American congress get maid

[Kralizec]

Actually, and bear with me here, I think that the bombing of Rotterdam could have been justified in the same vein as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it may have saved the lives of people who otherwise would have died by forcing a surrender. Just a thought.

The Americans chiefly bombed these cities because they wouldn't need to suffer casualties in an actual invasion of Japan. It can be argued that more Japanese civilians would have died as well if they felt that they could still defend their country, but that's mostly a rationalization in retrospect.

In contrast, when Rotterdam was bombed the Germans had IIRC secured pretty much all of the Netherlands. To say that more inhabitants of Rotterdam would have perished in street fighting is misguided.

If you're going to respond - are you suggesting that the Rotterdam bombing was morally "better" then the Dresden firestorm? The latter was actually more useful from a military point of view, and they were at least part of the country that started agression in the first place.

[PanzerJaeger]

And how exactly does that apply to Dresden ?
Oh yeah it doesn't does it , and even if it did apply in general it doesn't apply on specifics , Dresden was a garrison town , it was defended , it contained arms industries and materials of war , it was used for military operations and the aiming point for the bombardment was chosen due to the location of the infrastructure that was a vital component of the war effort that was being used to facilitate offensive and defensive operations .

None of that changes the breaches of Articles 26 and 27.

As for whether Dresden was a garrison city, defended, etc; post war litigation has leaned towards finding cities that are not front line as being undefended, regardless of AA.

I found this interesting quote when I went to get copy/paste the articles. Seems the US has accepted this fact, internally at least.

A fair reading of the [Rome Statute], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable.

-John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations


In any event, the implications of this discussion are dubious at best. Trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to find legal technicalities in favor of the immolation of hundreds of thousands of women and children is never a strong position.

[Tribesman]

None of that changes the breaches of Articles 26 and 27.

Yes it does , since article 26 doesn't apply and article 27 has the get out clause (plus all the other get out clauses in earlier articles) , plus of course non of this legislation covered air bombardment which is what Dresden was .

post war litigation has leaned towards finding cities that are not front line are undefended, regardless of AA.

Does that use post war legislation though ?

I found this interesting quote when I went to get copy/paste the articles. Seems the US has accepted this fact, internally at least.

What relevance does a law that came into effect in 2002 have to legislation in place in 1944 ?

In any event, the implications of this discussion are dubious at best.

Not dubious in the slightest .
You can say it was wrong , you can say it was immoral , you can say it was really really bad and difficult to justify , but you cannot say it was illegal or a war crime unless there was a law that made it illegal and a war crime . It really is that simple .
Interestingly though Germany itself did introduce legislation that determined certain air attacks to be war crimes and punishable as such , though they didn't list large scale attacks like Dresden as one of those .
Then again as that legislation was part of the extremely dubious commando orders actions taken under that legislation resulted in those who followed the German laws being tried for war crimes because they violated international laws on the conduct of war .

[Reverend Joe]

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes it does , since article 26 doesn't apply and article 27 has the get out clause (plus all the other get out clauses in earlier articles) , plus of course non of this legislation covered air bombardment which is what Dresden was .

26 does apply. It mentions nothing about whether the city is defended or not. 27 also applies, as cultural and medical areas were both marked and well known by the allies. Besides those facts, the allied command knew the effects of their weaponry, and the stated and documented mission was to destroy the city and kill/terrorize the civilian populace. Arthur Harris' implications removed all doubt as to this intention - which is against international law.

As to whether this covered air bombardment, one only needs to look to the revised Hague Treaty of 1907(IV), which made a subtle change from the 1899 convention.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Now, if you really want to get creative, you could look at Article 23(e), which states:

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering

It is quite obvious to anyone reading Harris' own writings on the subject, that the bombing was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering...

Does that use post war legislation though ?

What relevance does a law that came into effect in 2002 have to legislation in place in 1944 ?

Just perspective.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

I agree, but the record should be set straight.

WW2 wasn't devoid of Victor's Justice.

[KrooK]

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.
Bunch of lies. Poland is children of polish blood. Without polish victories not treaty would give us independence - we won it alone, without anyone. And idiot who claim that Koningsberg should be German not Poles is .... idiot - Konginsberg (today Kalingrad) is Russian, not polish city.
So please do not teach others about eastern europe while you don't know anything about it.

