PDA

View Full Version : Victor's injustice



Rising Sun*
06-26-2009, 06:38 AM
It would be hard to find better, or worse, examples of the injustice of victors trying their enemies while ignoring their own crimes in virtually identical circumstances.


U-852(KL Heinz-Wilhelm Eck)
13 March 1944
Hellenic Steamship "Peleus"(4695grt)
02'00S,10'00W

"Peleus" had been en route ,in ballast,from Algiers and Freetown to Buenos
Aires.

This is the best known incident.Almost a total massacre.Only 3 were saved
from the crew of 35 and 6 gunners.

The U-boat rammed,machine-gunned,and threw hand grenades at survivors on rafts and in the water.Thirty six were killed.A boat containing three
survivors-two Hellenes and a Maltese- was found by the Portuguese steamship"Alexander Silva",near Equator,at 12.15 hrs on 20 April.Two other seamen had died.

Heinz Eck and four members of his crew were tried at the War Crimes Court
in Hamburg on 17 Octomber 1945.After a four day trial,all five were found
guilty.

Eck and two other officers from U-852-Lt. August Hoffman(2WO) and Oberstabsart Walter Weisspfennig(the Medical Officer) were sentenced to be shot.The Chief Engineer,Kl Hans Lenz was sentenced to life imprisonment,and
Matrosen-Gefreiter Wolfgang Schwender to 15 years imprisonment.

The executions were carried out on Luneberg Heath on 30 November 1945.
Eck was the only U-boat commander to be shot after the war for this type of
murder,but there were other similar incidents of atrocities carried out by
U-boats.


Torbay(Anthony "Crap" Miers)
9 July 1941
4 Caigues L1,LV1,LV,L12 and 1 schooner.
10 miles N of Antikithira,Aegean Sea

Four vessels were spotted east of Kithira.They were carrying
petrol,ammunition,food supplies,and 75 Bavarian mountains troops going on
leave from the German garrison on Crete.Torbay surfaced and destroyed the
nearest caique,and all aboard her,with 4-inch,Lewis and Bren guns.

As Torbay approached the second vessel,its German skipper,Ehlebracht,jumped
overboard with some of the crew and soldiers.Those who remained aboard
raised their arms in surrender.

Torbay was by now running short of ammunition,so Miers sent a boarding
party to sink the vessel with demolition charges.The SBS commandos,Corporal
Bremmer,who was leading the boarding party,saw a German about to throw a
grenade,and shot him with his Bren gun.Another member of the boarding party
shot a German who raised a rifle.

While the demolition charges were being set in the caique Bremmer rounded up and disarmed seven more Germans, and took them back to the submarine.Miers refused to allow them to be taken below,shouting furiously that submarines did not take prisoners.

Bremmer went to look for a raft or float but could not find one,and went below.

What happened after that is not entirely clear.The German skipper who was
still in the water, later reported that the men aboard the caique were
ordered into a rubber dinghy.Torbay`s log states that all aboard the caique
were forced to launch and jump into a large rubber float. It is not known
whether the soldiers aboard the Torbay were also ordered into the
float.

When Bremmer asked what happened to his prisoners he was told that
they have been shot in the water.No mention was made of a raft or float.

Miers may have thrown them into the sea and told Corporal Sherwood of the
SBS,and then Lt. Chapman to shoot them.Both refused.Miers then ordered
another crewmember to shoot them,and threatened to shoot the man if he did
not obey.

Miers was not a popular officer,and seems to have been prone to resorting
to such bullying tactics.On a later patrol he threatened to shoot Bremmer
when the commando refused to paddle ashore in a folding canoe in a gale.

Unlike Bremmer,the signalman ordered to shoot the unlucky soldiers in the
water did not call Mier`s bluff.According to Ehlebracht,fire was opened on
the rubber dinghy,killing two and wounding two others.The submarine then
circled twice around the troops swimming in the water and used machine-gun
fire in an attempt to bring them together.And the massacre started.Eight of
them were killed.

But Torbay left to chase the other vessels,only one of which
escaped.

Ehlebracht and some other survivors clung to the wreck of the caique,which remained afloat,and they were later rescued.

Miers made no attempts to conceal his actions.His log records: "Submarine
cast off,and with the Lewis gun accounted for the soldiers in the rubber
raft to prevent them regaining their ship"

Miers was congratulated on the success of his patrol,and was not
reprimanded for disregarding the Hague Convention in his treatment of
prisoners.It has been speculated that this may have been because German
dive-bombers had strafed British survivors in the water during the battle
of Crete.

However ,when Miers` report reached Admiral Horton in London,the Flag
Officer Submarines was concerned about German reprisals,and wrote to the
Board of Admiralty: "As far as I am aware,the enemy has not made a habit of
firing on personnel in the water or on rafts even when such personnel were
members of the fighting services;since the incidents referred to in
Torbay`s report, he may feel justified in doing so."The Admiralty wrote a
strong letter to Miers instructing him not to repeat the practices of his
last patrol.


Wahoo(Dudley "Mush" Morton)
26 January 1943
3 Japanese Ships-Names Unknown
Pacific Ocean.

On his first patrol Morton torpedoed and sank three Japanese ships,one of
them a troop transport with thousands aboard.After surfacing, Morton, who
had an "overwhelming, biological hatred of the enemy", appeared determined
to kill every one of the thousands floating there.The Japanese in the boats
and in the water were subjected to more than an hour of shelling with
4-inch and 20mm rounds which ripped through timbers,flesh and bone,staining
the sea red,and attracting sharks.It was a total massacre.

Morton made no attempt in his subsequent report to hide the massacre.On arrival at Pearl Harbour,Wahoo was flying a pennant with the boat`s slogan "Shoot the sunza bitches" printed on it!!!Morton claimed to have sunk 5 Japanese ships totalling 32,000 tons*,and became an instant hero in the US submarine service.

Admiral Lockwood christened Wahoo the one-boat wolf pack and most
unusually released the story of the patrol to the press.All US submarine
activities were normally kept secret to avoid giving the enemy any useful
information.Not for nothing was the submarine arm was known as the "Silent
Service".

The massacre of the survivors from the transport was not reported,nor questioned by the US Navy Staff.
Morton was decorated with the "Navy Cross" medal!!

There are various book and internet sources for these events, but they are conveniently collected at and, with some typo but not layout corrections, taken from http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/

Rising Sun*
06-26-2009, 06:51 AM
Another example of an Ally being as bad in victory as its enemy.


The former Buchenwald concentration camp became Special Camp Number 2, one of 10 camps and 3 prisons used for the internment of German citizens by the Soviet Secret Service (NKWD) in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany after World War II.

Since 1990, those who died in Special Camp Number 2 have been commemorated. The anonymous mass graves are now marked by pillars of steel, arranged as a forest cemetery, as shown in the photo above.

On July 3, 1945, the American army turned the Buchenwald concentration camp over to the Soviet Union since it was located in the area of Germany that had been given to the Soviet Union by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference before the end of the war. The last of the survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp were released, and barely four weeks after they were gone, the former Buchenwald concentration camp became a Communist internment camp for German prisoners.

The following quote is from the Buchenwald camp guidebook, written by Sabine and Harry Stein:

Although it soon assumed extensive and arbitrary proportions in the Soviet zone, the practice of internment was not without reason at the beginning. The boots of the German army had been devastating Europe for six years. Germans committed unimaginable atrocities in the name of their people. They ventured to exterminate whole nations in a merciless way with the help of a huge bureaucracy. The majority of the German people allowed this to happen and followed Hitler. Nobody expected them to welcome the allied troops as liberators but rather to reject and even to fight against these troops as invaders. For this reason, preventive measures to accompany the occupation process were already on the agenda of allied talks before the end of the war. Chapter III, paragraph 5 of the Potsdam Agreement signed by the allied powers in August 1945 says: 'Nazi party chiefs, influential followers of the Nazis and the management of the Nazi offices and organizations and any other person who is dangerous to the occupation and its aims shall be arrested and interned.' But the practices of internment were primarily determined by the character and by the particular interests of the respective occupying power in spite of these common agreements which were specified in detail by additional laws and instructions and accompanied the internment measures. Anti-Nazi policy was put in practice in the Soviet zone. The machinery of the security service controlled the special camps and made arrests in this zone - it ran the huge GULAG system in its own country. Thuringia was taken over by the Soviet military administration in July 1945. At the beginning, people from this region were sent to Buchenwald as this was the furthest west of all the special camps.

In the first month that Special Camp Number 2 was in operation, from August 20, 1945 to September 17, 1945, there were 1,392 persons interned. By the end of 1945, there were 6,000 in the camp. No records are available regarding the reason for the arrests.

The prisoners included a small group of top Nazis who were held to be responsible for crimes committed by the Nazis, a large number of low level officials in the Nazi party, members and leaders of the Hitler Youth (which was founded in nearby Weimar), members of the Waffen SS elite army, and German army officers in the Wehrmacht, which was the regular army. According to the camp guidebook, "a large number of persons came to the camp because they had been denounced, taken for somebody else or arrested in an arbitrary way."

Altogether there were 28,455 people interned in Special Camp Number 2 between August 1945 and February 1950, including approximately 1,000 women, some of whom brought very small children with them. The population of the camp reached its peak in the spring of 1947 when there were 16,371 prisoners in the camp.

The German inmates were housed in the same barracks used by the Nazis for their Communist prisoners. The Small Camp at the bottom of the hill was closed down and the rest of the camp was divided into four sections, separated by barbed wire. There was only a small guard unit and, as in the Nazi camp, the internal management of the camp was run by the prisoners.

The camp guidebook describes the miserable conditions in the camp:

The prisoners suffered from overcrowding, vermin and cold in the barracks. No clothing was issued to the prisoners. For long periods of time, it was not possible to replace worn out clothes or broken shoes. Bad sanitary conditions caused a large number of skin diseases and edema in addition to tuberculosis and dystrophy which were mainly due to undernourishment. Hunger and isolation seriously affected everyday life. Hunger was almost omnipresent. Mass deaths ensued when the restricted rations were cut temporarily. The catering situation reached its lowest level in Special Camp No. 2 in the winter of 1946 and 1947. Complete isolation from the outside world, enforced idleness and a lack of any positive prospects caused frequent depressions and other psychological diseases which accelerated physical decline. Soviet officials did not guarantee a minimum standard of detention which would have included contacts with relatives by letter or visits. Nothing was done to find out the guilt of individuals which might have allowed the liberation of many.

The mortality rate in the Soviet camps was higher than the rate shown by statistics in the Nazi camps. According to the camp records kept by the Soviet Union, there were 122,671 persons arrested and interned between 1945 and 1950 in the Soviet internment camp system in Germany, and 42,889 of them died. In addition, 756 persons were executed. The camp guidebook says that "This information has been questioned from various sides, requiring corroborative research."

There were 7,113 people who died in Special Camp Number 2, according to the Soviet records. They were buried in mass graves in the woods surrounding the camp. Their relatives did not receive any notification of their deaths.

Some of the prisoners at Special Camp Number 2 were transferred to the Soviet Union. The largest group left for the Soviet Union on February 8, 1947.

Only rarely were prisoners released on an individual basis. The highest number to be released at any one time was in July and August of 1948 when 9,250 people were released, most of them low level Nazi officials or women and young people; 4,268 prisoners remained in the camp.

The dissolution of the camp started on January 16, 1950 and it was concluded one month later. 2,415 prisoners from the camp were handed over to the government of the German Democratic Republic for the Waldheim trials, and the rest were set free.

After the camp was closed, the subject of the camp and the existence of the mass graves was taboo in East Germany. The barracks and other buildings were torn down after the German prisoners were released. There was no form of commemoration and no monuments were built to the victims.

There was no fanfare when the prisoners were finally released, and I was not aware of any coverage of the event in the American press. After the collapse of the German Democratic Republic and the unification of Germany, one of the mass graves near the camp was made a part of the Buchenwald Memorial Site. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/buchenwald/SpecialCamp.html

Egorka
06-26-2009, 12:33 PM
Hi!
I am have not read thoroughly the previous 2 post (sorry - time limit) so forgive me if irrelevant.
Just a short note that some time ago I saw similar video taken from an allied U-boat wherre sailor shoot at the enemy (Japanese?) in the water with handheld weapon. Available on YouTube.

redcoat
06-26-2009, 04:11 PM
Hi!
I am have not read thoroughly the previous 2 post (sorry - time limit) so forgive me if irrelevant.
Just a short note that some time ago I saw similar video taken from an allied U-boat where sailor shoot at the enemy (Japanese?) in the water with handheld weapon. Available on YouTube.
It should be noted that the British and US submariners shot at enemy military personnel in the water, while the U-boat captain shot at civilians. That makes a difference in international law, as civilians have the greater rights in this type of case.

Deaf Smith
06-26-2009, 09:14 PM
For some reason you guys think those with the 'white hats' have to be squeeky clean during war. You have alot to learn about war.

As B.H. Lindle Hart said, "War is doing evil in the hopes of some good coming from it."

You will never ever have the perfect war where even one side abides by all the rules all the time, much less all sides.

War is not cricket. And stop thinking it is.

Deaf

kuuk
06-26-2009, 09:22 PM
The U852 story reminds me of the book: "An Operational Necessity" by Gwyn Griffin. Anybody read that novel? A very good story.

Nickdfresh
06-26-2009, 09:32 PM
For some reason you guys think those with the 'white hats' have to be squeeky clean during war. You have alot to learn about war.

As B.H. Lindle Hart said, "War is doing evil in the hopes of some good coming from it."

You will never ever have the perfect war where even one side abides by all the rules all the time, much less all sides.

War is not cricket. And stop thinking it is.

Deaf

Then why hold war crimes trials at all?

Rising Sun*
06-27-2009, 06:53 AM
For some reason you guys think those with the 'white hats' have to be squeeky clean during war. You have alot to learn about war.

As B.H. Lindle Hart said, "War is doing evil in the hopes of some good coming from it."

You will never ever have the perfect war where even one side abides by all the rules all the time, much less all sides.

War is not cricket. And stop thinking it is.

Deaf

What I may or may not think about war is irrelevant to the historical fact that the Allies presented themselves as being morally superior to the Axis, and in particular in relation to their execution of civilians and combatants. As Churchill said to Stalin and Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference in November 1943 after Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers after the war to prevent Germany rising again as a war threat:


THE PRIME MINISTER took strong exception to what he termed the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country. He said that war criminals must pay for their crimes and individuals who had committed barbarous acts, and in accordance with the Moscow Document, which he himself had written, they must stand trial at the places where the crimes were committed. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=879

The Moscow Declaration and various other Allied documents leading to the Allies' war crimes trials support the Allied abhorrence of Axis war crimes and crimes against humanity, as does much Allied propaganda which portrayed the Allies as fighting for liberty and justice against totalitarian, murderous and outlaw regimes.

If the Allies maintained that it was wrong for the Axis to commit war crimes and that it was proper to prosecute them for their crimes, why shouldn't the same principle apply to Allied troops who committed war crimes?

Where are the laws in the Allied nations which absolve their troops of legal responsibility for war crimes?

However, if you want to maintain the position that shit happens in war and people need to get over it, then it follows that you have to accept that there are no grounds for complaint about, for example, the Bataan Death March, or, for that matter, Unit 731 and Pearl Harbor and a whole host of other Axis actions.

Rising Sun*
06-27-2009, 09:15 AM
It should be noted that the British and US submariners shot at enemy military personnel in the water, while the U-boat captain shot at civilians. That makes a difference in international law, as civilians have the greater rights in this type of case.

Could you clarify where international law makes it more acceptable to kill shipwrecked survivors in the water who are in the enemy's armed services rather than enemy civilians?

There are suggestions that some of the caiques shot at by Miers might have had non-German crews, but for the purposes of this discussion let's assume that they were German ships crewed by German naval personnel and leave them out of the discussion.

However, there is little doubt that the Buyo Maru, sunk and some of whose occupants were subsequently shot in the water by Morton's sub, was not in an equivalent position.

First, Maru denotes a merchant ship, which involves a civilian crew.

Second, Buyo Maru was carrying 491 Indian prisoners of war, 195 of whom died and, presumably, at least some of whom were killed by Morton's crew in the water. If so, this is quite different to the many Allied POWs inadvertenly killed by US subs sinking Japanese transports where the subs did not shoot the survivors in the water.

As with other of ("Mush" for "Mushmouth" = braggart) Morton's claims about what he sunk which subsequently were shown to be considerably less, post-war information shows that he badly overestimated, or simply overstated, the numbers killed in the water but the fact remains that his conduct in claiming to have killed upwards of 1,500 shipwrecked sailors in the water was applauded rather than seen as in any way unsatisfactory, let alone a war crime. Meanwhile the same conduct by the Japanese towards just one American in the same situation would have been seen as a war crime.


One of the main issues surrounding the charge of war crimes has been body count. Upon returning to Pearl Harbor on February 14, 1943, Morton claimed killing "most of the troops" from BUYO MARU, estimated at between "1,500 to 6,000." And from the perspective of WAHOO's smoke clouded, emotionally charged bridge, it was a fair claim to make. No attempt was made to count heads in the water and Japanese transport ships were entirely capable of carrying large numbers of men.

However, in DeRose's book, Japanese reports and first hand testimony reveals the true number of passengers lost and their nature. For BUYO MARU was not exclusively a troop transport but also a POW ship, loaded with 491 Indian prisoners of war. Along with a company of Japanese ordnance troops and crew, BUYO carried 1,126 men. And though the men of WAHOO assumed those left behind when they set off in pursuit of the rest of the convoy would be lost to the sea, Japanese rescue ships did arrive on the scene and take most of the survivors aboard. Head counts made en route to Palau indicated a total loss of 87 Japanese and 195 Indian prisoners (the disparity in numbers reflects a less-than-concerted Japanese effort to rescue the Indians).

While the number of victims can be sharply reduced from original estimates, the incident remains troublesome. http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html

Deaf Smith
06-30-2009, 09:36 PM
What I may or may not think about war is irrelevant to the historical fact that the Allies presented themselves as being morally superior to the Axis, and in particular in relation to their execution of civilians and combatants. As Churchill said to Stalin and Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference in November 1943 after Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers after the war to prevent Germany rising again as a war threat:

The allies, UK and the US, did not systematic set out to perform war crimes. Neither one had a policy to murder civilians. Neither one had a policy to murder POWs. And neither had a policy to conduct experiments on captives.

Yes there were atrocities done by SOME individuals in the UK and US militaries, but none were condoned by the heads of the government nor by high ranking officers.

And that is a big difference between them. The USSR, on the other hand, most certainly did have a policy to do great crimes.

So yes, the UK and US did consider themselves morally superior to the Axis. And with reason.

Deaf

Ivaylo
07-04-2009, 12:20 PM
in ww2 like in any other war everyone did crimes and that's the truth no matter how someone explain it with the great cause he was fighting for and etc. A fair tribunal had to punish all no matter on which side they were and that means russians , americans , germans and all who did things that were forbidden by the war code . By punishing only the one side and turning blind about yourself you become as your enemy .

Uyraell
01-19-2010, 11:09 AM
You know, RS old friend, reading your item posted above (#2) causes me to feel that Heinz Knoke, George Patton, and various other "radical thinkers" of the Post War era were correct: UK and USA should have re-armed the West Germans, and gone right on down the road to Moscow.

Rationally, I know damn well there'd have been a huge price to pay for that, but up to 1949 it could easily have been achievable, allowing for the huge numbers of lives it would have cost, from both sides.

Emotionally, however: I'm convinced that the Communist regime was every atom as bad as the Nazi regime it had replaced. Hence the feeling and reaction I have noted above.

Kindest Regards, Uyraell.

Ivaylo
01-19-2010, 05:21 PM
You know, RS old friend, reading your item posted above (#2) causes me to feel that Heinz Knoke, George Patton, and various other "radical thinkers" of the Post War era were correct: UK and USA should have re-armed the West Germans, and gone right on down the road to Moscow.

Rationally, I know damn well there'd have been a huge price to pay for that, but up to 1949 it could easily have been achievable, allowing for the huge numbers of lives it would have cost, from both sides.

Emotionally, however: I'm convinced that the Communist regime was every atom as bad as the Nazi regime it had replaced. Hence the feeling and reaction I have noted above.

Kindest Regards, Uyraell.
Not only you are convinced that the communist was bad as the nazi , but with the chance from the fortune and left alone from their Allies the Soviets did unimaginal things which overthrowed the Nazis ( simply maybe because nazis were on power for much little time ) , but these things done by them were kept in shadows for many years by the West , and in return for saving their own asses the west leaved the communist to act as animals killing and murdering many in europe , all because the Soviets did a favor to the allies .And still the West don't condemn the communist regime as the nazi , did you seen any official position of harsh words against the Soviet sistem from
Barroso or Obama , or their ex conterparts ? No , and you won't because the west have to accept it guilt and stupidiness for allowing the soviets to conquer half europe to make them slaves , to put their inteligence into death camps ( yes the same as Buhenwald ) , while watching and playing 45 years cold wars . And i am not speaking for my country which you will call pro - Nazi supporter , what about Yugoslavia , Poland etc ? Did they diserve Churchil and Roosevelt to play god game with Stalin and to throw them away for 45 years slavery ? No .

Egorka
01-20-2010, 02:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IfGUSBSF4I

Saxon
01-20-2010, 07:24 AM
You know, RS old friend, reading your item posted above (#2) causes me to feel that Heinz Knoke, George Patton, and various other "radical thinkers" of the Post War era were correct: UK and USA should have re-armed the West Germans, and gone right on down the road to Moscow.

Rationally, I know damn well there'd have been a huge price to pay for that, but up to 1949 it could easily have been achievable, allowing for the huge numbers of lives it would have cost, from both sides.

Emotionally, however: I'm convinced that the Communist regime was every atom as bad as the Nazi regime it had replaced. Hence the feeling and reaction I have noted above.

Kindest Regards, Uyraell.

