weren't constantly condescending, and actually pointed things out.

Redleg

03-20-2008, 02:05

I have shown why the action took place. By saying I am wrong, you are saying that those you are trying to defend were unreliable in their words.

Their words said they were targeting civilians.

Again under certain circumstance civilians are allowed to be attacked in the performance of a military mission. This might seem horrendous and even murderous to you - but it does not necessarily mean that a war crime is being committed. Dresden does not meet all the conditions necessary to prove a war crime was committed.

It does not defeat my argument, because Dresden was simply not a military necessity, nor was it done because of military necessity, but with the purpose of (as said by the Allies):

Again one has to demonstrate that no military necessity and no military presence was in the city. History shows that a military presence was indeed in the city. One might begin to argue the necessity of the bombing but it begins to have some serious shortfalls on both sides of that arguement.

1) Creating a massive refugee wave (which they later bombed at Chemnitz)
2) Killing and driving away civilians.
3) Showing the Russians the might of the Allies.

Your missing several other purposes. If your unwilling to look at those you will always reach the conclusion your after. In fact your missing something with this conclusion. Read the following - saying it was to show Russians the might of the Allies is incorrect and defeats your arguement.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm

Read the complete link - if you don't understand the postion then feel free to discuss and ask questions.

Perhaps you'd like to show which one, because I have yet to find it. The articles are quite clear in that this was illegal.

Again the articles do not say it was illegal. It has to meet certain conditions to be illegal. One is allowed to attack defended cities, hince the prohibition not to attack undefended cities.

We would then have to go into the individual maps and decide.

And without the maps you can not make the techincal decision.

You need to look at whether they actually were part of the war effort. Most were not - indeed, most were refugees. Ordinary refugees certainly were not part of the war effort. They were civilians, and protected as such by international law.

Read the above link.

However, both the target and the method were not legitimate. The targets were civilians and refugees, and the methods most assuredly caused "unnecessary suffering", and indeed were designed to do so. Dresden was the ideal location to start a firestorm, and this was well known to Bomber Command.

Read the above link. Your arguement here is flawed.

As said before, it does not matter what the belligerent says, but what actually goes. I quote:

Actually the belligerent made the civilians part of the militia by his and the governments statements. So yes it does matter what the belligerent power stated about what consitutes the war effort for their nation.

Did the civilians (I highlight this term once more) fit these conditions? The honest answer is no.

Its not as black and white as you think. So the honest answer is maybe, somewhat, could be, might of, and even yes can be added.

Deliberately causing a firestorm within a city with the stated intent of destroying it and it's civilians is not taking all necessary steps, as far as possible, to save what could have been saved. Burning through an entire city centre is indiscriminate bombing. If the military targets that were in Dresden were bombed as selectively as possible, if a firestorm was not deliberately started in a civilian area with the intent of killing civilians, and the methods had been appropriate, I would not be complaining. However, since the methods were certainly not appropriate, a firestorm was started with the expressed purpose of killing civilians, and since Dresden was bombed indiscriminately instead of selectively (which is easier than Tribesman would admit to, considering that since there were only a few months left in the war Germany couldn't hope to compete with Allied bomber fleets), I am complaining, because what happened is a war crime and clearly violates the Hague Conventions which you brought up.

Negative on the war crime allegation. Read the link provided,.

The weapon itself had the potential to cause unnecessary suffering. However, you will notice that it says calculated, not designed. The term may seem an insignificant change, but it is not. The way the materials were used was to cause unnecessary suffering - namely a firestorm in which they could burn civilians alive, as was the stated intent. Therefore, the materials were used in such a manner, or calculated, if you will, to cause unnecessary harm in the employ.

Read the link, it address this point.

It's not relevant at all. What matters is, as stated above, how they were calculated to be used by those employing them, not how they were designed. Nonetheless, they were designed to cause firestorms by scattering bomblets over a large area - not exactly a weapon you'd use for discriminate bombing.