[Tribesman]

It is quite obvious to anyone reading Harris' own writings on the subject, that the bombing was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering...

And its quite obvious that the weapons which were used were calculated to destroy property , the ratio of the bombloads was carefully calculated specificly to destoy property and since that section deals with killing people it is not applicable , the only part of that section that deals with property allows for actions like Dresden .

26 does apply.

Nope ,since notice was given by the allies to Germany that all towns and villages with railroads would be subject to bombardment so there's your advance notice .

27 also applies, as cultural and medical areas were both marked and well known by the allies.

27 does not apply , note the get out clause it contains . The earlier precision raids on Dresden were not succesful from a military viewpoint because it was not possible to achieve the aims using the technology of the time .

one only needs to look to the revised Hague Treaty of 1907(IV), which made a subtle change from the 1899 convention.

And once again that only applies to undefended towns .

Just perspective.

I know , the earlier American proposed legislation Mars used last time gives a better perpective , but however it wasn't adopted so while it is interesting from a wider angle it isn't really relevant .

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

Because if someone wants to call it a war crime then they have to show that it was illegal .

[Tribesman]

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.
Bunch of lies. Poland is children of polish blood. Without polish victories not treaty would give us independence - we won it alone, without anyone.

Well thats Krook showing that the blindness caused by his rabid nationalism means that he doesn't understand history in the slightest .

[KarlXII]

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.

I'm having this sig'd.

[Reverend Joe]

I agree, but the record should be set straight.

WW2 wasn't devoid of Victor's Justice.

Yeah... never thought I would be on your side, against Tribesman.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Panzer, there's no real point trying to argue with Tribes. But I digress.

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

Totally agree, and I also agree with Panzer. I'm not saying stuff like the bombing of Warsaw wasn't despicable, but this is Dresden we're talking about now.

In contrast, when Rotterdam was bombed the Germans had IIRC secured pretty much all of the Netherlands. To say that more inhabitants of Rotterdam would have perished in street fighting is misguided.

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.


EDIT: And about the "did the British bomb the Germans/Germans bomb British first" debate, I'll have that probably tomorrow night or Sunday night. I'm too tired to look up the book passages.

[rotorgun]

It is rather humorous, to say the least, that our congress, which can't seem to pass a good piece of legislation that isn't completely compromised by special interests, doesn't find it hypocritical to be pointing out the flaws of another countries legislative body. Sheesh, what will they think of next? Please forgive our wayward politicos my Polish friends, for "they no not what they do." Here is a picture of what they do best: Here is what the average American taxpayers do trying to figure out how to pay for the wonderful legislation they pass:

[PanzerJaeger]

Because if someone wants to call it a war crime then they have to show that it was illegal .

I think the information speaks for itself.

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.

here!

I wrote that simply to stimulate conversation, but its kinda, sorta... true.

Poland was absorbed by its neighbors over a century before and without allied victory Poland would not exist today.

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.


*Note to mods. Please don't close this due to Krook's slur! Its developed into several interesting discussions!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.

That's true. In fact, German forces on the ground signalled the bombers to turn around, but only a few actually saw/understood the flare signals.

[Kralizec]

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.

The Germans were simply in a rush and didn't feel like committing the necessary manpower for taking Rotterdam by conventional fighting. It was a quick solution and they didn't care how many civilians would have died so long as it would force the surrender of the city. The only reason that so few people died was because the bombing had been announced and because of the air alarm, but nearly a hundred thousand people lost their homes.

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

[Tribesman]

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.

Which is why the justification Mars used is not correct .
Plus of course what was requested was a precision strike to cover the advance not a wide ranging strike to force negotiations . Once it became the latter it breached the agreement the Americans had brokered making that agreement null and void.

I think the information speaks for itself.