This could not "easily have been achievable". Democracies like the US and UK require a weight of political will.

I agree that Stalin was as bad as Hilter, and his communists as bad as the NAZI party. Churchill understood this, and wrote about it several times, but he could not be too public because the USSR was needed as an ally to defeat the more pressing threat of Germany.

Once Germany was defeated, the UK no longer had the heart for war. WWI left a huge impression on the UK, and the loss of children, brothers, uncles and nephews was keenly felt.

I am English and am familiar with the long lists of WWI dead in every small village.

Churchill had to rally the people just to defend themselves against Hitler. He could not have convinced the British to start another war against the USSR. Not after 5 years of bombings, war dead, countless ships sunk, rations etc.

Same with the US. The US had a long history (at that point) of isolationism, and only eventually joined the war because they had no choice after Pearl Harbour.

One of my largest regrets is letting Poland down. Poland was the reason we declared war, but things changed over the course of the war, from concern about other nations to self preservation. It's perhaps possible the UK and US could have taken a very firm stand on Poland, insisting on Polands freedom. And even a limited war to free Poland (call Stalins bluff), but not all the way to Moscow, could not have happened.

Don't forget Churchill was voted out of office a few months after the war ended. He did not have solid grip on the country despite victory over Germany.


regards,
Saxon

Nickdfresh
01-20-2010, 09:33 AM
This could not "easily have been achievable". Democracies like the US and UK require a weight of political will.

I agree that Stalin was as bad as Hilter, and his communists as bad as the NAZI party. Churchill understood this, and wrote about it several times, but he could not be too public because the USSR was needed as an ally to defeat the more pressing threat of Germany.

Once Germany was defeated, the UK no longer had the heart for war. WWI left a huge impression on the UK, and the loss of children, brothers, uncles and nephews was keenly felt.

I am English and am familiar with the long lists of WWI dead in every small village.

Churchill had to rally the people just to defend themselves against Hitler. He could not have convinced the British to start another war against the USSR. Not after 5 years of bombings, war dead, countless ships sunk, rations etc.

Same with the US. The US had a long history (at that point) of isolationism, and only eventually joined the war because they had no choice after Pearl Harbour.

One of my largest regrets is letting Poland down. Poland was the reason we declared war, but things changed over the course of the war, from concern about other nations to self preservation. It's perhaps possible the UK and US could have taken a very firm stand on Poland, insisting on Polands freedom. And even a limited war to free Poland (call Stalins bluff), but not all the way to Moscow, could not have happened.

Don't forget Churchill was voted out of office a few months after the war ended. He did not have solid grip on the country despite victory over Germany.


regards,
Saxon

Exactly. American troops were already on the verge of riot at the idea of now having to go to Japan after winning "their" War in the ETO. Which brings up the point that the War with Japan was still going on. It would have been a very tough sell to the US public to attack their Soviet "ally" after hundreds of thousands of them soaked the soil around places like Stalingrad with their blood and had suffered more than any other to defeat fascism. I agree with the notion that Stalin was a monumental **** on par with Hitler, but then, in any war between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, a lot of ordinary Russians, Ukrainians, etc. would perish.

Who would be the tyrant then? Is it okay to kill civilians simply because you have good intentions, or better intentions, for their surviving relatives after you win? Assuming a decisive victory was in any way inevitable or even possible. I believe we have a thread on a hypothetical Allies vs. Soviet War, and it is a very mind-boggling "what-if."..

Anthony Beevor did set out some interesting "what-ifs" in The Fall of Berlin where he relates the idea (mainly from Churchill) of blitzing on beyond the Elbe and trying to take as much of Germany as possibly before the final Soviet offensive, and using Berlin and the right to occupy Germany as a sort of bargaining chip against the inevitable Soviet bulwarking of Eastern Europe. I believe both Montgomery and Patton had contingency plans to drive to Berlin and take it in a pincer, and Ike slapped both them down and rebuffed Churchill.

Beevor also writes that Eisenhower was genuinely naive about the Soviet intentions, and that Churchill had better foresight regarding the Cold War. But he also plainly states that had Monty's and Patton's armies driven for Berlin and sort of did an impression of the Zhukov and Konev rivalry, the Red Army might have indeed fired on them as at first a "mistaken," proverbial "shot-across-the-bow"--and later blatantly as a warning...

Deaf Smith
01-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Exactly. American troops were already on the verge of riot at the idea of now having to go to Japan after winning "their" War in the ETO. Which brings up the point that the War with Japan was still going on. It would have been a very tough sell to the US public to attack their Soviet "ally" after hundreds of thousands of them soaked the soil around places like Stalingrad with their blood and had suffered more than any other to defeat fascism. I agree with the notion that Stalin was a monumental **** on par with Hitler, but then, in any war between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, a lot of ordinary Russians, Ukrainians, etc. would perish.

I'd only hope if we declared war on the USSR in '45, we would have had plenty of ATOM BOMBS. After all, we did have an awful lot of B-29s and I really don't think the Russians could stop them.

If we tried a ground war, yes it would have been a very tough sell, but an air war complete with nuclear weapons? I dunno.

But we didn't and we are still here, so maybe it was the best decision to use the strategy of containment and not one of all out war.

Yes Stalin was just as bad has Hitler (worse as he had many more years to murder so many of his countrymen) but that was their problem, not ours. It's real difficult to ask people to send their sons to fight for people they don't know and never would have met.

Deaf

Rising Sun*
01-20-2010, 06:19 PM
Which brings up the point that the War with Japan was still going on. It would have been a very tough sell to the US public to attack their Soviet "ally" after hundreds of thousands of them soaked the soil around places like Stalingrad with their blood and had suffered more than any other to defeat fascism.

Most probably.

One of the lasting impressions I got from reading Studs Terkel's book The Good War quite a few years ago was how perplexed many Americans were by the shift in attitude at the end of the war towards the Soviets to a type of enemy after years of propaganda about how the Soviets were their brave Allies.

Saxon
01-22-2010, 01:20 PM
I'd only hope if we declared war on the USSR in '45, we would have had plenty of ATOM BOMBS. After all, we did have an awful lot of B-29s and I really don't think the Russians could stop them.



The US only had two A-bombs, and they were both used. The US hoped Japan would think they had more. Because they could not have another for many many months, certainly not in 1945.

The elements needed were rare and the process to produce a bomb long and painstaking.

I'm not sure how many and when more bombs could have been made. I would be interested to know.


Saxon

Nickdfresh
01-22-2010, 06:47 PM
Weren't one or more A-bombs near completion though?

Uyraell
01-23-2010, 08:08 PM
Weren't one or more A-bombs near completion though?

Nick, as far as I can recall, from having read Leslie Grove's book, (I think "Inside the Manhattan Project" - I no longer have the book) there was a concerted program to produce enough fissile material for 5 Atom Bombs, and indeed this was done, The "bottleneck" was in producing containers suitable for the safe transport of the fissile material.

The early model of container, had been deemed "barely adequate" and had been ordered to be re-designed and a better version manufactured.
Thus, these two factors influence the production of the 4th and 5th bombs, and their belated completion.

The third bomb Groves says, was stored, in case another raid had to be sent against the Japanese mainland.

IIRC, Groves says that by 1947, there were 9 A-bombs in existance, though I do not now recall how many of each type, make up that number.

I hope this infobit is of assistance.

Kindest Regards, Uyraell.

Deaf Smith
01-23-2010, 11:00 PM
I'm not sure how many and when more bombs could have been made. I would be interested to know.
Saxon

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

Memo of a telephone conversation between a Colonel Seaman of the Manhattan Project, and General Hull, of Marshall's staff, outlining the production schedule. Basically, the US intended to produce one atomic bomb roughly every 10 days, and use them against Japan. But Marshall was aware that there would be an issue of "diminishing returns" involving the use of the atomic bombs.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

"While Groves was making plans for the use of a third atomic weapon sometime after 17 August, depending on the weather, Marshall’s note on this memo shows that he was following Truman’s instructions to halt nuclear strikes: “It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.”

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Yoichi-Funabashi/1757

Stanford University professor Barton Bernstein, a prominent scholar in the history of atomic bombs, writes in an essay titled "Eclipsed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki": "Had the surrender not arrived at the 14th and if the war had dragged on into the next week, (Harry) Truman would undoubtedly have used at least one more A-bomb on a city and probably even more cities or other targets. If such nuclear pummeling did not soon produce the desired surrender, and if Truman did not retreat to offer softer surrender terms, Marshall's loose plan for tactical nuclear usage with the Kyushu invasion might have looked attractive to the White House."

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Atomic:bombings:of:Hiroshima:and:Nagasaki.htm


From Dan Ford's old web site:

"In an August 2002 interview with Studs Terkel published in the British Guardian newspaper, Paul Tibbetts recalled something similar: "Unknown to anybody else--I knew it, but nobody else knew--there was a third one. See, the first bomb went off and they didn't hear anything out of the Japanese for two or three days. The second bomb was dropped and again they were silent for another couple of days. Then I got a phone call from General Curtis LeMay. He said, 'You got another one of those damn things?' I said, 'Yessir.' He said, 'Where is it?' I said, 'Over in Utah.' He said, 'Get it out here. You and your crew are going to fly it.' I said, 'Yessir.' I sent word back and the crew loaded it on an airplane and we headed back to bring it right on out to Tinian and when they got it to California debarkation point, the war was over."


Plus from the book "Downfall" p 303 by Richard Frank

There was a third atomic bomb target. The next bomb would be ready by August 21st and the six targets on the list in order of priority were:

1. Sapporo
2. Hakodate
3. Oyabu
4. Yokosuka
5. Osaka
6. Nagoya

So a good chance Sapporo would have had an instant sunrise if Japan had not surrendered.

PLUS:

In the NARA files General Groves' memos to General Marshall exist.

Leslie R. Groves' Memo to the
Chief of Staff (George C. Marshall)
30 July 1945
MEMORANDUM TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF

(a few paragraphs after Groves describes the successful Trinity test to Marshall)

3. There is a definite possibility, [sensitive information deleted] as we increase our rate of production at the Hanford Engineer Works, with the type of weapon tested that the blast will be smaller due to detonation in advance of the optimum time. But in any event, the explosion should be on the order of thousands of tons. The difficulty arises from an undesirable isotope which is created in greater quantity as the production rate increases.

4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have (already) arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by air-plane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four [more] bombs. One of these will be made from (U) 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or five bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November there should be at least five bombs [more], and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the (U) 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type.

5. By mid-October we could increase the number of bombs slightly by changing our design now to one using both materials in the same bomb. I have not made this change because of the ever present possibilities of difficulties in new designs. We could, if it were wise, change our plans and develop the combination bomb. But if this is to be done, it would entail an initial ten-day production setback which would be caught up in about a month's time; unless the decision to change were made before August 1st, in which case it would probably not entail any delay. From what I know of the world situation, it would seem wiser not to make this change until the effects of the present bomb are determined.

L.R. GROVES
Major General, U.S.A.
Source: Manhattan Engineer District -- Top Secret (de-classified), Manhattan Project File, Folder 4, Trinity Test, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

In short, we could have had seveal bombs and just about vaporized every Japanes major city... one by one.

Deaf

Wizard
02-04-2010, 10:48 PM
It would be hard to find better, or worse, examples of the injustice of victors trying their enemies while ignoring their own crimes in virtually identical circumstances.

There are various book and internet sources for these events, but they are conveniently collected at and, with some typo but not layout corrections, taken from http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/

A few comments I think appropriate.

First, the link you provided is no longer operative; however, I remember most of the details from Peter Padfield's "War Beneath the Sea" and also Clay Blair's "Silent Victory"

Secondly, the trial of Eck and the other officers of the U-852 was conducted entirely by the British; No Americans were involved, and the United States declined any involvement in the matter.

Third, Lt. Cmdr. Morton certainly did kill at least dozens of Japanese military personnel from ships that he had sunk, but it was not a war crime. The incident cited by you took place, but you neglected to mention, and possibly were unaware, of one pertinent fact. When the Wahoo surfaced and began charging it's batteries near the Japanese survivors, a number of them had taken pistols and rifles into the lifeboats with them, and at least one individual (and probably several) opened fire on the Wahoo. At that point, it became Morton's duty to return the fire. He could have simply moved out of range, but he didn't and under the rules if war wasn't required to do so.

I have never heard the claim of Indian POW's being present and can find no mention of it anywhere in the sources I have read. However, if there were POW's present, it was incumbent upon the Japanese authorities to notify the US that POW's were being transported by Japanese ships and arrange a safe conduct for them. The Japanese routinely ignored such niceties during the war, And this led to the deaths of hundred, perhaps thousands of Allied POW's. Submarine skippers had absolutely no way of knowing which Japanese ships were transporting captured Allied personnel.

There was also an incident where an American sub skipper sank a Japanese hospital ship and was not punished for it. It's possible that no punishment was forthcoming because, the sub involved cruised through the floating wreckage and picked up several bales of raw rubber; the hospital ship, in violation of international law, was transporting vital war materials in it's hold.

There was another incident where Japanese survivors were machine-gunned in the water and in lifeboats. This was the aftermath of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea when eight Japanese military transports and four Japanese destroyers were sunk by American and Australian air attack in early March, 1943. The convoy had been transporting the Japanese 51st Division and it's equipment to Lae on New Guinea. When the ships went down, the soldiers took to the lifeboats carrying their rifles, light machine guns, and in at least one case, a 75MM artillery piece on an improvised raft. The Allies attacked the survivors with machine-gun and cannon fire from aircraft and PT boats; very few Japanese survived to reach land. Was this a war crime? I don't know. The Japanese were armed, and apparently intended to carry on the fight; the Allies on the other hand, went out intending to kill any Japanese survivors they could find and even shot at those in the water. It seems both sides expected no quarter and gave none.

Digger
02-05-2010, 07:26 AM
If Japanese survivors had armed themselves they were certainly legitimate military targets.

I think the discussion point centres around the lack of opposing 'evidence'.

digger

forager
02-05-2010, 09:54 AM
My dad fought across Europe with the 506th PIR.
They were on stand down in Austria when notified they were going to the Pacific.

No riots, just a sense of continuing their duty as US fighting men.
I don't believe anybody ever considred themselves as continental or hemispherically specific.

Hirohito gave up before they got transported.

Studs Terkel wrote some really good stuff.
A lot of folks today don't realise that during our great depression, communism was not seen as demonic at all.
That changed with time.

Wizard
02-05-2010, 12:37 PM
If Japanese survivors had armed themselves they were certainly legitimate military targets.

I think the discussion point centres around the lack of opposing 'evidence'.

digger

I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "...lack of opposing 'evidence'." If you are referring to evidence that the Japanese survivors were armed, I don't think that is seriously in question; numerous Wahoo crewmen, including Richard O'Kane, Morton's Exec (later skipper of USS Tang), were on Wahoo's bridge and witnessed the Japanese returning fire.

Moreover, some of the Japanese were in motorized landing craft and had every possibility of reaching New Guinea, armed and in fighting order. Had the Wahoo simply come upon such vessels on the open sea, there is no question but that Morton would have been justified in firing on them.

I believe even Japanese records concede that the troops in these and other similar incidents, were armed and intended to carry on the fight. Admiral Gene Fluckey wrote in his book "Thunder Below" that, in a later incident, the USS Barb torpedoed a transport which was carrying a landing barge, and that as the ship sank the barge floated off. The Barb passed close to the barge and received gunfire from it, but did not return the fire. In the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, less than a month after the Wahoo's third patrol, and in the same general area as the sinking of the Buyo Maru, Japanese troops, abandoning their sinking transports, made every effort to retain their arms and ammunition when taking to their boats. To me this clearly establishes a pattern which supports the claim that the Japanese fired on by Wahoo were armed.

On another issue; that Lt. Cmdr. Morton was nicknamed "Mushmouth" because he was deemed a braggart, this charge is entirely without merit. Morton received his nickname while in the US Naval Academy, long before he was in command of any submarine. According to several accounts, he was so nicknamed because of 1.0 his tendency to tell long-winded stories, 2.) his pronounced Kentucky accent, or 3.) his resemblance to a cartoon character of that name. To infer that a man is a braggart is an insult and one that Morton, as a southerner, would not have tolerated.

As for his claims of ships sunk, Morton was certainly not any different than any other submarine skipper in any navy in over-claiming sinkings; some were far worse than he. In fact, there is a great deal of controversy among USN sub skippers and crewmen about the accuracy of the JANAC postwar findings on Japanese shipping losses; many contend that submarines in general were under-credited with sinkings, and there is some reason to believe that this may be true.

Furthermore, Morton was among the very few US sub skippers who, as a routine, allowed his Exec to man the periscope during attacks. If he was intending to consciously over-claim sinkings, he certainly would not have allowed another crew member to observe the actual attack through the periscope.

Digger
02-06-2010, 05:54 AM
All I am saying is if there were no Japanese survivors, or any independant witnesses then the facts cannot be disputed.

digger:)

Rising Sun*
02-06-2010, 06:44 AM
I have never heard the claim of Indian POW's being present and can find no mention of it anywhere in the sources I have read.

I thought it was reasonably well documented.


In a supremely ironic and tragic postscript, it was later revealed that the Buyo Maru also carried 491 British allied Indian P.O.W’s, 195 of which were killed. This was information that Morton obviously did not have at the time. The remainder of the ship’s 1,126 troops, P.O.W’s, and crew were rescued by the Japanese. All told only 87 Japanese were killed. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/usswahoo.aspx

See also, for example, at p.173
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UrhBItGMEH4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=execute+against+japan&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false



However, if there were POW's present, it was incumbent upon the Japanese authorities to notify the US that POW's were being transported by Japanese ships and arrange a safe conduct for them.

How would that have altered the result when the US was conducting unrestriced submarine warfare against Japan?

Rising Sun*
02-06-2010, 06:47 AM
All I am saying is if there were no Japanese survivors, or any independant witnesses then the facts cannot be disputed.

digger:)

How dare you make such a facile comment in a thread entitled "Victor's injustice". ;) :D

Wizard
02-06-2010, 12:22 PM
All I am saying is if there were no Japanese survivors, or any independant witnesses then the facts cannot be disputed.

digger:)

Well actually, if there were no Japanese survivors, or independent witnesses, such a hypothetical case would likely be subject to endless speculation and irresolvable dispute. However, since I'm aware of no such historical situation, it's a moot point.

Wizard
02-06-2010, 12:57 PM
I thought it was reasonably well documented.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/usswahoo.aspx

See also, for example, at p.173
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UrhBItGMEH4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=execute+against+japan&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Well, it seems to be reasonably well documented now, but I note both the authorities you have cited are very recent, appearing only in the last 14 months. Apparently, the presence of the Indian POW's was not known until Japanese records were examined, because earlier scholarship turned up no knowledge of them. Incidentally, page 173, of "Execute Against Japan" is deleted from the Google Books link. Just goes to show that history is never complete.

On a side note, I wonder why the Japanese were transporting 491 Indian POW's to (or from??) New Guinea? New Guinea was a war zone; under international law, POW's are to be removed from active war zones as soon as possible.


How would that have altered the result when the US was conducting unrestriced submarine warfare against Japan?

Not all vessels sailing through a war zone were attacked by USN subs. Soviet Ships, properly marked and lighted, transiting the La Perouse Strait between southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido (both under Japanese control during most of WW II) were granted safe passage by US subs.

Moreover, unrestricted warfare does not preclude the possibility that safe passage for certain vessels may be arranged on a per voyage basis. Hospital ships, for example, are generally granted safe passage as a routine, unless there is a suspicion that the rules under which safe passage is granted are being abused. Diplomatic exchange vessels are another example; at least two such vessel sailed safely during WW II. It is, therefore, safe to assume that had the Japanese arranged for safe passage for ships transporting POW's, the USN would have recognized the status of such ships which, in turn, would have reduced the number of POW deaths accordingly.

Of course, as desperate as the Japanese soon became for imports of vital raw materials to support their war effort, they probably would have abused this privilege, as they did in the case of hospital ships, leading to the US revoking safe passage.

Rising Sun*
02-07-2010, 05:02 AM
Incidentally, page 173, of "Execute Against Japan" is deleted from the Google Books link. Just goes to show that history is never complete.

It's still working for me. I just click on the link and then scroll down to p.173.


On a side note, I wonder why the Japanese were transporting 491 Indian POW's to (or from??) New Guinea?

They were Indians in the British forces captured in Malaya who refused to join the Indian National Army or otherwise assist the Japanese. Perhaps as many as 10,000 were transported to New Guinea. More info here http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/indians.asp


New Guinea was a war zone; under international law, POW's are to be removed from active war zones as soon as possible.

Perhaps, but Japan wasn't exactly a glorious example of observance of international law or proper treatment of POWs. The Indians were transported from a non-war zone to a war zone to be employed on war zone construction.



Not all vessels sailing through a war zone were attacked by USN subs. Soviet Ships, properly marked and lighted, transiting the La Perouse Strait between southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido (both under Japanese control during most of WW II) were granted safe passage by US subs.

I should hope so. The Soviets were on the same side as America. During WWII, anyway.


Moreover, unrestricted warfare does not preclude the possibility that safe passage for certain vessels may be arranged on a per voyage basis. Hospital ships, for example, are generally granted safe passage as a routine, unless there is a suspicion that the rules under which safe passage is granted are being abused.
.....
Of course, as desperate as the Japanese soon became for imports of vital raw materials to support their war effort, they probably would have abused this privilege, as they did in the case of hospital ships, leading to the US revoking safe passage.

It had nothing to do with imports of war materials, at least in the case of the night sinking of the conspicuously marked and fully lit hospital ship Centaur about half way down the east coast of Australia in May 1943. http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/centaur/index.asp The Japanese were carrying on their own unrestricted submarine warfare, albeit not very intelligently or effectively as they failed to grasp the importance of attacking merchant shipping like the Allies.

Japan responded to Australia’s complaint about the sinking of the Centaur by denying it and complaining about Allied attacks on Japanese hospital ships, which suggests that both sides attacked hospital ships and perhaps the Allies more than the Japanese.