Read the link - WW2 bombs were not bomblets that is a post-WW2 weapon development for aircraft delivered weapons.

One does not necessarily have to prove that they were not used for their intended purpose, but one has to prove that they were "calculated to cause unecessary suffering". Quotations from Allied commanders proves that they used these bombs to create a fire storm to kill civilians and gut a city.

It is completely necessary to prove that the weapon was not used for its intended purpose. Quotations from some allied commanders begin to make that conclusion however it does not actually prove it.

It would help your side if you weren't constantly condescending, and actually pointed things out.

Well I don't normally share a lot of information when one is obviousily only looking at the subject from one view point. A link is provided that provides a different input then you have so far read.

Here is another link that takes some of the emotion out of the arguement. Reads better then the airforce link.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

Again when one looks at Dresden with a critical eye avoid of emotion - it becomes not so clear cut case. In fact there is so much grey involving Dresden that one can not rule out a war crime, but neither can one get a conviction out of it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-20-2008, 03:59

You're accusing me of looking at it from one viewpoint? Pot, meet kettle.

I'll get back to that post when I can.

Redleg

03-20-2008, 04:21

You're accusing me of looking at it from one viewpoint? Pot, meet kettle.

I'll get back to that post when I can.

LOL - doesn't work with me, I have alreadly stated I find Dresden morally wrong just not a warcrime. I have reached that viewpoint from reading not only allied first hand documents but also some German viewpoints. There is so much grey in Dresden that a single viewpoint is impossible to hold - one must hold at least two and more are possible, none come up with a clear cut answer, except that its hard to prove a warcrime happen in Dresden. It all becomes subjective.

Your comment about russia, and you admitting that you did not read the Hague Conventions earlier also demonstrates that the statement has merit. The Hague Convention was one of the primary documents used to convict war crimes after WW2.

Anyone that knows anything about Dresden knows that Russia asked for it to be bombed, and that it was not the demonstration of Allied might that was to impress Russia. Any attempt to deny that as some authors have indeed a revisionist stance. The Soviet Union used Dresden for many years afterwards as a great proganda tool.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-20-2008, 04:26

Again under certain circumstance civilians are allowed to be attacked in the performance of a military mission. This might seem horrendous and even murderous to you - but it does not necessarily mean that a war crime is being committed. Dresden does not meet all the conditions necessary to prove a war crime was committed.

Under certain circumstances as dictated by the Hague Convention, civilians may be considered acceptable collateral damage in the performance of a military mission. This seems terrible to me, but necessary. However, the Article 23 states it is illegal "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" and to "destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;".

What you argue is that Dresden was a military necessity, and I argue that it was not. There is much evidence to support both of our claims, and the conclusion would be for lawyers to decide in a courtroom, fifty years from now or more, so as to give a relatively unbiased opinion. Nonetheless, I hold to the belief, which is accurate as proven by documents authored or dictated by Allied commanders themselves that civilians were the target.

Again one has to demonstrate that no military necessity and no military presence was in the city. History shows that a military presence was indeed in the city. One might begin to argue the necessity of the bombing but it begins to have some serious shortfalls on both sides of that arguement.

A military presence was there, yes. However, military necessity is the key, as you say, and both sides of course have their opinion. The reason I hold to mine is that the war was almost over, quality German production was falling, the Russians were advancing as well as the Allies, and all the war was was a matter of time. The Allies were assured of victory.

Your missing several other purposes. If your unwilling to look at those you will always reach the conclusion your after. In fact your missing something with this conclusion. Read the following - saying it was to show Russians the might of the Allies is incorrect and defeats your arguement.

Again the articles do not say it was illegal. It has to meet certain conditions to be illegal.

It meets the conditions of Articles 23, 26, and 27.

One is allowed to attack defended cities, hince the prohibition not to attack undefended cities.