It certainly does , yet you are unable to understand it .
The legislation was so flawed , out of date and contained so many loopholes that it was useless for the purpose by that time which was why new legislation was required , the proposed new legislation didn't come in time .
Which is why no prosecutions can be brought for war crimes , if it was possible to do so the allies would have done so to the axis for all the air raids on allied towns .
That is why all charges relating to destruction of towns and cities from the Nuremburg trials had wording that restricted it to those acts which didn't utilise any of the loopholes in the legislation .
It really is that simple Panzer . The Dresden raid was covered by a legal loophole so it wasn't a war crime and unless retroactive legislation is ever introduced it will never be a war crime .

In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

Well to be fair he did originally order that countries neutrality should be strictly respected , but being a fickle sort of fellow he changed his mind .
Just like he ordered that British cities should not be bombed unless he decided that they should be bombed .

[KrooK]

Poland was absorbed by its neighbors over a century before and without allied victory Poland would not exist today.

Not at all Jaeger.

In the beginning of WW1 Poland was divided by Austria, Russia and Germany.
Majority of Poles support rather Austria and Germany. Later even more.
Before 1917 and bolshevik revolution Ententa did not want independent Poland - because Russia
would have to loose territory. Later Ententa need soldiers as much as Central States, so they
announced "Independent Poland". However Poles knew that they can be independent only if won it alone. Into 1917-1918 Poles started support rather Ententa than Central States and Central States completely lost support after Peace into Brzesc between Ukraine and Germany (due to its condition territories with polish majority would be given Ukraine). And that was situation into November of 1918
when due to Franco-Anglo-US victories on Western Front Germans had to capitulate and on East there were generally MESS.

Then war stopped and Poles
1) Took weapon from German Garrison into Warsaw
2) Organised local governments
3) Welcomed Jozef Pilsudski, who was released from camp into Magdeburg and made him leader.
4) Started forming army (no one believed that will be so easy without fight).
5) Made agreement with commanders of German army into Russia and let that army get back to Germany.
6) Luckily due to point 5 and German and Austrian victories on Eastern Front Russia was not a problem into that moment (became problem a bit later).

So I would say that Poland could recapture independence due to so luckily end of war beetwen Russia and Germany when both sides destroyed each other and France and England were too far from Poland to establish here their protectorates. No one gave Poland freedom - Poles took it alone.
You can't remember that it was not so easy as I wrote - Poland payed big price of war. Well known are loses into Belgium - here there were big too. Maybe to as big as into ww2, but really big.

[KarlXII]

Poland was mainly controled by Russia, then transfered to the German Empire due to Brest-Lostvik (I do not think that is the right spelling). In the Treaty of Versaille, Poland was given independance and the Germans actually had to give most of West Prussia. Had Germany won, I don't think you Poles would have gotten so lucky.....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

On May the 14th the Dutch situation seemed to have improved: although the Germans occupied most of the territory, the major cities and the bulk of the Dutch population were still under Dutch control.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd go so far as to say WWI. Why? Because after WWII we had a functioning economy, and an enemy was presented to us in the Soviets. Not only that, our former enemies encouraged and backed our choice of enemy. Whereas after WWI, we had a destroyed economy, no hope, no way out. We were offered a way out, and we took it, as anyone would have done.

No, you took the easy way out - the way of scapegoats and hatred, because of deep rooted bigotry towards certain peoples.

Germany was partitioned after WWI.

Yes, but they didn't have other nations take over all the sectors of their country; perhaps I should have been more clear.

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

And who started the illegal bombing of cities? If Dresden even was illegal. But I don't particularly care if Dresden was illegal or completely necessary. I don't care if it can or can't be excused or explained. It's war, and if Germany wanted total war, they got it.

I think Germany deserved it, because they set the tone for WWII.

Sherman burned our own country in the civil war, so I have little sympathy for countries led by Nazis.

And if the devil hits you over the head and drags you off to fight his wars? Or if you never entered his lair in the first place, and worked an ordinary respectable job in an ordinary neighbourhood? What then? Or is it the fault of the ordinary German?

Oh, because the Germans didn't support the Nazis at all, did they?

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it.

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

Dogs don't hold grudges for twenty years. Are you suggesting dog and human psychology are the same?

The history was world war one was a war unlike any other before it. Yes, parts of the treaty were probably unfair and overly harsh.