From the Japanese Foreign Office at the time.


GENERAL - W17455 18 Dec. 1943
Attacks on Japanese hospital ships. Refers to Berne telegram No. 2804 , 5th June (W7731/379/49). The Japanese Government deny that the hospital ship "Centaur" was sunk by Japanese forces and protest against attacks on the Japanese hospital ships Takasago Maru; Arabia Maru; American Maru; Manilla Maru; Ural; Huso Maru; Buenos Aires Maru; Muro Maru; and Mizoho Maru. Requests that this protest may be passed to the Australian Government. http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/milligan/centaur/FO36575-6


The original of the following document is very hard to read, so there may be some transcription errors.



PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT
CABLEGRAM
Dated:- 25th December, 1943
Received:- 26th December, 1943
DECYPHER FROM:-
The High Commissioners Office,
LONDON
244. S E C R E T
Your telegram 73 of 18th May.
The British Prime Minister at Berne has now telegraphed as follows:-
The Swiss Minister at Tokyo has received a communication from the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs for transmission to the Australian Government of which the following is the substance:-
Australia addressed to Japan a protest concerning the loss of the hospital ship CENTAUR alleging that the ship was torpedoed by Japanese submarine in Queensland waters on 14 May, 1943. Thorough enquiry by the Japanese Government as revealed no facts justifying the Australian allegation. Japan therefore, categorically states that she cannot x the Australian Government's protests and that she can take no responsibility for any Australian claims. Japan protests (group undecypherable) to Australia concerning frequent attacks conducted by enemy planes and submarines against the hospital ship TAKASAGO MARU and eight other Japanese military hospital ships and reserve all rights because these attacks constitute an obvious violation not only of the Hague Convention of 1907 for adoption to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention but also of International Law. Further, these acts must be considered as barbarities against the principles of humanity in view of the fact that the names of the ships were communicated to the enemy Government with all other necessary information in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention. these ships were sufficiently illuminated at night in conformity with Article 5 and on them in the following circumstances.
(i) TAKASAGO MARU was hit by two torpedoes fired by enemy submarines on 26 April, 1942, at 0133 hours in position 3 degrees 19 minutes south and 127 degrees 27 minutes east. The ship received damage to steering gear, machinery controlling steering gear and hull.
(ii) Arabian MARU suffered repeated bombardments by three "Consolidated" planes one 4th January, 1943, in the Port of Rangoon. More than 10 bombs fell near the ship causing damage
(iii) American MARU suffered an attack of enemy aircraft which dropped four bombs and then swept the ship with machine gun fire on 30th January, 1943, at 0430 hours in position 4 degrees 12 minutes 38 seconds south and 152 degrees 17 minutes 45 east. the same ship suffered on the second occasion an attack from a consolidated plane which dropped four bombs and machine gunned it on 6th September at 1129 hours in position one degree 32 minutes south and 49 degrees 19 minutes east. Three members of the crew were wounded and the hull damaged.
(iv) Manila MARU was attacked with two torpedoes by enemy submarines on 4th March, 1943, at 1120 hours in position 136 degrees 17 minutes east 5 degrees 26 minutes north; the ship escaped by changing course.
(v) Ural was dive-bombed by an enemy plane on 3rd April, 1943, at 1459 hours in position 2 degrees 47 minutes south and 150 degrees 7 minutes east. 7 dead and ten seriously wounded. One bomb scored a direct hit and bombs fell near the ship causing damage to the hull.
(vi) Huso MARU was bombarded three times by enemy planes which dropped three flares and five bombs on the night of 15th April 1943 Position 152 degrees 20 minutes east, three degrees 33 minutes south. On 16th April between 1813? hours and 2022 hours Huso Maru was attacked by enemy planes twice in the same place with machine guns and four times with bombs. Damage to hull.
(vii) Buenos Aires MARU was attacked with torpedoes off Hong Kong on 25th April 1943 at 1545 hours by enemy submarines. Seven wounded and damage to hull.
(viii) Mare? MARU Was torpedoed by a submarines on 1st July, 1943, at 0903? hours. Position 7 degrees 37 minutes north 134 degrees 26? minutes east.
(ix) Mizuho MARU was attacked by enemy planes which dropped three bombs on 1st July, 1943, at 0217? hours. Position 152 degrees 13 minutes east 3 degrees 42? minutes south. http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/centaur.htm

Wizard
02-07-2010, 05:14 PM
It's still working for me. I just click on the link and then scroll down to p.173.

The link itself works, but when I get to the web page with the book on it, page 173 of the book is not available. There is a notation at the end of page 148 that says, "Pages 149-182 are not part of this book review." The book skips from page 148 to page 183; none of the intervening pages are available to me, and , I assume, anyone else accessing that web site.


They were Indians in the British forces captured in Malaya who refused to join the Indian National Army or otherwise assist the Japanese. Perhaps as many as 10,000 were transported to New Guinea. More info here http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/indians.asp

I'm well aware that thousands of Indian Army POW's were taken by the Japanese in Malaya, Singapore, Burma and to a lesser extent in Borneo. However, I had not heard of any Indian POW's being shipped to New Guinea or nearby Japanese bases. According to your source, very few historians wrote about those Indian POW's, and they themselves did not publish many accounts of their captivity. There seems to be a reluctance in western literature to mention them, perhaps because their exact status is rather murky; "The evidence of Indian and Japanese protagonists also presents challenges in deciding what actually occurred in the light of conflicting testimonies. Indeed, the evidence is so problematic that the few historians who have examined them have reached very different conclusions. Much of the evidence comes from surviving prisoners themselves, raising suspicions at the time and later that their testimony served to conceal "disloyal" decisions and actions."


Perhaps, but Japan wasn't exactly a glorious example of observance of international law or proper treatment of POWs. The Indians were transported from a non-war zone to a war zone to be employed on war zone construction.

Yes, that would be the presumption. The Japanese were not in the habit of granting POW's cruises to exotic spots for the purpose of sight-seeing. It seems odd to me that Allied accounts of the fighting in New Guinea, New Britain, and other places in the area, do not contain mention of encountering liberated Indian POW's whom the Japanese had put to work on construction of Japanese bases in the area.


I should hope so. The Soviets were on the same side as America. During WWII, anyway.

Actually, most of the Soviet ships steaming through La Perouse Strait had begun their voyage either in Seattle or San Francisco, and many had been built in those places. But that completely misses the point of my mentioning it.

I mentioned it because it proves that it was possible for submarines to recognize markings on ships indicating that they were not to be attacked. A few were actually torpedoed by US submarines, but in every case it was because they were not displaying the agreed upon recognition markings or lights, or because of visibility which precluded the use of such markings..


It had nothing to do with imports of war materials, at least in the case of the night sinking of the conspicuously marked and fully lit hospital ship Centaur about half way down the east coast of Australia in May 1943. http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/centaur/index.asp The Japanese were carrying on their own unrestricted submarine warfare, albeit not very intelligently or effectively as they failed to grasp the importance of attacking merchant shipping like the Allies.

Japan responded to Australia’s complaint about the sinking of the Centaur by denying it and complaining about Allied attacks on Japanese hospital ships, which suggests that both sides attacked hospital ships and perhaps the Allies more than the Japanese.

From the Japanese Foreign Office at the time.

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/milligan/centaur/FO36575-6


The original of the following document is very hard to read, so there may be some transcription errors.

http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/centaur.htm

I am well aware of the Centaur incident, but do not consider it relevant to the discussion. The perpetrator of the Centaur atrocity was a war criminal who also was involved in other episodes of blatant crimes against humanity.

The examples of US submarines torpedoing Japanese hospital ships are interesting, but hardly conclusive. For instance, the Takasago Maru's TROM indicates she was torpedoed twice by US subs; first on 8 April, 1942, by USS Porpoise, SS-172, sustaining light damage, and then 18 days later on 26 April, 1942, by USS Pickerel, SS-177, again sustaining light damage. The Porpoise's patrol report indicates that she attacked a "cargo vessel", which might indicate that the Takasago Maru was improperly marked and lighted or that visibility was so poor that markings would not be discernible. The attack by the Pickerel was not even noted in her war patrol report. Under the circumstances. it seems that a hospital ship, attacked by two separate submarines within 18 days, suggests to me that she was not properly marked or lighted, or was engaged in some activity prohibited by international law. The torpedoes which struck the Takasago Maru are presumed to have been duds. Had the warheads exploded itr's unlikely that sh could have been repaired in the time indicated in her TROM.

I can find no data on the other Japanese vessels purportedly attacked by Submarines. As for the air attacks, that was a problem throughout the war and on all sides because aircraft attacking ships seldom had the chance to identify ship's markings while making bombing attacks. Ships were particularly difficult to identify from aircraft, in any case.

Continued.......

Wizard
02-07-2010, 05:16 PM
Continued from Previous post......

I did find a report which verifies that the Japanese illegally used hospital ships to transport troops and military supplies;

U.S.S. CHARRETTE (DD581)
Care Fleet Post Office
San Francisco, Calif.
17 August 1945.

From: The Medical Officer.
To: The Commanding Officer.
Subject: Report on Japanese Hospital Ship TACHIBANA MARU.

1. This report concerns e Japanese Hospital Ship TACHIBANA MARU, designated by the Japanese Government as AH-31, in October 1943. She is not a large vessel. Her gross weight is seventeen hundred seventy-two (1772) tons, with a length of two hundred forty-nine (249) feet and a beam of forty (40) feet. She is powered by diesel engines and has a maximum speed of sixteen (16) knots and a normal cruising speed of fourteen (14) knots.

2. The TACHIBANA MARU was boarded at 0658 on the morning of 3 August in the Banda Sea north of Timor. The purpose of the boarding was for a routine check on patients and cargo.

3. The senior Japanese medical officer escorted the medical inspecting party, which consisted of the author and one hospital corpsman, thru those parts of the ship quartering the patients. The Japanese doctor, an Army captain, was polite and correct in manner, but declined to elaborate on any questions asked, such as specific methods of treatment and his personal opinion as to the physical condition of the patients. When asked if he had anticipated the death of any patients on the trip, he replied that he had not. All patients lay with eyes closed while the inspecting party was passing thru the wards, no doubt previously instructed to look as sick as possible. No objections were voiced when the inspection party pried into several large boxes marked with red crosses and labeled medical supplies. These were found to contain thousands of ampoules of vitamin preparations. As the inspection progressed the Japanese medical officer became noticeably nervous and it was with relief that our party climbed out of the holds and up to the relative security of the bridge.

4. Contraband of war consisting of arms and ammunition was found by the search party at 0750 and the ship was then taken over by our force and sailed into an Allied port for further investigation.

5. An excellent opportunity for appraisal of the ship as a hospital ship as well as Japanese medical methods was afforded on the trip in. Fortunately, one of the junior medical officers proved very cooperative and most of the following information was obtained from him.

FACTS OF GENERAL INTEREST

1. The junior medical officer came aboard the TACHIBANA MARU on 17 December 1944, at Manila. He had previously served three years aboard Army troop ships. He stated that since he reported aboard, the TACHIBANA MARU had made trips between Saigon, Takao, Java, Singapore, Celebes, Sumatra, and other Japanese occupied islands in the Southwest Pacific. At no time had the ship carried more than seven hundred (700) patients, which was normal maximum capacity. This is an interesting fact, because at the time of interception, more than fifteen hundred (1500) "patients" were aboard.

2. When the TACHIBANA MARU was boarded she was enroute from Toeal, Kai Islands, to Makasses, Celebes, and thence to Soerabaja. The informant stated that to the best of his knowledge the patents aboard had been evacuated by barge and small craft from the Vogelkop Peninsula of New Guinea, and surrounding islands. he said that they had been hospitalized in a large general hospital at Toeal for periods up to six months. The officer also volunteered that only those men in the best physical condition were evacuated on this trip. In as far as he knew, this was the first time a Japanese hospital ship had visited the Kai Islands.

3. Three doctors, all indifferently trained, were aboard the ship and permanently attached to her. The senior medical officer had spent on year as an interne but had no other training. The junior medical officer persisted in referring to himself as an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist, in spite of the fact that he also had but one year postgraduate training. The third medical officer had been recently inducted into the Army and was still in apprentice status. A total of thirty-three (33) medical corpsmen were aboard. Hardly an impressive staff to care for over 1500 patients.

EVALUATION AS A HOSPITAL SHIP

1. While approaching and still several hundred yards away, the stench from the TACHIBANA MARU was very much in evidence. Urine and feces from cats and monkeys, of which there were numbers aboard, as well as excrement from the patients and crew were noted in the scuppers. There were two large heads on the port side of the ship aft, one on the main deck and one on the first platform deck. Many of the toilets were inoperable and the urinals had no flushing systems. Evidently they had not been cleaned for months and their odor was overpowering.

2. The patients were quartered in three wards, two of them actually being holds. One was situated on the main deck forward and two built in two of the holds, halfway between the deck and the overhead. Patients were lying on these platforms and on the decks beneath them, in conditions so crowded that they were actually stretched out over each other. A few higher ranking officers were placed in staterooms, three to a room. The officers had mattresses and pillows but the enlisted men had neither. Lighting facilities on the wards were so poor that the opposite end of the ward could not be seen without a flashlight.

3. The ship had no forced ventilation system and the heat below decks was stifling. The ship did not have evaporators. Fresh water was carried in storage tanks and doled out in small amounts for drinking purposes only. No water was allowed for bathing or personal hygiene. Samples of water were taken from all tanks after reaching port. None of the water was potable, being heavily contaminated with E. coli. Fortunately, the boarding party had been forewarned and avoided all ship's water.

4. There were no operating rooms on the ship. Neither were there dental facilities, treatment rooms, X-ray facilities, or isolation wards. There was no laboratory and no diet kitchen.

CARE OF THE PATIENTS

1. The patients were fed twice daily, at 0830 and at 1600. Japanese medical corpsmen prepared the food under guard and carried it to the wards. The diet consisted exclusively of boiled white rice and dried fish chips. The rice was dumped into large wooden kegs and the fish into smaller buckets and carried to the wards. These containers were passed from patient to patient and each grabbed a double handful of rice and fish which he fashioned into a large ball and ate with his fingers. No vitamin supplements were given, in spite of the fact that many of the patients allegedly suffered from beriberi and malnutrition.

2. Conditions in the galley were in keeping with the rest of the ship. The only cooking facilities were large kettles heated by steam from the engine room. Roaches two inches long swarmed over everything and no attempt was made to curb them. Rats nested in the raw rice bins and monkeys and cats played in them.

3. All patients were ambulatory and went to the head unassisted. No bedside care was given, although apparently no patients were sick enough to require it.

TABULATION OF DISEASES

1. A roster of the patients and a diagnosis for each was aboard. According to the junior medical officer this roster had been compiled while the group was in the hospital at Toeal. The ship's doctors were not familiar with the patients.

2. The following breakdown according to diseases shows a total of 1538 patients, leaving a few unaccounted for. The junior medical officer with the aid of an interpreter tabulated the cases as follows:

Beriberi 550
Malaria 400
Malaria and Beriberi 212
Tuberculosis, pulmonary 60
Pleurisy, chronic 59
Infestation, Ascaris 34
Bronchitis, chronic 32
Enteritis, chronic 16
Neurasthenia 11
Ulcer, stomach 11
Dengue Fever 10
Dysentery, Amoebic 5
Dysentery, Bacillary 1
Catarrh, acute (coryza) 1
Kidney stone 4
Icterus 8
Malaria and Icterus 4
Malaria and Dengue Fever 5
Beriberi and Asthma 8
Contusions, back 4
Lumbago 7
Sciatica 6
Beriberi and Sciatica 4
Malaria and Tropical Ulcers, Leg 9
Amputation, finger 1
Beriberi and Kidney Stone 4
Hemorrhoids 4
Malaria and Enteritis, acute 12
Prolapse of Rectum 7
Appendicitis, chronic 8
Ulcer, duodenum 4
Tuberculosis, spine 4
Eczema, chronic 11
Otitis Media 3
Beriberi and Tropical Ulcer, Leg 8
Tuberculosis, pul., and Beriberi 1
Beriberi and Gastritis, chronic 4

3. When the ship was docked at an Allied port, all the "patients" were marched off the ship and obediently formed ranks. They were cheerful and made no attempt to cause trouble. It is the opinion of this medical officer that these Japanese should be more accurately referred to as troops, for their physical condition did not warrant the term "patient".

4. By our standards the TACHIBANA MARU resembled a hospital ship only in the respect that she was marked as one.

L. M. CARTALL.

See;http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/dafs/DD/dd581-mo-report.html

Digger
02-09-2010, 04:42 AM
How dare you make such a facile comment in a thread entitled "Victor's injustice". ;) :D

I apologize for my facilities;):lol:

digger:)

Rising Sun*
02-09-2010, 04:54 AM
I apologize for my facilities;):lol:

digger:)

Your generous apology is noted, but I am reliably informed that your facilities are considerably more generous. :D

Digger
02-09-2010, 04:57 AM
Your generous apology is noted, but I am reliably informed that your facilities are considerably more generous. :D

I wondered where my girlfriend got to. How is she?;)

digger:lol:

Rising Sun*
02-09-2010, 06:02 AM
I wondered where my girlfriend got to. How is she?;)

digger:lol:

Generous.

texag57
03-03-2010, 11:51 AM
Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

Wizard
03-03-2010, 05:26 PM
Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

It's a sad fact that the Northern military commanders broke no laws in the War of Northern Aggression because there were no laws, international or otherwise, which were in effect in the jurisdictions in which they were operating. Lincoln may have (probably did) violated the Federal Constitution in that he pursued an aggressive war in the absence of any Constitutional justification, but that is more a political matter to be adjudicated in the US Supreme Court. No Federal laws governed actions in the States until the advent of the 14th Amendment after the Civil war, and no international Conventions on War existed until 1864 (and at any rate, weren't ratified by the US until 1882).

That is not to say there was no precedent (The first war crimes trial was held in 1474, the defendant was Peter von Hagenbach, and he was convicted and executed after claiming to just following orders) for a trial of some Union commanders, but nothing was binding on them. There was something called the Lieber Code which imposed criminal liability on troop commanders for ordering or encouraging their men to wound or kill troops who had ceased resisting. This apparently was a protocol attached to Lincoln's declaration of martial law, which was of questionable legality in itself.

texag57
03-04-2010, 09:10 AM
Thanks for your response, Wizard. The Union did find a way to prosecute and hang at least one Confederate Officer, the unfortunate Wirtz, commander of the infamous Andersonville Prison. Perhaps he deserved it, but I'm not sure of that. I have also read of very similar conditions in at least one of the Northern POW camps. Sounds like another example of "Victor's Injustice" right in our own nation. There are other examples that occurred during the Indian Wars as well. Victor's Injustice has been around a long time, and not just in WWII.

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 11:49 AM
Um, didn't the Confederate States of America open fire on Fort Sumter? And as for legality, it was the South that seized federal assets with no negotiations...

texag57
03-04-2010, 03:10 PM
Yes they did. Only after requests for removal of Federals in the confines of a soverign state. Lincoln was set on re-supplying them, rather than removing them. South Carolina had adopted the Ordinances of Secession. This was a right that had not been forbidden to States by the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but that proposal was rejected after James Madison said,

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound".1

Instead of honoring the spirit of the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln seemed determined to provoke a war, instead of recognizing the rights of the States.

Respectfully,


1.Max Farrand,ed, The Records of the Federal Convention, vol.1(New Haven, Conn.(Yale University Press,1911),p.47

texag57
03-04-2010, 03:26 PM
By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 04:27 PM
By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

Texag,

I admit that I am not all that well-read on the American Civil War. I do recall something in history class of certain mixed sympathies that resided in both the Northern and Southern regions. There were of course those northerners who had a pipe-dream of one day owning a Southern plantation, some that favored the notion of "states rights," and many were immigrants from places like Ireland that objected to being conscripted to fight in a war after fleeing the travails of their homelands, which resulted in a surge of draft riots in the City. All understandable, but I doubt there was a significant groundswell of sympathy for secession here, and many New Yorkers bled into the hallowed battlefields...

Long live everyone!

Regards

texag57
03-04-2010, 04:44 PM
Agreed, "long live everyone" and the USA.

Rising Sun*
03-04-2010, 05:19 PM
And peace breaks out just when I thought we were going to see the start of American Civil War II. :D

More seriously, what I know about the Civil War would fit on the head of a pin. Is there a readily obtainable and fairly concise book any of you Civil War buffs would recommend as giving a fair view?

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 05:46 PM
I dunno, I'm still stuck in the under-read portion of the War of 1812 and The American Revolution... :D

Unfortunately, I've been stuck on some other interests and have gotten away from wars a bit...

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 05:47 PM
This might make a nice thread in the Civil War forum though, no?

texag57
03-04-2010, 09:23 PM
Rising Sun, I can't think of a single edition, except perhaps the American Heritage single edition if it is still available. Look for anything by Bruce Catton, or Douglas Southall Freeman. Freeman has written several volumes of "Lee's Lieutenants". Any one of them would be a good read.
If I think of more, I'll let you know.

texag57
03-04-2010, 09:31 PM
Rising Sun,

The books I mentioned previously were published years ago, But I read one recently that I thought was really interesting. The name is The Jewish Confederates.It came out just a couple of years ago, and gives some insight into the War for Southern Independence (Civil War to the Unionists). It also gives interesting information of the contributions made by Jewish Statesmen, military officers, and just plain fighting men. I really enjoyed it

Rising Sun*
03-04-2010, 11:04 PM
texag57

Thanks. I'll see if I can find any locally.

texag57
03-05-2010, 07:26 AM
My pleasure. The war was such a hugh part of our history, that it is difficult to find one book that would do it justice. I'll keep looking through what I have and let you know when I come up with something recent.