I'm not debating that! I'm not debating Article 25 at all! I'm debating Articles 23, 26, and 27, all areas where I have a legitimate claim.

Your arguement here is flawed.

When you say that, point out why, or I'll just ignore it.

Actually the belligerent made the civilians part of the militia by his and the governments statements. So yes it does matter what the belligerent power stated about what consitutes the war effort for their nation.

Once again, I will get back to this when I can.

Its not as black and white as you think.

It's not black and white, it's probably one of the greyest areas of the entire war. I'm just trying to say I have a case.

Read the link - WW2 bombs were not bomblets that is a post-WW2 weapon development for aircraft delivered weapons.

Really?

Paragraph One. (http://www.afcesa.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8763) This example shows bomblets in use by the Luftwaffe, but it shows they were not a post WWII development.

It is completely necessary to prove that the weapon was not used for its intended purpose. Quotations from some allied commanders begin to make that conclusion however it does not actually prove it.

I'd say documents and speeches saying that civilians were the target are pretty accurate, and make a good case. You're now saying, essentially, that the Arthur Harris was wrong about his own stated reasons? That's a pretty wild claim to make.

Well I don't normally share a lot of information when one is obviousily only looking at the subject from one view point.

Again, pot meets kettle.

Again when one looks at Dresden with a critical eye avoid of emotion - it becomes not so clear cut case. In fact there is so much grey involving Dresden that one can not rule out a war crime, but neither can one get a conviction out of it.

This is an opinion I could compromise on. Dresden was certainly grey, but you cannot rule out a war crime.

EDIT:

It all becomes subjective.

THANK YOU! This is what I'm trying to say - you cannot rule out that Dresden was a war crime, and this is where it would come under the discretion of a lawyer, presuming there was any necessity in opening a case on the subject.

Redleg

03-20-2008, 05:06

Under certain circumstances as dictated by the Hague Convention, civilians may be considered acceptable collateral damage in the performance of a military mission. This seems terrible to me, but necessary. However, the Article 23 states it is illegal "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" and to "destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;".

What you argue is that Dresden was a military necessity, and I argue that it was not. There is much evidence to support both of our claims, and the conclusion would be for lawyers to decide in a courtroom, fifty years from now or more, so as to give a relatively unbiased opinion. Nonetheless, I hold to the belief, which is accurate as proven by documents authored or dictated by Allied commanders themselves that civilians were the target.

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.

A military presence was there, yes. However, military necessity is the key, as you say, and both sides of course have their opinion. The reason I hold to mine is that the war was almost over, quality German production was falling, the Russians were advancing as well as the Allies, and all the war was was a matter of time. The Allies were assured of victory.

That is a subjective opinion. One that I can accept as subjective - but again since its subjective one can not call it correct. Enough WW2 documents are out there that demonstrate the military necessity as determined by the allied commanders who ordered the bombing.

It meets the conditions of Articles 23, 26, and 27.

Incorrect that is not what the statement said.

I'm not debating that! I'm not debating Article 25 at all! I'm debating Articles 23, 26, and 27, all areas where I have a legitimate claim.

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

When you say that, point out why, or I'll just ignore it.

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.

Once again, I will get back to this when I can.

okay

It's not black and white, it's probably one of the greyest areas of the entire war. I'm just trying to say I have a case.

And I am saying that it would never be prosecuted simply because one can not prove the claim.

Really?

Paragraph One. (http://www.afcesa.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8763) This example shows bomblets in use by the Luftwaffe, but it shows they were not a post WWII development.

Really - firebombs from WW2 did not contain submuntions as far as I have ever discovered. Most allied bombs were conventional bombs containing a fuze and about 250 to 500 pounds of explosive depending on the type of bomb.

I'd say documents and speeches saying that civilians were the target are pretty accurate, and make a good case. You're now saying, essentially, that the Arthur Harris was wrong about his own stated reasons? That's a pretty wild claim to make.

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.

Again, pot meets kettle.

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?