CR

[Kralizec]

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

And yeah, occupying the Neth's was pretty useless as far as I know. Belgium was on the way around the Maginot line, but I never figured out why Hitler thought that taking the Netherlands was necessary or even desirable. The nazi's loved to preach their nonsense about a pan-germanic master race, but that doesn't explain why they let the Swedes and the Swiss get away with their quasi-neutrality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Not necessarily justified, but hey, the Americans did it.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

Completely different story.

[Kralizec]

Okay, how are they different?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Okay, how are they different?

Namely the fact that it didn't succeed. Rotterdam, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did.

[PanzerJaeger]

It certainly does , yet you are unable to understand it .
The legislation was so flawed , out of date and contained so many loopholes that it was useless for the purpose by that time which was why new legislation was required , the proposed new legislation didn't come in time .
Which is why no prosecutions can be brought for war crimes , if it was possible to do so the allies would have done so to the axis for all the air raids on allied towns .
That is why all charges relating to destruction of towns and cities from the Nuremburg trials had wording that restricted it to those acts which didn't utilise any of the loopholes in the legislation .
It really is that simple Panzer . The Dresden raid was covered by a legal loophole so it wasn't a war crime and unless retroactive legislation is ever introduced it will never be a war crime .

I see your point, I just don't agree. The language is very rudimentary for a legal document, but the intention is quite clear, as supported by post-war investigation. A case could be made either way, but I feel the intent of the writers falls in line with my position - they did not want such things happening.

Dogs don't hold grudges for twenty years. Are you suggesting dog and human psychology are the same?

The history was world war one was a war unlike any other before it. Yes, parts of the treaty were probably unfair and overly harsh.

CR

Of course not.

I think you may have momentarily blended Germans from WW1 with those of WW2 in order to make a broader point. Its quite easy to do as they wore the same helmets and many from the first carried over to the second.

However, Germany did not start the First World War and in fact the Kaiser made more of an effort than any other world leader involved to stop it. Therefore, I fail to see how punishing Germany even more severly is just or logical. If your goal is to stop WW2 at all costs, a far more reasonable approach would have been to be fair to Germany, thus denying future Hitlers of their biggest grievances.

[Husar]

However, Germany did not start the First World War and in fact the Kaiser made more of an effort than any other world leader involved to stop it.

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead.

[Tribesman]

I see your point, I just don't agree. The language is very rudemnetary for a legal document, but the intention is quite clear, as supported by post-war investigation. A case could be made either way, but I feel the intent of the writers falls in line with my position - they did not want such things happening.

Ah there lies the problem , the language and the intent .
Of course the intent originally was clear , people didn't want too much nasty stuff to happen in wars , a rather laudable intent .
Then comes the problem and a major problem it is too , countries negotiate and water down the wording because while they on the face of it they agree that war is a really nasty thing and something realy ought to be done to stop it being too nasty , they at the same time don't want to be too resricted when they make wars , so little words are added and taken away , one small change makes an originally strong and clear intent a wishy-washy affair that has as many holes as a delicate fabric put on an intense cycle and then quick dried .
While the various Hague and Geneva conventions are really good examples of this the Kellog pact is even better . It had the best intent possible , it meant to be really clear , then the parties involved started putting it through the mangle argueing with each other over which words to change , then when they agreed with which words to change they went and argued with themselves over what the words they had agreed to really meant .
The result was a piece of legislation that was so badly worded and so full of loopholes that it could never really be used at all .
So the original intent is clear Panzer , but the resulting document does not reflect that intent and as this concerns a legal document it is the resulting document that matters when it comes to the issue of the legality of the actions in question .

[Kralizec]

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead.

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

Well, at least the Italians had no problems weasling themselves out of their treaty obligations...or turning on their former allies, for that matter.

[Meneldil]

I don't get that whole "XXX started WWI, that's their fault !". Everyone was seeing it coming since the 1880's.
The whole debate about who mobilized first, who attacked first, who did this and that is pretty much pointless. Unlike WWII that could IMHO have been avoided by simply spanking Hitler when he started the troubles, WWI was the main aim of most european nations.

And lol @ Krook. He alone makes visiting this forum worth it.