HOS Bandit
03-28-2010, 11:13 AM
I am following this discussion with great interest, and while I may have an opinion about it, I will save that for another time. I post here now just to bring up one point; Tito, and by extension Yugoslavia, needed no pointers from Stalin in regards to his Rule. In fact Yugoslavia was one of the few (East-Bloc) countries that the Soviet Union had little sway in. I bring this up not to in any way glorify Tito, far from it! As an American of Croatian ancestry, I have little love for countryman, (he was a Croat) but he did manage for the most part to keep the Soviets out of his affairs, more than likely because they more often then not were on the same page, so to speak.

texag57
03-28-2010, 04:02 PM
That is very interesting to me. I first heard of Tito when I was a youngster during WW 2. Back then, he was leading the partisans against Germany, so he was generally well thought of here.
"Deo Vindice"

HOS Bandit
03-29-2010, 09:16 AM
Hello Texag57. The Russians and Stalin were also looked upon favorably during the War. Drazha Mihailovich, the leader of the Chetniks in Yugoslavia, was named Man of The Year by Time Magazine! But then politics shifted and Tito and his partisans were given the prodigal son status. Mihailovich and his chetnik band, even after the Allies deserted his cause (he was a royalist) and hitched their pony too the communist cart of tito, saved, hid, and arranged the pick up of over 600 Allied Fliers, shot down over Yugoslavia. The Germans were routinely executing captured pilots in Yugoslavia. Mihailovich was shot at the wars end by tito, despite a personal plea from the U.S. State Department to spare him, those pilots and personel that were involved in the operation to repatriate them,(Operation Halyard) had mounted a massive campaign to try and save him, to no avail. In 1948, urged on by a group of military officials, President Truman awarded a posthumous-but secret-Legion of Merit to Mihailovich for his contributions too the Allied cause. Tito may have been generally well thought of as you say, but he isn't too well thought of where I grew up, and I mention Drazha Mihailovich's name not out of any sense of loyalty, he was a serb, I'm Croatian, enough said there. But as how loyalties and ones perceptions of people and events can shift, or be sublimaly shifted for you by the press and propoganda.

texag57
03-29-2010, 11:39 AM
Hello Texag57. The Russians and Stalin were also looked upon favorably during the War. Drazha Mihailovich, the leader of the Chetniks in Yugoslavia, was named Man of The Year by Time Magazine! But then politics shifted and Tito and his partisans were given the prodigal son status. Mihailovich and his chetnik band, even after the Allies deserted his cause (he was a royalist) and hitched their pony too the communist cart of tito, saved, hid, and arranged the pick up of over 600 Allied Fliers, shot down over Yugoslavia. The Germans were routinely executing captured pilots in Yugoslavia. Mihailovich was shot at the wars end by tito, despite a personal plea from the U.S. State Department to spare him, those pilots and personel that were involved in the operation to repatriate them,(Operation Halyard) had mounted a massive campaign to try and save him, to no avail. In 1948, urged on by a group of military officials, President Truman awarded a posthumous-but secret-Legion of Merit to Mihailovich for his contributions too the Allied cause. Tito may have been generally well thought of as you say, but he isn't too well thought of where I grew up, and I mention Drazha Mihailovich's name not out of any sense of loyalty, he was a serb, I'm Croatian, enough said there. But as how loyalties and ones perceptions of people and events can shift, or be sublimaly shifted for you by the press and propoganda.

Hello HOS BANDIT, I know what you mean about loyalties, after the war, I believe most of us finally saw the real Tito, and we changed our feelings towards him, or at least I did. I was older and became more aware of politics. I was not aware at that time of Mihailovich, but I have learned something new, thanks to you. In my later years, I have become more aware of the conflict between Serbs and Croations as well, but still know only some basics. I always love to learn more, since I was a teacher of history before retirement. The more I can learn, the better.

HOS Bandit
03-29-2010, 04:32 PM
You would have been my favorite Teacher Texag57, I loved History when I was in high-school, and later in college I always chose a History course as one of my electives. The conflict between the Serbs and Croats has been the bane of the Balkans for centuries. I grew up in a small steel-mill town in Pa. Steelton.
There is a very large Serb-Croat neighborhood in the town, and growing up we all got along just fine, in fact my Fathers Sister married a Serb! That all changed in 1990 when Milosovic, a Serb, changed the constitution, severely weakening Croatian self-determination. Practically overnight my neighborhood became a microcosym of Yugoslavia. 80 yr. old men who had been friends since childhood, started stabbing each other because one was a serb, and the other was a croat! There was a private club called the Serb/Croat Club, that was a neighborhood watering-hole for years, but within 3 months of the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia it was closed by the State, after the State and Local Police told the Liquor Control Board that they were responsible for the 24 altercations that they had responded too there, that had led to one death and numerous serious injuries. I mention all this because the more some things change, the more other things remain the same, and as a History teacher, you can surely appreciate the old maxim, those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it!

texag57
03-29-2010, 07:17 PM
You would have been my favorite Teacher Texag57, I loved History when I was in high-school, and later in college I always chose a History course as one of my electives. The conflict between the Serbs and Croats has been the bane of the Balkans for centuries. I grew up in a small steel-mill town in Pa. Steelton.
There is a very large Serb-Croat neighborhood in the town, and growing up we all got along just fine, in fact my Fathers Sister married a Serb! That all changed in 1990 when Milosovic, a Serb, changed the constitution, severely weakening Croatian self-determination. Practically overnight my neighborhood became a microcosym of Yugoslavia. 80 yr. old men who had been friends since childhood, started stabbing each other because one was a serb, and the other was a croat! There was a private club called the Serb/Croat Club, that was a neighborhood watering-hole for years, but within 3 months of the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia it was closed by the State, after the State and Local Police told the Liquor Control Board that they were responsible for the 24 altercations that they had responded too there, that had led to one death and numerous serious injuries. I mention all this because the more some things change, the more other things remain the same, and as a History teacher, you can surely appreciate the old maxim, those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it!
Amen to that old maxim. I well remember all the troubles with Milosovic, and I still have trouble with the United States getting directly involved in combat there. I really did not understand whose side we were supporting and why. I am so very sorry Milosovic turned the two peoples against one another, and that it caused such divisions in our own country. I hope the situation has improved and that old friends can once again get along. It sounds a lot like the division in our own country in the 1860's. Take care.

"Deo Vindice"

kurt
05-12-2010, 05:14 PM
The allies, UK and the US, did not systematic set out to perform war crimes. Neither one had a policy to murder civilians. Neither one had a policy to murder POWs. And neither had a policy to conduct experiments on captives.

Yes there were atrocities done by SOME individuals in the UK and US militaries, but none were condoned by the heads of the government nor by high ranking officers.

And that is a big difference between them. The USSR, on the other hand, most certainly did have a policy to do great crimes.

So yes, the UK and US did consider themselves morally superior to the Axis. And with reason.

Deaf
What about Dresde?, more than 150.000 civilians killed in one night, with no military reason at all. ....policy to murder POWs, when Rommel took by surprise some british headquarters in Africa there were found orders, documented , of killing german and italian POW's .....Experiment on captives? , do you still believe in Santa?
by the way, alllies put the mafia back in Sicilia, as a payment for its colaboration with "the goods"
Then, don't talk about moral superiority

Nickdfresh
05-12-2010, 07:26 PM
What about Dresde?, more than 150.000 civilians killed in one night, with no military reason at all. ....

That death toll may be wildly inflated at the behest of a known agenda'ist and Holocaust denier. And while I'm no more a fan of the Dresden bombing raids than you are--there was a significant rail junction in the heart of the city


policy to murder POWs, when Rommel took by surprise some british headquarters in Africa there were found orders, documented , of killing german and italian POW's

I never heard anything of this. Please feel free to offer actual documentation from a legitimate source...


.....Experiment on captives? , do you still believe in Santa?

Are you getting your history from the Easter Bunny?


by the way, alllies put the mafia back in Sicilia, as a payment for its colaboration with "the goods"
Then, don't talk about moral superiority

The Allies looked the other way as a means to regain control of a desperate situation. The USN also collaborated with U.S. organized crime in order to secure the NYC waterfront. Does this really compare to some of Hitler's Ustasha **** allies?

Rising Sun*
05-13-2010, 06:57 AM
What about Dresde?, more than 150.000 civilians killed in one night, with no military reason at all ...

Leaving aside the debate about whether the death toll was 25,000 or 250,000 or any number in between, there was a good military reason for bombing Dresden. It was a communications hub which, if destroyed, would assist the advancing Soviet forces by hampering German ability to move men and materiel to the front.

kurt
05-13-2010, 04:42 PM
Leaving aside the debate about whether the death toll was 25,000 or 250,000 or any number in between, there was a good military reason for bombing Dresden. It was a communications hub which, if destroyed, would assist the advancing Soviet forces by hampering German ability to move men and materiel to the front.
Here is a RAF internal memo that will help to clarify this issue:
“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, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”
RAF January 1945

to show the russians what Bomber Command can do........no further comments.
it's a huge difference between 25.000 and 250.000 , is more than 200.000 human beings killed,
by February 1945 Germany was in complete defeat, with boys defending it's fatherland,
it was Churchill and Harris's crime.

kurt
05-13-2010, 04:58 PM
significant rail junction......maybe for the huge amount of trains, soldiers, weapons and ammunition the germans had by February 1945, besides , is it necesary using napalm bombs to destroy a rail junction?

I will post you the exact source of the information about british orders of killing AK prisoners.

..In order to secure the NYC waterfront....., you are funny....

Nickdfresh
05-13-2010, 06:10 PM
Most of the topic is addressed in this thread: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?2006-Bomber-Harris-Criminal-or-Hero


significant rail junction......maybe for the huge amount of trains, soldiers, weapons and ammunition the germans had by February 1945, besides , is it necesary using napalm bombs to destroy a rail junction?

Yes. Area bombing was used because of the complete lack of accuracy of free fall bombs and the limitations of technology of that era. This especially pertains to RAF Bomber Command carrying out night attacks. They didn't use napalm, they used a concurrent mix of incendiaries and high explosive IIRC. You'll notice that there was a controversy of French casualties during the "Transportation Plan" run up to D-Day with Churchill, most notably along with Arthur Harris, strongly arguing against the transfer of strategic bombing assets targeting Germany to French rail centers and other tactical targets in direct support of the Allied armies. Churchill was genuinely concerned over the enormous, and greatly exaggerated, French civilian casualty projections which turned out to be largely erroneous. Yet the Allies did conduct area bombing, and even allied French civilians and civil servants were killed. Certainly not on the level of the firebombings of various German cities--that I do believe was wholly excessive--but Germany opened the terrible bottle containing that genie over Warsaw, London, and Rotterdam first...


I will post you the exact source of the information about british orders of killing AK prisoners.

I look forward to this, since it makes absolutely no sense as the North African theatre was generally thought to have been waged largely by the rules of war on both sides. I hardly see the British instituting a policy of killing prisoners en mass since they had little to gain and much to lose by doing so. This would seem especially since there seemed to be tens of thousands of Afrikakorp POWs turning up in Canada, and later the U.S. That's not to say some atrocities and excesses didn't happen, but they were very rare to my knowledge...


..In order to secure the NYC waterfront....., you are funny....

I am funny. But perhaps you are unaware of several incidents which the U.S. Navy, specifically Naval Intelligence, took very seriously and culminated into a threat to the War effort.

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

Nickdfresh
05-13-2010, 06:18 PM
...
by February 1945 Germany was in complete defeat, with boys defending it's fatherland,
it was Churchill and Harris's crime.

I don't recall certain Germans having much problem doing the same thing to other peoples after they were defending their father/motherlands in face of impending defeat

kurt
05-13-2010, 08:21 PM
I don't recall certain Germans having much problem doing the same thing to other peoples after they were defending their father/motherlands in face of impending defeat

maybe that's the point, everyone did the same atrocities then there isn't such a thing as "moral superiority"

Rising Sun*
05-13-2010, 08:35 PM
Here is a RAF internal memo that will help to clarify this issue:
“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.

Callous though it may be, creating refugees and hampering their ability to find sanctuary is a militarily useful task as they clog the lines of military communication and impede the enemy's fighting ability.


The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance

So? The front hadn't collapsed and the Germans were still fighting. Nobody stops an attack on the enemy because he is collapsing. They stop it when he is defeated, whether in the field or by surrender. Neither of those conditions applied at the time Dresden was bombed.


to show the russians what Bomber Command can do........no further comments.

That was incidental to the intentions of the attack. It was a byproduct of, not the purpose of, the attack.


it's a huge difference between 25.000 and 250.000 , is more than 200.000 human beings killed,

I know, but I'm not the one who's been claiming those figures and many in between.


by February 1945 Germany was in complete defeat, with boys defending it's fatherland,

Then Germany should have surrendered. Instead, it fought on for another few months, so it wasn't in complete defeat in February 1945.


it was Churchill and Harris's crime.

So you don't think Hitler and his cronies bear any responsibility for fighting on when all was lost and ensuring further destruction of Germany? They were the ones who had the power to stop the destruction by surrendering. They were also the ones who had the power to avoid it by not starting a war of aggression and territorial conquest in the first place.

They were also the ones who started terror bombing cities.

They were also the ones who made the mistake of bombing cities without having a heavy bomber fleet of the size and capacity which the Americans and British later mustered against German cities.

Churchill and Harris were merely responding to German aggression in kind, but much more effectively.

The real criminals were Hitler and his cronies.

kurt
05-13-2010, 09:12 PM
Most of the topic is addressed in this thread: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?2006-Bomber-Harris-Criminal-or-Hero



Yes. Area bombing was used because of the complete lack of accuracy of free fall bombs and the limitations of technology of that era. This especially pertains to RAF Bomber Command carrying out night attacks. They didn't use napalm, they used a concurrent mix of incendiaries and high explosive IIRC. You'll notice that there was a controversy of French casualties during the "Transportation Plan" run up to D-Day with Churchill, most notably along with Arthur Harris, strongly arguing against the transfer of strategic bombing assets targeting Germany to French rail centers and other tactical targets in direct support of the Allied armies. Churchill was genuinely concerned over the enormous, and greatly exaggerated, French civilian casualty projections which turned out to be largely erroneous. Yet the Allies did conduct area bombing, and even allied French civilians and civil servants were killed. Certainly not on the level of the firebombings of various German cities--that I do believe was wholly excessive--but Germany opened the terrible bottle containing that genie over Warsaw, London, and Rotterdam first...



I look forward to this, since it makes absolutely no sense as the North African theatre was generally thought to have been waged largely by the rules of war on both sides. I hardly see the British instituting a policy of killing prisoners en mass since they had little to gain and much to lose by doing so. This would seem especially since there seemed to be tens of thousands of Afrikakorp POWs turning up in Canada, and later the U.S. That's not to say some atrocities and excesses didn't happen, but they were very rare to my knowledge...



I am funny. But perhaps you are unaware of several incidents which the U.S. Navy, specifically Naval Intelligence, took very seriously and culminated into a threat to the War effort.

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

It was supposed to be Churchill acomplishment to divert bombing from ports and other military facilities to citys by bombing Berlin and provoking Hitler reaction, it is a fact.
I've been reading about this for more than twenty years, so it is not easy to recall where I read some information, but eventually I will find the source.
I apologize for my poor english, anyway it is very interesting to share this space with all of you.

texag57
05-13-2010, 09:31 PM
Hello Kurt,

I believe that you should consider who made it his policy to bomb civilians as part of his attempt to conquer peaceful nations in Europe, and eventually the world. That includes wherever you may reside. The megalomaniac Adolph Hitler is the one who started the war, and indiscriminate bombing of civilians was part of his strategy. This he did nightly on London, and obliterated Coventry, and included several other places in England. Also, remember the leveling of Lidice, and the murder of all the men and boys from that city, and sending the women and girls from there to concentration camps. This was the result of the assassination of Reinhardt Hydrich, a mass murderer of the SS, who richly deserved dying.

It is sad that any civilians die in wartime, but the fault of the destruction of Dresden does not lie with Churchill. It is all on Hitler who started the whole conflagration. In the end, he wanted all the German people to die because, according to him, Germany did not deserve to live because they let him down,

If you have the proof that you say you have, that the Allies planned to slaughter German civilians, please present and document it. I ask you this respectfully, because it is not the purpose of this site for us to insult one another.

Respectfully yours,
texag57

pdf27
05-14-2010, 01:30 AM
it's a huge difference between 25.000 and 250.000 , is more than 200.000 human beings killed,
by February 1945 Germany was in complete defeat, with boys defending it's fatherland,
And this is the root of the "250,000" claim. German records from the time are available, and demonstrate conclusively that the death toll was about 25,000. Goebbells got hold of this number, and decided that for propaganda purposes it would be useful to have a much higher death toll (to inspire the various German troops to fight to the last) - so he added a zero to the end of the figure and had it widely publicised. The kindest thing that can be said about those who continue to publicise it is that they can be regarded as Nazi dupes.

Additionally, this huge difference between the two figures should be setting alarm bells going off by it's very nature. That would make it 6 times deadlier than the next worst air raid, that on Hamburg - which was a similar city and experienced a similar firestorm - and 3 times deadlier than that on Tokyo, carried out in ideal circumstances against a far more vulnerable target. The 250,000 figures simply makes no sense, while the 25,000 figure fits in well with other air raids.

Ivaylo
05-14-2010, 06:18 AM
Those who order bombings upon civil population NO MATTER what the reason are war criminals .If anyone want to be clear and clean against any murderous enemy he have to use clean methods , otherwise you become like the soviets and their "great patriotic " war which turned in mass massacre , rapes and etc. very far from anything patriotic . Bombing the dresden - full of workers and civils , refugees didn't improve at all the situation , just the germans become more angry at you ... it's a black spot on the shining white star of the allies that's the truth and you must accept it cause the whole world know it . By this i don't mean the germans were saints or their political leaders were better , just in case you start to misunderstand me again .

Rising Sun*
05-14-2010, 09:22 AM
Those who order bombings upon civil population NO MATTER what the reason are war criminals .

So the people who carry out the orders must be war criminals.

Which justifies their summary execution by civilians when they land in enemy territory.

But the civilians who summarily execute the airmen are not guilty of any crime?

Or maybe it's just a waste of time trying to find any legal or moral clarity in war, which is an exercise which offends every decent instinct in humans.

texag57
05-14-2010, 10:31 AM
Good point, Rising Sun. Those that start the war, only for the purpose of seizing the territory of nations who have made no aggressive moves or threats, have to bear the responsibility of all that happens. They are the true "war criminals".:army:

kurt
05-14-2010, 10:42 AM
And this is the root of the "250,000" claim. German records from the time are available, and demonstrate conclusively that the death toll was about 25,000. Goebbells got hold of this number, and decided that for propaganda purposes it would be useful to have a much higher death toll (to inspire the various German troops to fight to the last) - so he added a zero to the end of the figure and had it widely publicised. The kindest thing that can be said about those who continue to publicise it is that they can be regarded as Nazi dupes.

Additionally, this huge difference between the two figures should be setting alarm bells going off by it's very nature. That would make it 6 times deadlier than the next worst air raid, that on Hamburg - which was a similar city and experienced a similar firestorm - and 3 times deadlier than that on Tokyo, carried out in ideal circumstances against a far more vulnerable target. The 250,000 figures simply makes no sense, while the 25,000 figure fits in well with other air raids.

More than 1000 american and british bombers dropped thousands of tons of high explosive bombs and incendiary devices for 14 hours since 10 pm february 13th 1945, ...it looks like if it fits in well with other air raids?
And you can not consider all the people who wants to know the true facts "nazi dupes", that is a cheap blackmail

Rising Sun*
05-14-2010, 11:07 AM
More than 1000 american and british bombers dropped thousands of tons of high explosive bombs and incendiary devices for 14 hours since 10 pm february 13th 1945, ...it looks like if it fits in well with other air raids?
And you can not consider all the people who wants to know the true facts "nazi dupes", that is a cheap blackmail

What does the size of the attacking force matter?

It was rather smaller with the A bombs, but still devastating.

As far as Dresden is concerned, what does it really matter how many were killed?

Most people are unaware that Coventry and Rotterdam had, by later stages in the war, quite small casualties.

But the fact remains that Coventry, Rotterdam, etc were initiated by the Germans and that they were quite happy to bomb the **** out of civilians until the boot was on the other foot.

The nature of war is that all sorts of bastardry are visited on the innocent.

Nickdfresh
05-14-2010, 07:11 PM
It was supposed to be Churchill acomplishment to divert bombing from ports and other military facilities to citys by bombing Berlin and provoking Hitler reaction, it is a fact.

Well, in case you didn't notice, ports are actually located in "cities." Right? So, it's pretty inevitable that the Germans were going to hit civilians sooner or later. And is Churchill really to blame for "Hitler's reaction(s)?" Yes, the British wanted the pressure off their aerodromes in 1940, but that even has been distilled down very narrowly. It was the British and the French who avoided bombing of any sort lest they might harm a civilian even when it would have benefited them to do so as the Luftwaffe was still largely tied down in mopping-up operations over Poland in 1939.

For all the Allies supposed crimes and hypocritical notions of justice, it was the Nazi regime that started the dirty air war. I think they might have started the war in general actually...


I've been reading about this for more than twenty years, so it is not easy to recall where I read some information, but eventually I will find the source.
I apologize for my poor english, anyway it is very interesting to share this space with all of you.

You've been reading what you WANT to read for twenty years, with preconceived notions and rationalizations that heavily shaped by Neo-fascist apologists...

Nickdfresh
05-14-2010, 07:14 PM
maybe that's the point, everyone did the same atrocities then there isn't such a thing as "moral superiority"

Oh sorry, I forgot about all the Allied death camps where they attempted to annihilate all non-Aryans...

Nickdfresh
05-14-2010, 07:16 PM
And this is the root of the "250,000" claim. German records from the time are available, and demonstrate conclusively that the death toll was about 25,000. Goebbells got hold of this number, and decided that for propaganda purposes it would be useful to have a much higher death toll (to inspire the various German troops to fight to the last) - so he added a zero to the end of the figure and had it widely publicised. The kindest thing that can be said about those who continue to publicise it is that they can be regarded as Nazi dupes....