This is an opinion I could compromise on. Dresden was certainly grey, but you cannot rule out a war crime.

If one can not get a conviction on the evidence - what would you call it?

THANK YOU! This is what I'm trying to say - you cannot rule out that Dresden was a war crime, and this is where it would come under the discretion of a lawyer, presuming there was any necessity in opening a case on the subject. As before it wouldnt go to court because there is so much grey that a conviction would not happen. Lawyers don't go to court with a case they know they can not win.

Tribesman

03-20-2008, 07:38

Obviously you have not read the relevant documents by the very people you are trying to defend if you take that view.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Too funny , look mars there is one person in this debate who lacked reading in forming thier opinion on the topic , that is you , you formed your view that it was a war crime with no reference whatsoever to the laws of war that would make it war crime .
Since then you have been trying desperately to make facts that you had no knowledge of fit into your preconcieved view .
What I suggest is that you drop your preceonceptions , establish facts and then form a view .
As I said earlier I used you hold the same view as yourself , but in the light of relevant documents that view falls apart .

Brenus

03-20-2008, 08:33

“The reason I hold to mine is that the war was almost over, quality German production was falling, the Russians were advancing as well as the Allies, and all the war was a matter of time. The Allies were assured of victory.” That was the German opinion in 1941, the Germans were assured of victory.

PanzerJaeger

03-20-2008, 09:36

Read the convention in more detail.

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.

I can only challenge you to read the document in the spirit it was written.

I find this amusing when you decide to assume I mean something that I did not state, and even attempted of calling me a history revisionist.

Beware of the Pot calling the Kettle Black my friend.

My comments are directed towards your positions in this thread only, they were not meant to impugn your character on a wider level.

In this thread, you've made comments such as:

You espouse the honorable combat of the German soldier but you fail to acknowledge that he in essence was not a honorable warrior.

...and pushed a revisionist view of the German military during the war that attempts to brand them all as criminals.

This is not only patently false, but disrespectful to the vast majority of German soldiers who did serve honorably. I know what literature you're basing your information off of, and lets just say it's off base at best.

Throughout this thread I've tried to show you that the same broad brush you are using can be applied to both sides. If someone were to make the same comments about American soldiers, I would make the same points - as I have in numerous atomic bomb threads over the years.

If that makes me a kettle.. :slomo:

PanzerJaeger

03-20-2008, 09:43

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Too funny , look mars there is one person in this debate who lacked reading in forming thier opinion on the topic , that is you , you formed your view that it was a war crime with no reference whatsoever to the laws of war that would make it war crime .
Since then you have been trying desperately to make facts that you had no knowledge of fit into your preconcieved view .
What I suggest is that you drop your preceonceptions , establish facts and then form a view .
As I said earlier I used you hold the same view as yourself , but in the light of relevant documents that view falls apart .

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:

Redleg

03-20-2008, 13:32

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.

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.

I can only challenge you to read the document in the spirit it was written.

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

My comments are directed towards your positions in this thread only, they were not meant to impugn your character on a wider level.

An apology?

In this thread, you've made comments such as:

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.

...and pushed a revisionist view of the German military during the war that attempts to brand them all as criminals.

I never said they were all criminals - I said the German Military in total is guilty of committing war crimes. Are you attempting to say that the German Military did not follow the orders of Hilter and this cronies?

This is not only patently false, but disrespectful to the vast majority of German soldiers who did serve honorably. I know what literature you're basing your information off of, and lets just say it's off base at best.

Probably more documents then you could possibly know. War Tribunal documents, reports by German Officers, Reports by Allied Officers.

I am just following orders is not honorable service - that is just doing your precieved duty. Honor requires a bit more.

Throughout this thread I've tried to show you that the same broad brush you are using can be applied to both sides. If someone were to make the same comments about American soldiers, I would make the same points - as I have in numerous atomic bomb threads over the years.

If that makes me a kettle.. :slomo:

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.