Nazi dupes, or some times just Nazis period...

Ivaylo
05-15-2010, 02:36 AM
So the people who carry out the orders must be war criminals.

Which justifies their summary execution by civilians when they land in enemy territory.

But the civilians who summarily execute the airmen are not guilty of any crime?

Or maybe it's just a waste of time trying to find any legal or moral clarity in war, which is an exercise which offends every decent instinct in humans.

War have rules and let's not change the subject - we are talking about who give orders from Allies side is that normal to use methods that the soviets and nazis did . We are not talking about who execute orders and their role as anyone who was or is in the army knows that you can't question because if you do you are next to be put in penalty battalion or sent to jail at least ( depend of the army regulation ) . There are many conventions and army regulations and it's the problem for the side that say " hey i fight for freedom and justice " to follow them no matter what the opposite do , otherwise you can't stand and say " hello i am the better clear side , ohh i just bombed heavily civilians but it's ok who cares " . You obey the rules and play all along fair no matter what the opposition do or you just don't have the right to say the previous thing .

pdf27
05-15-2010, 06:13 AM
More than 1000 american and british bombers dropped thousands of tons of high explosive bombs and incendiary devices for 14 hours since 10 pm february 13th 1945, ...it looks like if it fits in well with other air raids?
Actually, it was pretty typical for that period of the war. Hamburg - nearly 2 years earlier, with a far less developed and capable Bomber Command force - involved 3,000 bombers and 9,000 tonnes of bombs in the raid. The same night as the first Dresden Raid, Chemnitz was hit by over 700 heavy bombers, and a similar sized force came back 2 weeks later. A week after the Dresden raid Pforzheim was hit by just under 400 aircraft, killing nearly 20,000 people and flattening 80% of the buildings in the city. To quote Sir Arthur Harris, "for want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used" - but the bomber command he fashioned was capable of destroying entire cities in a night, without even applying it's full strength.


And you can not consider all the people who wants to know the true facts "nazi dupes", that is a cheap blackmail
The true facts are widely available, and there are multiple very good books which go into the raid in great depth. The only ones to give the figures you quote are by the likes of David Irving, who actually managed to lose a libel trial in the UK after he sued someone who accused him of being a holocaust denier.
So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Nickdfresh
05-15-2010, 06:41 AM
...
And you can not consider all the people who wants to know the true facts "nazi dupes", that is a cheap blackmail

Yet you're citing figures from a source that essentially says that more people were killed in the Dresden Raid than were murdered in the "Holocaust"...

Rising Sun*
05-15-2010, 07:09 AM
War have rules

Which the Nazis and Japanese did not even attempt to observe.

There was nothing like, for example, Einsatzgruppen or Harbin on the Allied side.

Allied bombing was directed towards winning the war, not just the mindless racist brutality of the Nazis and Japanese which had nothing to do with winning the war and everything to do with hurting and killing people for the despicable fun of it because they were considered inferior.

Anyway, the notion of rules in war is inherently absurd. Where is the sense in, for example, banning shotguns but allowing claymore mines and banning dum-dums but allowing grenades? Gee, given a choice I'd really like to be hit by a claymore or grenade instead of one of those nasty shotguns or dum-dums which might really hurt me.


and let's not change the subject - we are talking about who give orders from Allies side is that normal to use methods that the soviets and nazis did .

Well, the Nazis and Soviets used tanks, artillery, mortars, rifles, bayonets and grenades.

Was it wrong for the Allies to use the same things because the Nazis and Soviets used them?


We are not talking about who execute orders and their role

Why not?

Without them there would be no wars and no war crimes.

When it came to war crimes trials after WWII, who was prosecuted? Not just some of the leaders who gave orders but also the people who carried them out.

If some people who regard it as perhaps the worst war crime ever had their way, who do you think would be prosecuted for Allied bombing of Japan? Just Curtis Le May? Or the crew of the Enola Gay as well?

The thread title is Victor's Injustice. Mightn't there be an injustice of a sort in prosecuting and punishing someone who was fed a carefully crafted evil philosophy by skilled manipulators in a totatliarian system and who has acted on it while many of those at the top are left alone?


as anyone who was or is in the army knows that you can't question because if you do you are next to be put in penalty battalion or sent to jail at least ( depend of the army regulation ) .

That's a bit of a myth.

There were plenty of examples of Germans disobeying orders they didn't agree with and not being punished.

Even in the more rigid Japanese system it could occur, as with a senior officer after the Japanese victory in the Philippines who refused to carry out orders which Colonel Tsujii told him came from above to kill the American prisoners.

As for Bomber Command, I can't recall the title of the book I read some time ago but it looked at psychological stress in the crews including refusals to fly and found that while many men were punished in the sense of being downgraded and posted to crappy duties, hardly anyone was ever prosecuted or formally punished.

Librarian
05-15-2010, 02:45 PM
As always, an excellent plaidoyer, my esteemed colleague. Nevertheless, allow me just a pair of minuscule remarks:


Anyway, the notion of rules in war is inherently absurd.

No, it is not my esteemed colleague. You see, however the term may be derided and the concept attacked, law and order remains the bedrock of every civilization. Without it, human society must degenerate into the darkness of barbarism. The unrestricted practice of putting absolutely no limits is inevitably leading human beings back to jungle. More than 5000 years of recorded history show man making different rules of conduct. And rules of conduct in war are only an expression of the principle that in every civilized community human relationship must be governed in a manner to put certain limits to the aggressive animal called Homo sapiens with numerous remnants of his destructive Troglodyte past. Seen in this light, rules in war are only an absolutely necessary instrument of limitation of the ultimate offense one human being can commit against the other.


Gee, given a choice I'd really like to be hit by a claymore or grenade instead of one of those nasty shotguns or dum-dums which might really hurt me.

Please, don’t understand me wrongly, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, but let's speak about a choice between a claymore mine and a napalm bomb instead. You see, as far as I remember, certain scientific examinations have verified noteworthy and completely measurable dolorimetric variations in pain severity between the two. Please, just follow this link:


http://www.jstor.org/pss/1421259

In the meantime, I shall prepare - with any luck! - a number of adequately intriguing methodological examples for our distinguished forum member, Mr. Ivaylo. You see, for some unknown reasons he thinks that certain absolutely uncivilized methods of human conduct were somehow exclusively connected with Soviets and Nazis, and that subsequently those methodological patterns illogically and inexplicably were employed by Western Allies in an intersocietal war - the most serious manifestation of human aggressive behavior.

Hopefully, that completely erroneous anthropological assertion will be effectively disproved. :)

In the meantime, as always – all the best. ;)

Ivaylo
05-16-2010, 06:09 AM
Which the Nazis and Japanese did not even attempt to observe.

There was nothing like, for example, Einsatzgruppen or Harbin on the Allied side.

Allied bombing was directed towards winning the war, not just the mindless racist brutality of the Nazis and Japanese which had nothing to do with winning the war and everything to do with hurting and killing people for the despicable fun of it because they were considered inferior.

Anyway, the notion of rules in war is inherently absurd. Where is the sense in, for example, banning shotguns but allowing claymore mines and banning dum-dums but allowing grenades? Gee, given a choice I'd really like to be hit by a claymore or grenade instead of one of those nasty shotguns or dum-dums which might really hurt me.



Well, the Nazis and Soviets used tanks, artillery, mortars, rifles, bayonets and grenades.

Was it wrong for the Allies to use the same things because the Nazis and Soviets used them?



Why not?

Without them there would be no wars and no war crimes.

When it came to war crimes trials after WWII, who was prosecuted? Not just some of the leaders who gave orders but also the people who carried them out.

If some people who regard it as perhaps the worst war crime ever had their way, who do you think would be prosecuted for Allied bombing of Japan? Just Curtis Le May? Or the crew of the Enola Gay as well?

The thread title is Victor's Injustice. Mightn't there be an injustice of a sort in prosecuting and punishing someone who was fed a carefully crafted evil philosophy by skilled manipulators in a totatliarian system and who has acted on it while many of those at the top are left alone?



That's a bit of a myth.

There were plenty of examples of Germans disobeying orders they didn't agree with and not being punished.

Even in the more rigid Japanese system it could occur, as with a senior officer after the Japanese victory in the Philippines who refused to carry out orders which Colonel Tsujii told him came from above to kill the American prisoners.

As for Bomber Command, I can't recall the title of the book I read some time ago but it looked at psychological stress in the crews including refusals to fly and found that while many men were punished in the sense of being downgraded and posted to crappy duties, hardly anyone was ever prosecuted or formally punished.

Again we are not talking about the whole allied bombing throught the war , we are talking about particular Dresden bombing .... which if i am not wrong the main reason was not any transport hub or whatever else but the british said it is in VENGEANCE ( yes ) for the bombing during 1940 ... and yes there weren't Einsatzgruppen on US/UK side but your other allied side used NKVD , yes my Librarian their camps (GULAGS ) and the sistem of killing was the same. And actually i would prefer not anyone be hit with anything and no wars more to be conducted in Europe if you ask me .
War rules are not absurd ... cause imagine you being taken prisoner , if there are not any rules for example the germans late in the war wouldn't go out of their lungs to run to the americans and to surrender because they knew the americans won't shot them down like the russians would or send them to GULAGS .
And i am not against that the UK/US used tanks, artilery and etc. i just think they must admit some of their errors and to re-think about the methods in some cases like Dresden for example , that's all .
As for the war crimes .... you know the sistem of the army , the high command with the leaders of the nation share all responsibility in what they do , the others just execute orders and share small piece of guilt but no way as their leaders . For example my president order the general to send battalion in Afganistan , i go there as corporal , the sergeant order me to shoot at some civilian saying he is damn partisan kill him , what i would do say for example " hell no mr.Sergeant screw you i won't do it " ... i would be sent to court martial imidiately strip of ranks and kicked out of the army in the best case .
There are plenty of examples of some i suppose Volksgrenadier militia or some other not so high in moral troops for which the sooner the war ended the better , which is quite normal in army there is always elite troops and such that are low on morale , equipment and etc. Even if they did desert or refuse to carry orders , i don't think they had to expect flowers and greetings .

pdf27
05-16-2010, 06:33 AM
For example my president order the general to send battalion in Afganistan , i go there as corporal , the sergeant order me to shoot at some civilian saying he is damn partisan kill him , what i would do say for example " hell no mr.Sergeant screw you i won't do it " ... i would be sent to court martial imidiately strip of ranks and kicked out of the army in the best case.
If so you have a very screwed up military system. One of the compulsory training elements for UK armed forces (all of them, including reserves) is a video on the Law of Armed Conflict, which makes it very, very clear that in such a circumstance you must disobey the order given to you by that Sergeant, and that any attempt to follow it will be a war crime. A small number of UK troops have been tried by civilian courts in the UK and jailed for substantial periods of time for doing what they were told in a very similar situation.

Nickdfresh
05-16-2010, 05:50 PM
Again we are not talking about the whole allied bombing throught the war , we are talking about particular Dresden bombing .... which if i am not wrong the main reason was not any transport hub or whatever else but the british said it is in VENGEANCE ( yes ) for the bombing during 1940...

I've never seen any sort of cut an dry admission about "vengeance." What would make bombing Dresden any more vengeful or satisfying than say--the bombing of Hamburg--conducted much earlier?


... and yes there weren't Einsatzgruppen on US/UK side but your other allied side used NKVD....


Our "side" used the NKVD? Perhaps. But then, the NKVD were fighting an invading army, whereas the Einsatzgruppe were part of one...

Librarian
05-16-2010, 07:34 PM
Finally, certain graphic materials have arrived, so we can now continue with our tiny theoretical treatise about human behavior in war. :)

You se, my dear Mr. Ivaylo, although numerous manifestations of intragroup aggression have excited a considerable amount of attention and controversy, many specialists regard intersocietal war as the most serious manifestation of human aggressive behavior. There is a thread of continuity that runs from individual aggressiveness to organized warfare. However, when it comes to the more highly developed modern forms of military action, the link between individual biocultural responses and the plans and strategies of warleaders is rather indirect, so we cannot regard war as simply individual aggressiveness projected onto a larger screen. Nevertheless, the anthropography of so called cultivation peoples (in contrast to hunting-gathering peoples) seem warfare ridden, because numerous different human groups of various locations all seem to have in common a tendency toward internecine raiding and warfare.

Several anthropologists have carried out cross-cultural studies of warfare, attempting to generalize from large numbers of cases. Keith Otterbein, for example, has tasted a number of generalizations concerning the development of warfare habits and demonstrates the not-unexpected finding that more complex communities have more complex organization for warfare. Escalation of warfare to more serious dimensions depends, however, upon an aggressive drive which is induced by existing structure of the society, and it motivates behavior of the individual to injure the obstacle. The usual cause of human aggression is frustration, and the other is that aggression has the properties of a basic drive – being a form of human energy thet persists until its goal is reached as well as being an inborn reaction. The most important anthropological fact, however, is that the forms that aggression takes, and the situations in which it is displayed are determined largely by social influences, generally know in theory as differential reinforcement. Those influences on the other hand have almost similar pattern in completely different societies.

That is the theory. And now we shall examine those theoretical postulates in praxis. Please observe very carefully these confirmed historical examples of utterly aggressive, non-ethical and lethal behavior in war, which are connected with dissimilar systems of human societies:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Macva-1914.jpg

Kruševac, Serbia – 1914: unarmed Serbian peasants hanged by Austro-Hungarian troops without judicial trial and without verdict. Their crime – publicly outspoken verbal insults regarding the Emperor

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Cuprija-1916.jpg

Ćuprija, Serbia – 1916: Bulgarian troops are hanging peasant woman and a crippled teacher without judicial trial and without official verdict. Their crime – dissemination of enemy propaganda

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Bitolj-1916.jpg

Bitola, 1916 – Civilian victims (whole family) of Bulgarian poisonous gas attack carried out by unidentified artillery unit

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Kursumlija-1917.jpg

Kuršumlija – 1917: 19 years old Serbian peasant girl whose leg was cut off with Bulgarian’s soldier bayonet after the attempted rape

Discussion questions are:

1.) Are these examples of aggressive human behavior, exclusively committed by different members of certain inherently democratic societies, somehow connected with Nazism or Communism, and if they are how?

2.) Do these sorrowful examples provide sufficient evidence for the assertion that democracy remains the most flawed, confusing and frightening sort of government, which is completely incompatible with personal security of different human beings during wartime hostilities?

After our hopefully fruitful theoretical discussion, we will examine some other historical examples which are directly connected with certain misdeeds with reference to the cases of indiscriminate bombing of an enemy's cities before the WW2.

Hopefully, we shall expel our tiny ethical rabbit from its historical burrow. And with your kind permittance I shall represent the Crown.

In the meantime, as always - all the best! ;)

pdf27
05-17-2010, 01:01 AM
Question: How democratic were Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria during/prior to WW1? I am interested (it seems germane to your questions) and genuinely have no idea.

Ivaylo
05-17-2010, 07:23 AM
I said your other allied side used NKVD ..... and so if someone invade my country for example Turkey do so .... from your words i see that i can form for example BKVD - bulgarian komsiariat for internal affairs and when the turk army come to torture , put them in camps , mass kill them , and you will say well it's ok after all the turks invaded them who cares . But i have strong suspision that you won't definately say that ... which means you have double standart

Ivaylo
05-17-2010, 07:26 AM
If so you have a very screwed up military system. One of the compulsory training elements for UK armed forces (all of them, including reserves) is a video on the Law of Armed Conflict, which makes it very, very clear that in such a circumstance you must disobey the order given to you by that Sergeant, and that any attempt to follow it will be a war crime. A small number of UK troops have been tried by civilian courts in the UK and jailed for substantial periods of time for doing what they were told in a very similar situation.

Than we come to the situation , when every soldier who is fighting now in Afganistan must on his own think if that boy is partisan or civilian ... but on battlefield there is not much time for thinking , and where is the role of the sergeant , leuthanant then .... they are just sensless figures , where is their responsibility , when simple soldier can say oww i am tired of shooting partisnans bye sergeant .... ? That just broke down the morale of the whole army i think .

Ivaylo
05-17-2010, 07:53 AM
Finally, certain graphic materials have arrived, so we can now continue with our tiny theoretical treatise about human behavior in war. :)

You se, my dear Mr. Ivaylo, although numerous manifestations of intragroup aggression have excited a considerable amount of attention and controversy, many specialists regard intersocietal war as the most serious manifestation of human aggressive behavior. There is a thread of continuity that runs from individual aggressiveness to organized warfare. However, when it comes to the more highly developed modern forms of military action, the link between individual biocultural responses and the plans and strategies of warleaders is rather indirect, so we cannot regard war as simply individual aggressiveness projected onto a larger screen. Nevertheless, the anthropography of so called cultivation peoples (in contrast to hunting-gathering peoples) seem warfare ridden, because numerous different human groups of various locations all seem to have in common a tendency toward internecine raiding and warfare.

Several anthropologists have carried out cross-cultural studies of warfare, attempting to generalize from large numbers of cases. Keith Otterbein, for example, has tasted a number of generalizations concerning the development of warfare habits and demonstrates the not-unexpected finding that more complex communities have more complex organization for warfare. Escalation of warfare to more serious dimensions depends, however, upon an aggressive drive which is induced by existing structure of the society, and it motivates behavior of the individual to injure the obstacle. The usual cause of human aggression is frustration, and the other is that aggression has the properties of a basic drive – being a form of human energy thet persists until its goal is reached as well as being an inborn reaction. The most important anthropological fact, however, is that the forms that aggression takes, and the situations in which it is displayed are determined largely by social influences, generally know in theory as differential reinforcement. Those influences on the other hand have almost similar pattern in completely different societies.

That is the theory. And now we shall examine those theoretical postulates in praxis. Please observe very carefully these confirmed historical examples of utterly aggressive, non-ethical and lethal behavior in war, which are connected with dissimilar systems of human societies:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Macva-1914.jpg

Kruševac, Serbia – 1914: unarmed Serbian peasants hanged by Austro-Hungarian troops without judicial trial and without verdict. Their crime – publicly outspoken verbal insults regarding the Emperor

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Cuprija-1916.jpg

Ćuprija, Serbia – 1916: Bulgarian troops are hanging peasant woman and a crippled teacher without judicial trial and without official verdict. Their crime – dissemination of enemy propaganda

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Bitolj-1916.jpg

Bitola, 1916 – Civilian victims (whole family) of Bulgarian poisonous gas attack carried out by unidentified artillery unit

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Kursumlija-1917.jpg

Kuršumlija – 1917: 19 years old Serbian peasant girl whose leg was cut off with Bulgarian’s soldier bayonet after the attempted rape

Discussion questions are:

1.) Are these examples of aggressive human behavior, exclusively committed by different members of certain inherently democratic societies, somehow connected with Nazism or Communism, and if they are how?

2.) Do these sorrowful examples provide sufficient evidence for the assertion that democracy remains the most flawed, confusing and frightening sort of government, which is completely incompatible with personal security of different human beings during wartime hostilities?

After our hopefully fruitful theoretical discussion, we will examine some other historical examples which are directly connected with certain misdeeds with reference to the cases of indiscriminate bombing of an enemy's cities before the WW2.

Hopefully, we shall expel our tiny ethical rabbit from its historical burrow. And with your kind permittance I shall represent the Crown.

In the meantime, as always - all the best! ;)


Well the pictures you posted are very very good congratulations . But i don't have the other pictures to post from the same doings by greeks , turks expecially and their non-regular troops , i think such hostility was normal for the period of which the photos are , which definately don't mean that i agree with that acts of brutality neither from my side , neither from others and what they did from the " Априлско въстание " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Uprising) till the " batak massacre " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Uprising) .....

1) the Balkans as whole in the period of 1914-1919 were very very far from democratic societies , cause simply the great powers from that time didn't come to agreement how to partition the newly created countries between them ... sound very familiar isn't it from what happened in other period .... So Austro-Hungary wanted control over Serbia and Bosnia , England is against any big christian country called Bulgaria ( cause that would be against their long term partners Turkey ) , Russia wanted to gain strategic control over and etc ... But definately these images are connected with Nazism and commies cause they simply continued to treat their enemies with manners of 1914-1919 even when the time was already 1939-1990 ......

2) No doubt the democracy is the if not the best , the least human consuming sistem , and no doubt for now there is not any better civil sistem to replace it granting more freedom and rights ( another problem is how they are used ) . With my hand on my heart i must thank god that i am blessed to live now and not back in either of these two periods . And don't get me wrong that i
criticize the western allies sometimes doesn't mean that i am not grateful of what they did .

Ivaylo
05-17-2010, 08:02 AM
Question: How democratic were Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria during/prior to WW1? I am interested (it seems germane to your questions) and genuinely have no idea.

Well for Bulgaria specially i can say not very democratic it was ruled by monarch and some goverment which was his puppet so we can say we almost had absolute monarchy here . Guess the Austro-Hungary was something the same although i am not very much into their history

Rising Sun*
05-17-2010, 09:16 AM
As always, an excellent plaidoyer, my esteemed colleague.

Plaidoyer?

Moi? ;)


You see, however the term may be derided and the concept attacked, law and order remains the bedrock of every civilization.

Law and order; or the idea of law and order; or the belief that there is law and order?

Apart from those distinctions, one must separate law from order.

All nations have laws, but many with laws have little order, even without war. Zimbabwe's expropriation of white owned farms by various laws supported by lawless "Veterans" is a fair example.

As for law being the bedrock of civilisation when applied to war, what is civilised about war?

War is the antithesis of civlisation, in the sense that civilised is commonly used to mean some level of sophistication and humanity.


Without it, human society must degenerate into the darkness of barbarism.

That is exactly what happens in war. With or without laws of war.


The unrestricted practice of putting absolutely no limits is inevitably leading human beings back to jungle. More than 5000 years of recorded history show man making different rules of conduct. And rules of conduct in war are only an expression of the principle that in every civilized community human relationship must be governed in a manner to put certain limits to the aggressive animal called Homo sapiens with numerous remnants of his destructive Troglodyte past. Seen in this light, rules in war are only an absolutely necessary instrument of limitation of the ultimate offense one human being can commit against the other.

I'd argue that in practice it was more often the case that individual humanity and individual morality which determined people's fate.

The man with the gun decides who lives and who dies, not law.

Law, humanity and society may inform the decision of the man with the gun, for good or bad, but in the end he's the one who decides what happens.

In WWII there was no prospect that he would be tried for war crimes by anyone but the victor after the end of the war, or by the enemy if he was unfortunate enough to fall into enemy hands during it.

In the absence of any universal legal system, it still came back to victor's justice, or injustice. Or captor's justice, or injustice.

Rising Sun*
05-17-2010, 09:55 AM
Again we are not talking about the whole allied bombing throught the war , we are talking about particular Dresden bombing

Why only Dresden?

What about Cologne or Hamburg?


.... which if i am not wrong the main reason was not any transport hub or whatever else but the british said it is in VENGEANCE ( yes ) for the bombing during 1940

I don't know about any vengeance as a reason for Dresden, but Cologne initially had a bit to do with Harris trying to establish the importance and or effectiveness of Bomber Command. Doesn't that render Cologne unnecessary?


... and yes there weren't Einsatzgruppen on US/UK side but your other allied side used NKVD

So that makes Italians equally responsible with the Nazis for Auschwitz and the Japanese for Harbin?


War rules are not absurd ... cause imagine you being taken prisoner , if there are not any rules for example the germans late in the war wouldn't go out of their lungs to run to the americans and to surrender because they knew the americans won't shot them down like the russians would or send them to GULAGS .

Was that because of laws or because of different attitudes towards Germans?

For a start, America wasn't invaded by Germany and didn't have Einsatzgruppen wandering around, say, Iowa, Wyoming, Nebraska, Idaho or Kansas murdering farmers just for being there. That might have altered American attitudes, which weren't terribly sympathetic to Japan after Japan merely bombed Hawaii a long way away from any of those contintental states. Which attitudes were reflected in the different treatment of the enemy and enemy trying to surrender and surrendered enemy by Americans in the European and Pacific theatres.

kurt
05-17-2010, 11:24 AM
Oh sorry, I forgot about all the Allied death camps where they attempted to annihilate all non-Aryans...
Well, maybe you should read something about the Trail of Tears.

Authors such as the Holocaust expert David Cesarani have argued that the government and policies of the United States of America against certain indigenous peoples constituted genocide. Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust".[24] He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust.

kurt
05-17-2010, 11:50 AM
Pretty typical....we can save some time, cold meaningless numbers and justifications if we take a look at this pictures, then we can judge if this is a pretty typical air raid or a cold blooded crime, one of the instigators can be excused because he was not sober, as usual, the other so called "sir" no excuses at all.
4439
4440


Actually, it was pretty typical for that period of the war. Hamburg - nearly 2 years earlier, with a far less developed and capable Bomber Command force - involved 3,000 bombers and 9,000 tonnes of bombs in the raid. The same night as the first Dresden Raid, Chemnitz was hit by over 700 heavy bombers, and a similar sized force came back 2 weeks later. A week after the Dresden raid Pforzheim was hit by just under 400 aircraft, killing nearly 20,000 people and flattening 80% of the buildings in the city. To quote Sir Arthur Harris, "for want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used" - but the bomber command he fashioned was capable of destroying entire cities in a night, without even applying it's full strength.


The true facts are widely available, and there are multiple very good books which go into the raid in great depth. The only ones to give the figures you quote are by the likes of David Irving, who actually managed to lose a libel trial in the UK after he sued someone who accused him of being a holocaust denier.
So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

pdf27
05-17-2010, 01:53 PM
Waving a bloody shirt around does not provide a rational argument as to the legality or otherwise of a particular air rad. And to put up pictures like that and think that they demonstrate that Dresden was somehow exceptional shows a rather depressing lack of historical understanding. The bodies shown there are at most a couple of hundred - when air raids that killed up to a hundred thousand people happened during that war. And as for the photo of Dresden after the raid, that's actually pretty typical for most cities in Germany by that stage in the war. For comparison, the photo below is from Tokyo, after a raid that killed 4-5 times the number of the Dresden raid.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg

kurt
05-17-2010, 04:02 PM
Waving a bloody shirt around does not provide a rational argument as to the legality or otherwise of a particular air rad. And to put up pictures like that and think that they demonstrate that Dresden was somehow exceptional shows a rather depressing lack of historical understanding. The bodies shown there are at most a couple of hundred - when air raids that killed up to a hundred thousand people happened during that war. And as for the photo of Dresden after the raid, that's actually pretty typical for most cities in Germany by that stage in the war. For comparison, the photo below is from Tokyo, after a raid that killed 4-5 times the number of the Dresden raid.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg

Dresden was exeptional because there was no military reason to justify it, arguing that there was a rail junction in the city is ridiculous by February 1945,..... the bodies were just a couple of hundreds???, did you count them?, the purpose of the picture is to show the way bodies were piled up in the streets in your pretty typical air raid and what is depresing is that your arguments just tell us that it was very typical for the allies killing civilians massively in the sake of democracy.
I'm sorry I can't match your pictures, maybe if I sent a lunar landscape....

pdf27
05-17-2010, 04:29 PM
Dresden was exeptional because there was no military reason to justify it, arguing that there was a rail junction in the city is ridiculous by February 1945,.....
In a legal sense, at the time the only requirement was that the city was defended (which Dresden clearly was) - if so bombarding it is legitimate. In a moral sense, what must be known is what Bomber Command thought was there, rather than what actually was. And if you were actually aware of what was going on at the time, you'd know that a railway junction was actually very high up the allied target list. The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe,” dated 12 January 1945 had transportation (including railway junctions) as the second highest priority for bombing after the petroleum industry. This comes out of the decentralised nature of the German war industry of the time under Speer's plans - practically all German war materials were made up from sub-assemblies built elsewhere - with the whole system being critically dependent on transport to join them up. Given the technology of the time, the only militarily effective method of destroying/hampering railway junctions inside a city available to Bomber Command was to flatten the entire city. There are legitimate moral arguments against the bombing of Dresden, but to pretend that there was no military reason is downright wrong.


the bodies were just a couple of hundreds???, did you count them?
Yep. The end of the block is about 5 x 2, and I make it that it's about 10 long in that photo. That makes it roughly 100 bodies in that block, I upped it to a few hundred to be conservative. Furthermore, that photo isn't of bodies piled up in the streets, it's of the makeshift crematorium made of lengths of iron rail which was IIRC in the old market to dispose of the bodies after the raid. I'm unsure of the exact reason, but IIRC it was kept quiet at the time so probably for propaganda reasons. Again IIRC (it's a while since I read up on it - Frederick Taylor's book on it is excellent) that photo is actually pretty rare as it was highly illegal to take photos of the cremations.


your arguments just tell us that it was very typical for the allies killing civilians massively in the sake of democracy.
<Shrugs> The Germans killed civilians massively in the name of racial purity or even (in Russia) because it was logistically convenient. The Russians killed them because they disliked their political views (in the case of Katyn, for their presumed political views). The Japanese killed them because they weren't Japanese. The Western Allies were actually somewhat unique in that they had at least some military objective in mind when they killed civilians, rather than a political/economic one (beyond that inevitable to a war).


I'm sorry I can't match your pictures, maybe if I sent a lunar landscape....
It's actually one of the most pernicious aspects of the Dresden myth that people think it was exceptional. It wasn't - in fact it wasn't even a particularly bad air raid. That in Hamburg (the world's first firestorm) was the worst in Europe, and that on Tokyo was probably more destructive and lethal than even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

kurt
05-17-2010, 05:09 PM
In a legal sense, at the time the only requirement was that the city was defended (which Dresden clearly was) - if so bombarding it is legitimate. In a moral sense, what must be known is what Bomber Command thought was there, rather than what actually was. And if you were actually aware of what was going on at the time, you'd know that a railway junction was actually very high up the allied target list. The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe,” dated 12 January 1945 had transportation (including railway junctions) as the second highest priority for bombing after the petroleum industry. This comes out of the decentralised nature of the German war industry of the time under Speer's plans - practically all German war materials were made up from sub-assemblies built elsewhere - with the whole system being critically dependent on transport to join them up. Given the technology of the time, the only militarily effective method of destroying/hampering railway junctions inside a city available to Bomber Command was to flatten the entire city. There are legitimate moral arguments against the bombing of Dresden, but to pretend that there was no military reason is downright wrong.

It's interesting that Directive No.3 issued one day before the massacre,
wake up!, there was no german war industry by that time,
british dambusters were very accurate destroying dams in the Ruhr Valley, do you remember?, so don't say that is necesary to reduce an entire city to ashes in order to destroy a rail junction.

Yep. The end of the block is about 5 x 2, and I make it that it's about 10 long in that photo. That makes it roughly 100 bodies in that block, I upped it to a few hundred to be conservative. Furthermore, that photo isn't of bodies piled up in the streets, it's of the makeshift crematorium made of lengths of iron rail which was IIRC in the old market to dispose of the bodies after the raid. I'm unsure of the exact reason, but IIRC it was kept quiet at the time so probably for propaganda reasons. Again IIRC (it's a while since I read up on it - Frederick Taylor's book on it is excellent) that photo is actually pretty rare as it was highly illegal to take photos of the cremations.

It seems like if trees don't let you see the forrest, you are lost in details.


<Shrugs> The Germans killed civilians massively in the name of racial purity or even (in Russia) because it was logistically convenient. The Russians killed them because they disliked their political views (in the case of Katyn, for their presumed political views). The Japanese killed them because they weren't Japanese. The Western Allies were actually somewhat unique in that they had at least some military objective in mind when they killed civilians, rather than a political/economic one (beyond that inevitable to a war).
Yeah, like the military objective Churchill had in mind when he sent the Lusitania to the bottom of the Atlantic.



It's actually one of the most pernicious aspects of the Dresden myth that people think it was exceptional. It wasn't - in fact it wasn't even a particularly bad air raid. That in Hamburg (the world's first firestorm) was the worst in Europe, and that on Tokyo was probably more destructive and lethal than even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Congratulations!

Librarian
05-17-2010, 05:36 PM
Sorry for being late, honorable ladies and gentlemen. You know… usual advantages of the regular employment. :roll:


Question: How democratic were Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria during/prior to WW1? I am interested (it seems germane to your questions) and genuinely have no idea.

Oh, they were magnificently democratic by all modern standards of formal democracy, my dear Mr. Pdf 27.

You see, both of them were so called constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch acted as a head of state within the parameters of a written constitution, and presided over a constitutional body of government appointed and approved by the elected legislature, independent judiciary, and freely assembled multitude of coalitions of people organized formally to recruit, nominate, and elect candidates for public office, generally known as political parties. :)


...which means you have double standart

Oh, no my dear Mr. Ivaylo. On the contrary. Actually, I am only an legal absolutist who is fighting with all scientifically allowable and available rational means against this incredibly modern provincial tendency to narrow the meaning of a democracy and legal conduct to the institutional patterns of a particular time and place, as well as against that obvious and deliberate attempt of those previous 1968 rioting stone throwers - nowadays very well established and tremendously well-paid and prominent members of the so called High-Society in 5000 $ Armani outfit - to replace logically valid patterns of highly essential critical thinking with their modern variants of phony unanimity. Actually, it is an scientific outcry of an old academic Streber against those in power who would like to make of modern world one Big Happy Non-Thinking In-Group from the cradle to the grave. Ultimately, the old-fashioned individual rebels.

As you know, it has been stated quite a long time ago that the Soviet Union imposed intellectual conformity from the top. Modern EUSSR educators, however, are imposing it nowadays from the bottom. In their Mythology of the Righteous Democratic Man the whole system is actually based upon the fear that too much learning may be a dangerous thing, so they have shied from giving attention to the knowledge on the ground that this might create the specter of an educated and therefore potentially perilous individual. Under such a rationale, we find our schools teaching such subjects as "Clicking with the Crowd", "How to be Liked in Democratic Society" and "How to get Closer to Debt-Based Prosperity". And if you are not as close as you should be, there are variants of the "Standard Bell Adjustment Test", under which a pupil is asked such magnificent questions as "Do you feel your teachers have been unduly strict with you". That’s all.


Well the pictures you posted are very very good congratulations . But i don't have the other pictures to post from the same doings by greeks , turks expecially and their non-regular troops , i think such hostility was normal

Please, don’t worry, my dear Mr. Ivaylo. Those pictures were used only because they were highly enlightening. I am assuring you that tons of comparable pictures are also in my tiny repository. Here are some additional snapshots connected with our main theme:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/ExecutionatKowloon.jpg

Decapitated Boxer rebels near Kowloon, China observed by enlightened European representatives – 1901.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Boxerrebelion-Japaneseexecution.jpg

Decapitation of captured Boxer by Japanese army – China, 1900.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Boxerrebelion-executionwithFrenchso.jpg

French soldiers are observing decapitation of captured Boxer rebel – China, 1901

As you can see, some indeed beautiful examples of the triumphant democratic and inherently humanistic Kulturträgertum achieved 32 years before the Gestapo and 33 years before the NKVD.


Apart from those distinctions, one must separate law from order. All nations have laws, but many with laws have little order…

In that case allow me a tiny question, my esteemed colleague: do we have the order without the law in our contemporary human society? You see, to maintain order it is essential that we have certain laws of the State, and that those laws have a certain degree of rigidity. It is a platitude to say that law is the skeleton of the body politic which will become flaccid if the bones on which it depends are too soft and pliant. Law must, therefore, have a high degree of strength and permanence if the society is to function orderly. :)


...what is civilised about war

From the strict anthropological point of view, the fact that war actually is a product of the civilization. As war developed beyond the point of simple individual retaliations among small groups, the business of making the war came to be based more and more on the calculated planning of political chiefs and rulers. In most human warfare the men who make the decision to go to war generally haven't gotten much into the thick of the fighting themselves. This separation between the aggressive acts and the adaptive decisions of political leaders who play on individual aggressive tendencies when they want to arouse their people to achieve certain goals actually is a product of the civilization in human societies.


The man with the gun decides who lives and who dies, not law.

But the law actually decides who will have the gun and who will be without it, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. :twisted:


In the absence of any universal legal system, it still came back to victor's justice, or injustice. Or captor's justice, or injustice.

I see, my esteemed colleague. This stance of yours actually follows the Austinian doctrine that law is command of the sovereign, and is enforced by the sanction attached to it. This conception of law has an ancestry of more than three centuries, and it took definite form with the rise of the modern European state and is intimately related to theories of state, of sovereignty and government. It has given support to the belief in the all-powerful and omnipotent State and to it may be attributed some of the evils which the world has suffered during the past half century. It is therefore of importance to determine whether it is possible at the present time to substitute for this idea of law one which can give us better hope for the future.

This concept of law, which had such a disastrous effect in recent years, actually is based upon a fundamental fallacy. It is untrue that law is always a command or requires a sanction for its validity. Its compulsive character usually is based on other and far more effective grounds. It is the recognition of obligation and not the fear of an evil which gives to law its conative quality. It is the sense of oughtness which distinguishes law from purely voluntary rules. Legal history has shown that a sanction is applied to a rule because it is recognized as being obligatory - the rule is not obligatory merely because a sanction is applied to it! The sanction is only a part of the law enforcement machinery; it is not an essential part of the law itself. As Sir Frederick Pollock has said: Law is enforced by the State because it is law, it is not law merely because the State enforces it.

Briefly, my esteemed colleague – if law is based on obligation and not on command then there is no difficulty in recognizing that the State itself can be subject to law, and that those who exercise its power can be controlled by legal rules in the performance of their functions. And here again law may finally triumph over brute force. :D

pdf27
05-18-2010, 01:27 AM
It's interesting that Directive No.3 issued one day before the massacre,
wake up!, there was no german war industry by that time
Ahem. Directive was issued on the 12th of January 1945, and the raid was on the 13th of February 1945. That's about right for the planning cycle of the time, and indeed suggests that the Dresden raid was one of the first in support of this new directive. As for lacking a war industry, the following armoured vehicles were built in 1945 (source is Wiki because I'm lazy this morning - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_ World_War_II )


Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Wartime Total
Panzer I 1,893 - - - - - - - - 1,893
Panzer II 1,223 15 99 265 848 803 151 - 2,181 3,404
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367 678 652 1,008 2,356 1,335 6,549 6,627
Panzer III 98 157 1,054 2,213 2,958 5,435 4,752 1,136 16,311 16,409
Panzer IV 211 45 268 467 994 3,822 6,625 1,090 13,311 13,522
Panzer V Panther - - - - - 1,849 4,003 705 6,557 6,557
Panzer VI H Tiger I - - - - 78 649 641 - 1,368 1,368
Panzer VI B Tiger II - - - - - 1 428 140 569 569
Elefant - - - - - 90 - - 90 90
Total 3,503 370 1,788 3,623 5,530 13,657 18,956 4,406 46,936 50,439
That's roughly a quarter of the figures for 1944 - or the same as the figures for 1942! Allowing for the fact that Germany surrendered early in May and large chunks were overrun before then gives an equivalent figure close to the 1943 value - making the claim that there was "no German war industry by that time" risible


british dambusters were very accurate destroying dams in the Ruhr Valley, do you remember?, so don't say that is necesary to reduce an entire city to ashes in order to destroy a rail junction.
617 squadron were the most highly trained in Bomber Command, and 8 out of 19 were shot down or crashed during the raid. That's utterly unsustainable - the crew had a life expectancy of 2-3 sorties. That makes the only more dangerous job in the war that of a Kamikaze pilot! So yes, accuracy was possible, but not practical. For comparison, remember that early in the war both Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe had trouble hitting the right country.

Rising Sun*
05-18-2010, 07:20 AM
british dambusters were very accurate destroying dams in the Ruhr Valley, do you remember?,

I don't think it would have been very practical to bomb Dresden from 60 feet.

Anyway, the Dambusters were not hugely accurate as a good many bombs missed their target or did little or no damage.

Ivaylo
05-18-2010, 07:22 AM
Why only Dresden?

What about Cologne or Hamburg?



I don't know about any vengeance as a reason for Dresden, but Cologne initially had a bit to do with Harris trying to establish the importance and or effectiveness of Bomber Command. Doesn't that render Cologne unnecessary?



So that makes Italians equally responsible with the Nazis for Auschwitz and the Japanese for Harbin?



Was that because of laws or because of different attitudes towards Germans?

For a start, America wasn't invaded by Germany and didn't have Einsatzgruppen wandering around, say, Iowa, Wyoming, Nebraska, Idaho or Kansas murdering farmers just for being there. That might have altered American attitudes, which weren't terribly sympathetic to Japan after Japan merely bombed Hawaii a long way away from any of those contintental states. Which attitudes were reflected in the different treatment of the enemy and enemy trying to surrender and surrendered enemy by Americans in the European and Pacific theatres.

Well on the one side it was named Harris on the other Herman Goering ... i bet both of them can justify their bombings because of effective bomber control , railway junctions , necessety of war , because of factories , because Goering hated the Queen whatever .....
Well Italians have nothing to do with Einsatzgruppen which you repeat like parrot , and on top of that italians feel already guilty enough as the germans for going into ww2 .... except you who don't say a word about the "great patriotic " allies .,..and turn blind what they did .... western world didn't say a word , but knew what was happening for so many years after 1945 ....didn't pull even a finger against USSR , for very known reasons .
Well it wasn't so nice everytime for the germans captured by US troops i recal that SS troops from Totenkopf were turned back to soviet ones and killed in the process which is violation of the war rules . Just the americans didn't have much reputation for mass killing as the soviets did that's all . I am not very good with the history of the Pacific war so you can say if there were a many cases where US troops mass killed japan ones , because i haven't heard for that yet .

Ivaylo
05-18-2010, 07:28 AM
the double standart was reply personally to Nikdfresh not to you Librarian :)

Rising Sun*
05-18-2010, 08:03 AM
In that case allow me a tiny question, my esteemed colleague: do we have the order without the law in our contemporary human society?

There is no law that makes people queue for service in a shop; or enter a lift in an orderly fashion; or disembark from public transport and go through the turnstiles in an orderly fashion, but they do it every day in their millions and in so doing preserve order in society.

There are laws against murder, rape, robbery and so on, but they are still committed every day by a very tiny proportion of the population. The question is whether making those actions crimes stops other people from doing them or just punishes the ones who will do it with or without laws against them.


From the strict anthropological point of view, the fact that war actually is a product of the civilization.

That depends on what is meant by war.

A tribal war in New Guinea, which occurred until relatively recently and still can in a modified fashion, was not the product of anything resembling civilisation as understood by European and other advanced cultures for many centuries, but it was still a war for the participants.


But the law actually decides who will have the gun and who will be without it, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. :twisted:

Which law would that be in the case of soldiers engaged in a revolutionary war against their legitimate, or illegitimate, government?

What about the common situation where the rebels are armed by another nation which is not subject to the laws of the rebels' nation and may even be acting contrary to its own laws in supplying the arms?



Briefly, my esteemed colleague – if law is based on obligation and not on command then there is no difficulty in recognizing that the State itself can be subject to law, and that those who exercise its power can be controlled by legal rules in the performance of their functions. And here again law may finally triumph over brute force. :D

Only as long as the State allows itself to be subject to law.

A simple example here is freedom of information laws which were introduced several decades ago. Then governments began to find them inconvenient in revealing government misconduct, so governments passed laws to restrict their operation to prevent this.

There are countless examples of governments exempting themselves from law, probably none more egregious and odious in a modern democracy than Bush II's law officers reworking the law on torture to permit the State's agents to torture the State's perceived enemies.

The problem with legislation is that the government makes it and, for the term of its office, the government is the State for the purposes of making and enforcing laws. This may produce government excesses which provoke anything from civil disobedience to armed rebellion or it may simply enhance the powers of the government to repress dissent.

What protects us most is not so much the law but the willingness and ability of the extra-government legal machinery to uphold the law. This requires most of all an independent judiciary and the means for the orders of the judiciary to be carried out, which then requires a police force which is independent of government. It is no accident that neither of these features appear in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Rising Sun*
05-18-2010, 08:35 AM
Well on the one side it was named Harris on the other Herman Goering ... i bet both of them can justify their bombings because of effective bomber control , railway junctions , necessety of war , because of factories , because Goering hated the Queen whatever .....

And your point is?



Well Italians have nothing to do with Einsatzgruppen which you repeat like parrot ,

Actually, I mentioned Auschwitz in the post to which you are responding.


and on top of that italians feel already guilty enough as the germans for going into ww2

You mean now, or then?

They didn't look too upset when they were winning in WWII.

Anyway, my point was in response to your attempt to impose guilt by association with the Soviets on the Western Allies.


.... except you who don't say a word about the "great patriotic " allies .

Actually, I did. I said that the bombing of Dresden was to aid the Soviet advance.

I could also have said that the Soviets bore the brunt of the European war in fighting, manpower, and casualties (military, POW and civilian) and that without them the Nazis could well still have control of a substantial part of Europe, including where you live. But I suppose that would be unacceptable to you as you seem to be somewhat hostile to the Soviets.


,..and turn blind what they did .... western world didn't say a word , but knew what was happening for so many years after 1945 ....didn't pull even a finger against USSR , for very known reasons.

1. What has post-war conflict or the lack of it between the West and the USSR to do with bombing Dresden or victor's justice or anything else that happened in WWII?

2. You may have missed the Cold War, which absorbed rather a lot of the West's military, economic, political and diplomatic resources in facing the Communist Bloc from 1945 until, in part as a consequence of the Western pressure, the Soviets collapsed.

3. I don't know what 'very known reasons' you have in mind, but I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. I can tell you that the prospect of nuclear annihilation, or mutual assured destruction as it became known later, was a very good reason for both sides to avoid armed conflict and I'm glad it did.


Well it wasn't so nice everytime for the germans captured by US troops i recal that SS troops from Totenkopf were turned back to soviet ones and killed in the process which is violation of the war rules .

Not as harrowing as the British forcing civilian refugees back to the Soviets after the war, but what the **** has any of this to do with bombing Dresden or victor's justice or the price of fish during the war?


Just the americans didn't have much reputation for mass killing as the soviets did that's all .

I thought that Tokyo and the nuclear attacks were rather successful exercises in mass killing.

I don't recall the Soviets doing anything like that.


I am not very good with the history of the Pacific war so you can say if there were a many cases where US troops mass killed japan ones , because i haven't heard for that yet .

No, no mass killing, really. Mostly just killing of wounded and prisoners, which was also done by British and Australian troops as a routine post-battle exercise in many instances, primarily as a self-defence measure because of experience with apparently wounded or surredering Japanese wounding or killing Allied troops.

kurt
05-18-2010, 10:15 AM
Ahem. Directive was issued on the 12th of January 1945, and the raid was on the 13th of February 1945. That's about right for the planning cycle of the time, and indeed suggests that the Dresden raid was one of the first in support of this new directive. As for lacking a war industry, the following armoured vehicles were built in 1945 (source is Wiki because I'm lazy this morning - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_ World_War_II )


Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Wartime Total
Panzer I 1,893 - - - - - - - - 1,893
Panzer II 1,223 15 99 265 848 803 151 - 2,181 3,404
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367 678 652 1,008 2,356 1,335 6,549 6,627
Panzer III 98 157 1,054 2,213 2,958 5,435 4,752 1,136 16,311 16,409
Panzer IV 211 45 268 467 994 3,822 6,625 1,090 13,311 13,522
Panzer V Panther - - - - - 1,849 4,003 705 6,557 6,557
Panzer VI H Tiger I - - - - 78 649 641 - 1,368 1,368
Panzer VI B Tiger II - - - - - 1 428 140 569 569
Elefant - - - - - 90 - - 90 90
Total 3,503 370 1,788 3,623 5,530 13,657 18,956 4,406 46,936 50,439
That's roughly a quarter of the figures for 1944 - or the same as the figures for 1942! Allowing for the fact that Germany surrendered early in May and large chunks were overrun before then gives an equivalent figure close to the 1943 value - making the claim that there was "no German war industry by that time" risible


617 squadron were the most highly trained in Bomber Command, and 8 out of 19 were shot down or crashed during the raid. That's utterly unsustainable - the crew had a life expectancy of 2-3 sorties. That makes the only more dangerous job in the war that of a Kamikaze pilot! So yes, accuracy was possible, but not practical. For comparison, remember that early in the war both Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe had trouble hitting the right country.

Those figures are risible, are wiki trying to tell us that Germany produced more in 4 months, during 1945 with it's territory devastated for air raids than 12 month in 1942, get a better source, maybe those were Goebbels's figures.

It was needed 14 hours of firestorm to destroy a rail junction, yeah right, like burning down a house to kill a mouse.

texag57
05-18-2010, 10:49 AM
Please lighten up a little bit , Kurt. Surely you can make your valid point without additional remarks bordering on insults. You present some valid points and food for thought, and it can be more appreciated without some of the "asides". We are very glad to have your input, so be respectful of the input of others. We need to keep this the great site for discussion as it has been. Thank you for your input. I write this sincerely.

TEXAG57

kurt
05-18-2010, 10:53 AM
In a legal sense, at the time the only requirement was that the city was defended (which Dresden clearly was) - if so bombarding it is legitimate. In a moral sense, what must be known is what Bomber Command thought was there, rather than what actually was. And if you were actually aware of what was going on at the time, you'd know that a railway junction was actually very high up the allied target list. The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe,” dated 12 January 1945 had transportation (including railway junctions) as the second highest priority for bombing after the petroleum industry. This comes out of the decentralised nature of the German war industry of the time under Speer's plans - practically all German war materials were made up from sub-assemblies built elsewhere - with the whole system being critically dependent on transport to join them up. Given the technology of the time, the only militarily effective method of destroying/hampering railway junctions inside a city available to Bomber Command was to flatten the entire city. There are legitimate moral arguments against the bombing of Dresden, but to pretend that there was no military reason is downright wrong.


Yep. The end of the block is about 5 x 2, and I make it that it's about 10 long in that photo. That makes it roughly 100 bodies in that block, I upped it to a few hundred to be conservative. Furthermore, that photo isn't of bodies piled up in the streets, it's of the makeshift crematorium made of lengths of iron rail which was IIRC in the old market to dispose of the bodies after the raid. I'm unsure of the exact reason, but IIRC it was kept quiet at the time so probably for propaganda reasons. Again IIRC (it's a while since I read up on it - Frederick Taylor's book on it is excellent) that photo is actually pretty rare as it was highly illegal to take photos of the cremations.


<Shrugs> The Germans killed civilians massively in the name of racial purity or even (in Russia) because it was logistically convenient. The Russians killed them because they disliked their political views (in the case of Katyn, for their presumed political views). The Japanese killed them because they weren't Japanese. The Western Allies were actually somewhat unique in that they had at least some military objective in mind when they killed civilians, rather than a political/economic one (beyond that inevitable to a war).


It's actually one of the most pernicious aspects of the Dresden myth that people think it was exceptional. It wasn't - in fact it wasn't even a particularly bad air raid. That in Hamburg (the world's first firestorm) was the worst in Europe, and that on Tokyo was probably more destructive and lethal than even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At least some military objective, .....maybe this one?

Winston Churchill: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145

kurt
05-18-2010, 11:15 AM
I'm really sorry , I didn't read your post until now.
Yes, you are completely right , I apologize if sometimes anger dominate my posts, my intention is to contribute with this enlightning threads.
Thanks for your advice,

Regards,

Kurt

pdf27
05-18-2010, 11:33 AM
Those figures are risible, are wiki trying to tell us that Germany produced more in 4 months, during 1945 with it's territory devastated for air raids than 12 month in 1942, get a better source, maybe those were Goebbels's figures.
Speer's actually I suspect - and again the sheer breadth and depth of your ignorance is showing through. Germany didn't start moving to a full war economy until after the early defeats by the Soviets around Moscow and Stalingrad - indeed, after the battle of France they demobilised a significant proportion of their armed forces and returned them to civilian jobs precisely to reduce the effect on the civilian economy. The sheer incompetence in the running of the German war economy early in the war is breathtaking - while production was hampered by the bombing, it was so poorly organised initially that fixing the problems led to more than enough of an improvement to make up for the bombing.


It was needed 14 hours of firestorm to destroy a rail junction, yeah right, like burning down a house to kill a mouse.
When it isn't your house, you absolutely have to get the mouse, and all you have is a box of matches then why not?

kurt
05-18-2010, 11:57 AM
let's take a look at this figures:
Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Wartime Total
Panzer I 1,893 - - - - - - - - 1,893
Panzer II 1,223 15 99 265 848 803 151 - 2,181 3,404
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367 678 652 1,008 2,356 1,335 6,549 6,627
Panzer III 98 157 1,054 2,213 2,958 5,435 4,752 1,136 16,311 16,409
Panzer IV 211 45 268 467 994 3,822 6,625 1,090 13,311 13,522
Panzer V Panther - - - - - 1,849 4,003 705 6,557 6,557
Panzer VI H Tiger I - - - - 78 649 641 - 1,368 1,368
Panzer VI B Tiger II - - - - - 1 428 140 569 569
Elefant - - - - - 90 - - 90 90
Total 3,503 370 1,788 3,623 5,530 13,657 18,956 4,406 46,936 50,439

Again, 18,956 total production of panzers in a maximum of 4 months in 1945 against 13,657 on 1944 and 5530 on 1943, after Stalingrad an Moscow, ignorance can be fixed foolishness don't.

I think history channel can not be considered a neonazi organization, let's read their point of view of Dresde:

On the evening of February 13, 1945, the most controversial episode in the Allied air war against Germany begins as hundreds of British bombers loaded with incendiaries and high-explosive bombs descend on Dresden, a historic city located in eastern Germany. Dresden was neither a war production city nor a major industrial center, and before the massive air raid of February 1945 it had not suffered a major Allied attack. By February 15, the city was a smoldering ruin and an unknown number of civilians--somewhere between 35,000 and 135,000--were dead.
in other part:

From February 4 to February 11, the "Big Three" Allied leaders--U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin--met at Yalta in the USSR and compromised on their visions of the postwar world. Other than deciding on what German territory would be conquered by which power, little time was given to military considerations in the war against the Third Reich.

In other words, a week before the raid they were already sharing out the cake,


Another paragraph:

Because there were an unknown number of refugees in Dresden at the time of the Allied attack, it is impossible to know exactly how many civilians perished. After the war, investigators from various countries, and with varying political motives, calculated the number of civilians killed to be as little as 8,000 to more than 200,000. Estimates today range from 35,000 to 135,000. Looking at photographs of Dresden after the attack, in which the few buildings still standing are completely gutted, it seems improbable that only 35,000 of the million or so people in Dresden that night were killed. Cellars and other shelters would have been meager protection against a firestorm that blew poisonous air heated to hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit across the city at hurricane-like speeds.


So, it looks like if it is not only Irving.

texag57
05-18-2010, 12:09 PM
:army:Thanks for your reply, Kurt. I understand exactly where you are coming from. I have to wait awhile before I answer , or make a comment, because my temper also gets the best of me sometime. You have a great day, and keep on posting.

Sincerely,
TEXAG57

Egorka
05-18-2010, 02:19 PM
let's take a look at this figures:
...
Again, 18,956 total production of panzers in a maximum of 4 months in 1945 against 13,657 on 1944 and 5530 on 1943, after Stalingrad an Moscow, ignorance can be fixed foolishness don't.
No.
According to the table, 18,956 tanks were made in 12 months of 1944 and 4,406 tanks in 4 months 1945.
That is 1580 per months and 1102 respectivly.

Librarian
05-18-2010, 07:26 PM
This thread is absolutely magnificent, honorable ladies and gentlemen! We do have here an excellent and highly inspiring dialog. What a way to go! :D


There is no law that makes people queue for service in a shop; or enter a lift in an orderly fashion; or disembark from public transport and go through the turnstiles in an orderly fashion, but they do it every day in their millions and in so doing preserve order in society.

But there definitely is law when you are finding a place to live, when you are examining a lease, when you are building your own home, when you are buying your car, when you are traveling on the road with your car (with those legendary gas-guzzling 250 HP under the hood ;)), when you are buying in the supermarket, when you are writing a check, when you are getting financial advice, when you are changing your last will, when your dearly beloved wife is challenging your last will, when you are divorcing, when your children are in trouble, when you are working in the private company, when you are working in the public corporation, when you are negotiating your community responsibilities, when you are regulating your accidents at work, when you have your unemployment insurance, and finally when somebody else is dealing with your body when your death occurs. Every single previously mentioned and deeply important part of human life is directly regulated by law.

The principal purpose of law is to control and regulate disputable relations among human beings. Law exists to settle disputes and to maintain order. It forbids us to to this, it requires us to do that. But it never tells us what would be good or wise, or even decent for us to do. Law must regulate our conduct in our complex society, if the society is to function in an orderly manner. :)


That depends on what is meant by war.

Mr. Otterbein defines war as a state of open, deliberately conducted armed conflict carried out between stratified societies with permanent membership and firm socio-economic boundaries.

Egalitarian and ranked societies (kinships, tribes) therefore are excluded from this definition.


Which law would that be in the case of soldiers engaged in a revolutionary war against their legitimate, or illegitimate, government?

Criminal law, my esteemed colleague. Any attempt to overthrow the elected government by violence carries the penalty of life imprisonment! Even conspiring to commit such an act can draw this sentence. The offense of sedition will be committed by any person who teaches, advocates, publishes materials that proposes the violent overthrow of a government, or enters into an agreement wit another person to carry out a seditious intention. All these activities are classified as crimes against the state and rank among the gravest crimes in law. :)


What about the common situation where the rebels are armed by another nation which is not subject to the laws of the rebels' nation and may even be acting contrary to its own laws in supplying the arms?

No problem at all, my esteemed colleague. Anyone found with a instrument designed to be used as an offensive weapon (fully automatic rifle, sawed-off shotguns, butcher knife, a shovel, or even a broken beer glass) in his possession can be sent to prison for up to five years. :twisted:


Only as long as the State allows itself to be subject to law.

If and only if we think of law primarily as a command, my dear Mr. Rising Sun! Amazingly, but you and late mr. A. Y. Vyshinsky are somehow on the same wavelength. You know, he said in 1932 that "…the Law is the aggregate of rules of conduct – or norms. Yet not of norms alone, but also of customs and rules of community living confirmed by State authority and coercively protected by that authority."

As a consequence we constantly fix our main attention upon the penalty imposed by the maker of the law for a breach of it and this we term as sanction. But to the 18th century mind, for example, law is primarily reason! To the medieval mind, on the other hand, there was scarcely any definite sanction, but those regulations were nonetheless laws. We are constantly exaggerating the part played by force. Perhaps today, when we have seen the evils of force disguised as law exercised by selfish men uncontrolled themselves by the law, we may hope that a synthesis of humanistic ideas may give us a concept of law on which a better civilization can be built.

By thinking of law in terms of obligation and not of command we will emphasize the most important truth that the State itself can be controlled by law: the inevitability of the all-powerful nation-State will no longer be accepted as an axiom. ;)


What protects us most is not so much the law but the willingness and ability of the extra-government legal machinery to uphold the law.

Actually it is the obligation conception of law that we may hope to find a means of finally replacing international anarchy by international law. It will make clear the all-essential point that International Law need not wait for the creation of the Super State, or even the establishment of efficient sanctioning machinery before it can claim to be law in a true sense. It is the spirit – the sense of obligation – and not the machinery that has been lacking in the past! We have spoken at length of international organizations already, but we have forgotten that such a society cannot exists unless the members of it recognize that they are under an obligation, ethical as well as legal to obey its rules. Perhaps in time to come the Aristotelian ethics may give to all nations its ideal of freedom and equal justice under the law! :cool:

And now back to certain historical illustrations connected with our highly intriguing discussion. As always, erroneous generalizations are representing some most common mistakes in historical evaluations, and our thread, alas, is not an exception. Despite the obvious exasperation, I shall try to briefly elucidate some minor inaccuracies. For example, this one:


Well Italians have nothing to do with Einsatzgruppen which you repeat like parrot

You are absolutely right, my dear Mr Ivaylo - Italian troops really do not have any direct connection with those notorious German armed formations. However, Italian troops actually did commit certain misdeeds which are absolutely identical with those dishonorable actions undertaken by those notorious aforementioned German formations. Here you have one highly characteristic example:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/ItaliancrimeMontenegro-1941.jpg

Italian officers are observing executed civilians – vicinity of Kolašin (Montenegro), 1941

As you can see, German units were not unaccompanied in certain misdeeds, but on the other hand nobody in his right historical mind ever claimed or will maintain that Italian troops actually were slaughterers that had gone berserk! Furthermore, every well-educated historian will tell you that even certain members of the notorious Waffen SS occasionally were real champions of chivalry and absolutely honorable conduct.

And please remember - generalizations and popular prejudices are archenemies of every rational and scientific argumentation! ;)

Well, that’s all for today. Our brand new working day will start in only… 5 hours! You will excuse me, honorable ladies and gentlemen, but even the librarians have to catch some sleep. In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Nickdfresh
05-18-2010, 08:31 PM
Well, maybe you should read something about the Trail of Tears.

I have. And I'm pretty sure that it preceded WWII, and the 20th century. The War we're actually discussing here...


Authors such as the Holocaust expert David Cesarani have argued that the government and policies of the United States of America against certain indigenous peoples constituted genocide. Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust".[24] He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust.

And your point? Secondly, the number of Native Americans killed would be hard to figure as some died as a result of disease and deprivation rather than direct conflict with whites. Secondly, what bearing does this have on the Holocaust? That America shouldn't have intervened in a War against Nazi Germany because sixty years or so before they waged War on the frontier? What sense does that make?

And the total number of victims of Nazi aggression, not least of which the German people themselves, far exceeds any atrocities ever committed...

Nickdfresh
05-18-2010, 08:40 PM
I said your other allied side used NKVD .....

What an interesting statement--and as if they had a choice. You mean the decadent Western Allies solicited the services of the brutal, conniving NKVD? Actually, it was the Germans that resulted in the use of their services if you actually look it up. What were the Western Allies supposed to do? Allow the Soviet Union to collapse resulting in a complete reconstitution of German power? As I recall, it was Hitler's regime that signed a "nonaggression pact" with the Soviet gov't and even allowed them to carve up poor Poland...


...and so if someone invade my country for example Turkey do so .... from your words i see that i can form for example BKVD - bulgarian komsiariat for internal affairs and when the turk army come to torture , put them in camps , mass kill them , and you will say well it's ok after all the turks invaded them who cares . But i have strong suspision that you won't definately say that ... which means you have double standart

I have no idea what you mean. I suppose you're referring to the potential war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

Nickdfresh
05-18-2010, 08:44 PM
the double standart was reply personally to Nikdfresh not to you Librarian :)

The double standard, eh? What about the fact that both the United States and British gov'ts tried and convicted--and even killed--their own soldiers for committing war crimes?

Rising Sun*
05-19-2010, 01:09 AM
But there definitely is law when you are finding a place to live, when you are examining a lease, when you are building your own home, when you are buying your car,

But the law may not be universal. In Australia such events may be governed by different laws depending upon the status of the landlord or seller. For example, consumer protection legislation usually applies only to businesses and not private individuals. Consumer protection legislation provides clearer and stronger remedies than the often complicated common law and equitable remedies which apply to private individuals. Similarly, a consumer may be able to sue a business in a small claims tribunal where lawyers are excluded and there is no risk of having to pay the trader’s legal costs if the consumer loses, but if the seller is a private individual then the consumer has to use the court system which is much more expensive and difficult to use without a lawyer.

So the law which regulates society is not the same law for the same person in transactions which are identical save for the status of the other party.

There’s not much sense or universal fairness in a legal system which grants or removes legal rights by looking at the status of one of the parties.

But then again, that is consistent with the origin of the Australian legal system as the product which flowed from the English monarch’s resolution of disputes among his lords. This evolved into the common law courts and the parallel equity jurisdiction, with each jurisdiction having its own remedies which were not available in the other. As the English discovered parliamentary democracy the legislature grafted its ever-increasing outpouring of legislation onto the other two jurisdictions. And then common law and equity courts were fused but the separate doctrines and remedies remain today as glorious remnants of an inherently contradictory system which lacks a coherent unifying doctrine because the system evolved rather than was designed.


when you are traveling on the road with your car (with those legendary gas-guzzling 250 HP under the hood ;))

250 kw, not hp. That’s about 335 hp. Anyway, I’m looking at getting only 240kw / 320 hp, because I value and want to maintain my environmental credibility. :)


when you are buying in the supermarket, when you are writing a check, when you are getting financial advice, when you are changing your last will, when your dearly beloved wife is challenging your last will, when you are divorcing, when your children are in trouble, when you are working in the private company, when you are working in the public corporation, when you are negotiating your community responsibilities, when you are regulating your accidents at work, when you have your unemployment insurance, and finally when somebody else is dealing with your body when your death occurs. Every single previously mentioned and deeply important part of human life is directly regulated by law.

They are not always regulated in the sense of the result being prescribed or known from the outset. Many aspects of those things are left to the discretion of a judge and or civil jury to determine, albeit supposedly in accordance with established legal principles. But nobody knows what the law is in a given case until the judge’s decision is delivered.

They are regulated in the sense that the law says what the process is to obtain the judge’s decision and what the principles are that the judge should consider, as informed by counsel during the proceedings and to whatever extent the judge may be aware of other relevant principles.

But despite all that the law is not certain. A case which goes all the way in our system can have a finding for the plaintiff at first instance in a magistrates’ court; a finding for the defendant by a single judge on appeal; a finding for the plaintiff by two of three judges on further appeal; and a finding for the defendant by four of seven judges on final appeal. Which is a total of six judges for the plaintiff and six for the plaintiff, but one party wins by a single vote on final appeal despite an equality of judicial opinion overall. Or it can happen that all judges find for one party until the final appellate court decides 4-3 in favour of the other, despite a majority of 8-4 overall in favour of the other.

Then over time the final appellate decision may become judicially regarded as bad law and it is distinguished away to irrelevance even though it is part of the body of principle which should be applied to future cases by all inferior courts.

Again, not a system designed to deliver the certainty that judges are fond of saying is a critical function of the law.


The principal purpose of law is to control and regulate disputable relations among human beings.

Maybe, but the vast bulk of law is not concerned with any of that, but with tedious administrative detail about the structure and administration of the public service; the size of drains; regulation of occupations; eradication of vermin and noxious weeds; design standards for motor vehicles; weights and measures; immigration; town planning; and an almost endless parade of mind-numbing petty bureaucratic things which in practice create fertile ground for disputation with government and others where often there would be none without the attempt at regulation.


But it never tells us what would be good or wise, or even decent for us to do.

I’d suggest that much of that is implicit, if not explicit, in many laws, from a prohibition on murder, rape, property crimes etc to family law requirements for parents to support their children financially to testators having to make adequate provision for their dependants, because these are good or wise or decent things for us to do. And when people don’t observe these laws they are either punished by the criminal law system or a judge imposes his or her view on the parties to achieve what is good or wise or decent to the extent that such notions underpin the law.

But there can be more explicit laws or legislative expressions which reflect the legislators’ conception of what is good or wise or decent at the time, such as the acknowledgement and protection of human rights in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/DCA32E487DFE99E8CA2576930003C52B/$FILE/06-43a005.pdf and the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Criminal law, my esteemed colleague. Any attempt to overthrow the elected government by violence carries the penalty of life imprisonment! Even conspiring to commit such an act can draw this sentence. The offense of sedition will be committed by any person who teaches, advocates, publishes materials that proposes the violent overthrow of a government, or enters into an agreement wit another person to carry out a seditious intention. All these activities are classified as crimes against the state and rank among the gravest crimes in law. :)

But what if the ‘elected government’ was elected fraudulently, as many in the world are?

Where is the legitimacy in an illegitimate government applying the criminal law to opponents trying to overthrow it, which is often the case with revolutionary movements?


Actually it is the obligation conception of law that we may hope to find a means of finally replacing international anarchy by international law. It will make clear the all-essential point that International Law need not wait for the creation of the Super State, or even the establishment of efficient sanctioning machinery before it can claim to be law in a true sense. It is the spirit – the sense of obligation – and not the machinery that has been lacking in the past! We have spoken at length of international organizations already, but we have forgotten that such a society cannot exists unless the members of it recognize that they are under an obligation, ethical as well as legal to obey its rules. Perhaps in time to come the Aristotelian ethics may give to all nations its ideal of freedom and equal justice under the law! :cool:

Don’t hold your breath waiting.

Until we eliminate the Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot / Mugabe / Burma junta / Taliban / sociopathic ruthless bastard gene from the gene pool it’s going to go on forever.I don’t think that gene is going to disappear, not least because from an evolutionary viewpoint it is in many respects the one best equipped to survive because it overwhelms those without that gene.

In the meantime, the only effective way to enforce international law is to emulate State legal systems and have an effective international police force and court system. Which also isn’t going to happen any time soon, because no nation is prepared to surrender its sovereignty.


This is an enjoyable debate. I think it occurs primarily because I am coming from a pragmatic practitioner's viewpoint and I think you are coming more from a highly informed jurisprudential viewpoint.

Ivaylo
05-19-2010, 06:38 AM
And your point is?




Actually, I mentioned Auschwitz in the post to which you are responding.



You mean now, or then?

They didn't look too upset when they were winning in WWII.

Anyway, my point was in response to your attempt to impose guilt by association with the Soviets on the Western Allies.



Actually, I did. I said that the bombing of Dresden was to aid the Soviet advance.

I could also have said that the Soviets bore the brunt of the European war in fighting, manpower, and casualties (military, POW and civilian) and that without them the Nazis could well still have control of a substantial part of Europe, including where you live. But I suppose that would be unacceptable to you as you seem to be somewhat hostile to the Soviets.



1. What has post-war conflict or the lack of it between the West and the USSR to do with bombing Dresden or victor's justice or anything else that happened in WWII?

2. You may have missed the Cold War, which absorbed rather a lot of the West's military, economic, political and diplomatic resources in facing the Communist Bloc from 1945 until, in part as a consequence of the Western pressure, the Soviets collapsed.

3. I don't know what 'very known reasons' you have in mind, but I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. I can tell you that the prospect of nuclear annihilation, or mutual assured destruction as it became known later, was a very good reason for both sides to avoid armed conflict and I'm glad it did.



Not as harrowing as the British forcing civilian refugees back to the Soviets after the war, but what the **** has any of this to do with bombing Dresden or victor's justice or the price of fish during the war?



I thought that Tokyo and the nuclear attacks were rather successful exercises in mass killing.

I don't recall the Soviets doing anything like that.



No, no mass killing, really. Mostly just killing of wounded and prisoners, which was also done by British and Australian troops as a routine post-battle exercise in many instances, primarily as a self-defence measure because of experience with apparently wounded or surredering Japanese wounding or killing Allied troops.

My point is that everyside can excuse herself with the same that Harris did , everyone can find some idiotic reason for the mass bombing , i bet if Goering was alive he can too maybe he will say he just wanted to make training for the LW pilots or whatever else .....
As for the Italians and the soviets for which it seems to me you try to glorify if we compare them there is one big major difference - Italians : no Gulags , no NKVD ( by the mass killings , camps and prosecution continued even AFTER 1945 when there were no nazis in Eastern Europe ) no mass killings or what so known so far to me . If the camps and mass killings are justified for you and they are somewhat big heroes with no other chance .... what you will say about after 1945 ? turning against civilians , no nazis huh ? And yes it has big to do with the victor's injustice , because while the West tryed to hide behind the Iron curtain and wage some kind of strange war , milions who opposed and didn't agree , even said a word against the communistic idiotic sistem were simply in the best case killed , on other more bad put in concentration camp .... the biggest here in my country is called " Belene" , and here goes the victor injustice cause the western won the strange cold war and still not even a word about the horrors , just words like yours " I don't recall the Soviets doing anything like that. " yes you won't and don't want to recall the soviets and their mass killings hidden behind the iron curtain for very known reasons - cause they did the hard job for you , so you must turn eye blind . That's why it would be strange for you why i am so against them and the model which destroed the eastern for years to come .

As for the Italians i spoke in now of course , back then when you feel victor i doubt anyone felt bad .

"I could also have said that the Soviets bore the brunt of the European war in fighting, manpower, and casualties (military, POW and civilian) and that without them the Nazis could well still have control of a substantial part of Europe, including where you live. But I suppose that would be unacceptable to you as you seem to be somewhat hostile to the Soviets. "

No it's not only because of them if there wasn't many open fronts in 1944 and active Allied engagment the war could continue a lot longer , specially the germans were producing V1,V2 and hell knows what else .
And the statement that the Dresden bombing raid was to aid Soviet advance .... lol haven't heard more funny thing really ... you know that's a lie and to lie is a bad thing ;)

Ivaylo
05-19-2010, 06:43 AM
What an interesting statement--and as if they had a choice. You mean the decadent Western Allies solicited the services of the brutal, conniving NKVD? Actually, it was the Germans that resulted in the use of their services if you actually look it up. What were the Western Allies supposed to do? Allow the Soviet Union to collapse resulting in a complete reconstitution of German power? As I recall, it was Hitler's regime that signed a "nonaggression pact" with the Soviet gov't and even allowed them to carve up poor Poland...

I have no idea what you mean. I suppose you're referring to the potential war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

LOL i think you very much know what i mean ... and by the way wake up there is no Warsaw pact today ... the example was for today . I meant that the way you justify the soviets and their doings i pray someone invade us .... we can kill him , burn him , throw him in GULAG ( we have one from soviet time it would do great job to reopen lol ) , suppress any opposition , kill civilians only because they said " **** your president " .... that would be great i am lookin' forward to it . Because all is in the name of the big heroes and the long living freedom ;)

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 06:53 AM
Those figures are risible, are wiki trying to tell us that Germany produced more in 4 months, during 1945 with it's territory devastated for air raids than 12 month in 1942, get a better source, maybe those were Goebbels's figures.

It was needed 14 hours of firestorm to destroy a rail junction, yeah right, like burning down a house to kill a mouse.

And had little fuel or lubricants to put in them and had huge difficulties transferring just about anything to the fronts...

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 06:55 AM
LOL i think you very much know what i mean ... and by the way wake up there is no Warsaw pact today ... the example was for today . I meant that the way you justify the soviets and their doings i pray someone invade us .... we can kill him , burn him , throw him in GULAG ( we have one from soviet time it would do great job to reopen lol ) , suppress any opposition , kill civilians only because they said " **** your president " .... that would be great i am lookin' forward to it . Because all is in the name of the big heroes and the long living freedom ;)

I realize there's no Warsaw Pact "today," I'm trying to figure out what the hell you're talking and in what context...

Rising Sun*
05-19-2010, 07:40 AM
I realize there's no Warsaw Pact "today," I'm trying to figure out what the hell you're talking and in what context...

You're not Robinson Crusoe there, mate.

WTF is he on about with the Trail of Tears and post-WWII absence of Western fingers lifted to oppose the USSR and all the other remote influences and irrelevant historical events which made Harris and Churchill the worst war criminals of all time as associates of the NKVD ..... blah blah blah?

Rising Sun*
05-19-2010, 09:17 AM
My point is that everyside can excuse herself with the same that Harris did , everyone can find some idiotic reason for the mass bombing…

Which ‘excuse’ do you say Harris used that other sides used for mass bombing?

Apart from the Americans and British, I don’t think any other nation was engaged in bombing on that scale during the war and certainly not in 1945 in Germany.


, i bet if Goering was alive he can too maybe he will say he just wanted to make training for the LW pilots or whatever else .....

Well, Goering was alive at the time of Dresden and indeed for some time after the war but, unfortunately for him and the Luftwaffe pilots, at the time of Dresden the days had long passed since they could make such a claim, or even engage in training flights or anything but desperate survival flights, despite having started the bombing war with Rotterdam, Coventry, etc.

It is always rather curious to see people complaining about the biter being bit.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, and all that.


As for the Italians and the soviets for which it seems to me you try to glorify …

Well, f*ck me drunk and shove a burnt wombat up my arse for hairy confusion in the morning about the events of the night before.

When, and in exactly what words, have I tried to glorify (a) the Italians (which would be quite a difficult job given their rather poor performance in the war) and (b) the Soviets (who, like it or not and like them or not, bore the brunt of the European war against the Nazis – compare the American and British / German losses in the West with the Soviet / German losses in the East).


if we compare them there is one big major difference - Italians : no Gulags , no NKVD

So?

The Soviets didn’t use poison gas in Ethiopia as the Italians did, but what does that prove about the moral or other superiority or inferiority of either compared with the other?


( by the mass killings , camps and prosecution continued even AFTER 1945 when there were no nazis in Eastern Europe ) no mass killings or what so known so far to me . If the camps and mass killings are justified for you and they are somewhat big heroes with no other chance .... what you will say about after 1945 ? turning against civilians , no nazis huh ?

What I’ll say is that post-war events or the lack of them have fu*k all to do with Dresden and or victors’ justice or injustice in WWII and everything to do with your obsessive hostility to the Soviets and or Russians.


And yes it has big to do with the victor's injustice , because while the West tryed to hide behind the Iron curtain

Have you just come off an LSD trip or something?

The West hid behind the Iron Curtain?

Where do you get this crazy sh*t from? A f*cktard comic?

You clearly have no idea of the enormous Western air, sea and land forces arrayed and trained against the USSR and China, and lesser communist states, for several decades after WWII nor the tens of thousands of Western lives lost in hot wars against them and not a few lives lost in cold wars against them.




and wage some kind of strange war , milions who opposed and didn't agree , even said a word against the communistic idiotic sistem were simply in the best case killed , on other more bad put in concentration camp .... the biggest here in my country is called " Belene" , and here goes the victor injustice cause the western won the strange cold war

What’s strange here is your distorted and irrational conception of just about everything to do with the points you have raised so far as they relate to Dresden and WWII.

So it’s time for a reality check.

Why did the Western nations have any obligation to save anyone but themselves from the Soviets after WWII?

Why didn’t the nations taken over by the Soviets save themselves?

Why do you blame the West for the failures of your own governments and people post-war, which stems in part from your country’s decision to join the Axis early in the war when it looked like the Nazis would win?

Why aren’t you complaining about Bulgaria’s invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece when it looked like the Nazis were winning, or was it alright for Bulgaria to do that but wrong for the Soviets to take over Bulgaria? Biter bit, and all that.

Instead of raising remote events such as the Trail of Tears why aren’t you complaining about Bulgaria’s complicity in rounding up Jews from the territories Bulgaria occupied in Yugoslavia and Greece so that they could be shipped to the Nazi gas chambers? Or didn't those Jews being sent to gas chambers by Nazi-aligned Bulgarians matter as much as American Indians being dispossessed but generally allowed to live by the evil Americans some sixty to seventy years earlier?

Didn’t Bulgaria act in a craven and treacherous fashion by joining the Axis when it looked like they were winning and later switching sides to the Soviets when the Soviets were invading?

How are any of the foregoing unilateral and voluntary acts by Bulgaria, and their post-war consequences, the fault of the Western Allies?

And why the fu*k would any Western power want to save such a craven and treacherous nation which was an Axis power fighting the West for almost all of the war, until it switched sides at the last minute to save its own skin?

Oh, and what about the communists in Bulgaria who opposed its pro-Nazi regime during the war and assisted Bulgaria’s induction into the Soviet circle? I suppose that’s the fault of Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy et al? After all, it is well known that the Americans had the power to create and control indigenous political movements in states under Nazi occupation. Or was it Churchill who performed that magic? Jesus wept!



and still not even a word about the horrors , just words like yours " I don't recall the Soviets doing anything like that. "

Okay.

Give me examples of Soviet bombing similar to Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that the Soviets didn’t have atomic weapons at the time.

So find me some with conventional weapons that are equivalent to Tokyo.

It would also be less annoying if you stopped your facile distortions of what I say to present my comments in an entirely different context which, happily for you, conforms with your pathological hostility to the Soviets (or at least the ones who weren’t Bulgarian communists who brought the Soviets to power in Bulgaria, which clearly was the fault of the rabidly anti-communist West.).


yes you won't and don't want to recall the soviets and their mass killings hidden behind the iron curtain for very known reasons - cause they did the hard job for you , so you must turn eye blind .

No, I just don’t know about them.

Do enlighten us about the Soviet Auschwitzes etc.


No it's not only because of them if there wasn't many open fronts in 1944 and active Allied engagment the war could continue a lot longer , specially the germans were producing V1,V2 and hell knows what else .
And the statement that the Dresden bombing raid was to aid Soviet advance .... lol haven't heard more funny thing really ... you know that's a lie and to lie is a bad thing.

Sorry.

I was just relying on historical evidence.

Perhaps you could try that to support some of your assertions, for a welcome change.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 02:03 PM
....
Okay.

Give me examples of Soviet bombing similar to Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that the Soviets didn’t have atomic weapons at the time.

So find me some with conventional weapons that are equivalent to Tokyo.
...


The Soviets didn't even have a strategic bomber force worth a piss. They did indiscriminately use artillery and tactical bombing when they were within range of German cities though, to be fair...


Sorry.

I was just relying on historical evidence.

Perhaps you could try that to support some of your assertions, for a welcome change.

We're wasting our breath here I'm afraid with passionate, emotional people looking to play the blame-game...

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 02:12 PM
You're not Robinson Crusoe there, mate.

WTF is he on about with the Trail of Tears and post-WWII absence of Western fingers lifted to oppose the USSR and all the other remote influences and irrelevant historical events which made Harris and Churchill the worst war criminals of all time as associates of the NKVD ..... blah blah blah?

Right. I thought he was talking about some hypothetical, NATO-sanctioned Turkish invasion of Bulgaria during a war that never happened or something. But maybe he's just drunker than we are? :)

kurt
05-19-2010, 03:10 PM
The Soviets didn't even have a strategic bomber force worth a piss. They did indiscriminately use artillery and tactical bombing when they were within range of German cities though, to be fair...



We're wasting our breath here I'm afraid with passionate, emotional people looking to play the blame-game...

This is not a bombardment example but this case give some light on this issue:

MV Wilhelm Gutloff german ship hospital

The Wilhelm Gustloff's final voyage was during Operation Hannibal in January 1945, when it was sunk while participating in the evacuation of civilians and personnel who were surrounded by the Red Army in East Prussia. The Gustloff was hit by three torpedoes from the Soviet submarine S-13 in the Baltic Sea on the night of 30 January 1945 and sank in less than 45 minutes. An estimated 9,400 people were killed in the sinking.[1][2] If accurate, this would be the largest known loss of life occurring during a single ship sinking in recorded maritime history

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 03:24 PM
This is not a bombardment example but this case give some light on this issue:

MV Wilhelm Gutloff german ship hospital

The Wilhelm Gustloff's final voyage was during Operation Hannibal in January 1945, when it was sunk while participating in the evacuation of civilians and personnel who were surrounded by the Red Army in East Prussia. The Gustloff was hit by three torpedoes from the Soviet submarine S-13 in the Baltic Sea on the night of 30 January 1945 and sank in less than 45 minutes. An estimated 9,400 people were killed in the sinking.[1][2] If accurate, this would be the largest known loss of life occurring during a single ship sinking in recorded maritime history

A terrible tragedy. But also a pittance regarding the loss of Soviet lives in Barbarossa. And again, the ship never would have been sunk to begin with if Germany had not tried to "kick" the "rotten door" in to begin with. And how does said "atrocity" compare with German soldiers sometimes throwing Russians out of their dachas after stealing any sort of decent winter clothing they had, and into subzero temperatures? (according to Beevor in "Stalingrad.")...

Did they show how they were liberating their Slavic brothers from evil old Uncle Stalin? Really?

pdf27
05-19-2010, 03:47 PM
Ahem. The Gustloff had around 1,000 unwounded military personnel on board and was fitted with several guns. Even if the Germans had tried to claim it as a hospital ship (they didn't) there would be so many breaches of the Geneva convention involved that the Soviets would be justified in sinking it on sight. Same principle applies throughout international law of all types - as soon as you use a protected place or ship for military purposes, it loses that protection. Even getting near it (e.g. siting an artillery battery near a field hospital) can cause a protected place to lose that status.

kurt
05-19-2010, 03:55 PM
Ahem. The Gustloff had around 1,000 unwounded military personnel on board and was fitted with several guns. Even if the Germans had tried to claim it as a hospital ship (they didn't) there would be so many breaches of the Geneva convention involved that the Soviets would be justified in sinking it on sight. Same principle applies throughout international law of all types - as soon as you use a protected place or ship for military purposes, it loses that protection. Even getting near it (e.g. siting an artillery battery near a field hospital) can cause a protected place to lose that status.

Thanks god Hitler didn't think the same way when british were scaping from Dunkerke. Actually he let them go, no matter what you say.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 04:35 PM
Thanks god Hitler didn't think the same way when british were scaping from Dunkerke. Actually he let them go, no matter what you say.

All the Luftwaffe sorties, notwithstanding.

Of course, some of Hilter's SS minions didn't exactly get the "Hitler loves the good Aryan British" memo since they massacred around 100 disarmed POWs around that time IIRC...

Rising Sun*
05-19-2010, 04:52 PM
But maybe he's just drunker than we are? :)

Not bloody likely! ;)

kurt
05-19-2010, 06:11 PM
All the Luftwaffe sorties, notwithstanding.

Of course, some of Hilter's SS minions didn't exactly get the "Hitler loves the good Aryan British" memo since they massacred around 100 disarmed POWs around that time IIRC...

Not that bad since they were in position of massacring 338.000 BEF and french soldiers.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2010, 10:01 PM
Not that bad since they were in position of massacring 338.000 BEF and french soldiers.

That's already been addressed in another thread here.

Who were? The worn panzers that had very little in infantry support that were supposed to have gone into an urban built up area to attack infantry that outnumbered them several times over. Yeah, a few hundred tanks were going to drive into rubble filled, city streets and "massacre" a third of a million men? Really? Which military academy did you go to?

Try actually reading about the battle. The panzers were halted for a very good reason, and little of it had to do with making the British feel good about themselves...

pdf27
05-20-2010, 01:14 AM
Who were? The worn panzers that had very little in infantry support that were supposed to have gone into an urban built up area to attack infantry that outnumbered them several times over. Yeah, a few hundred tanks were going to drive into rubble filled, city streets and "massacre" a third of a million men? Really? Which military academy did you go to?
Additionally, once the British had a solid perimeter at Dunkirk, the whole way the German attack in France had worked (attack a weak point and outflank) just didn't work any more - few weak points, no flanks, and the British had interior lines and could react comparatively quickly.
Also, remember that France had not yet surrendered - if the Germans had brought up the forces necessary to "massacre" the third of a million British troops in the pocket (and I note that you seem to think it was somehow kind or generous of the Germans not to!) then the invasion of the rest of France would have been delayed. When it actually went in, the French would have fought much harder knowing that they couldn't surrender - so wouldn't have collapsed when outflanked. It the circumstances, it is unclear if the Germans could actually have conquered France.

Nickdfresh
05-20-2010, 07:30 AM
Additionally, it should also be noted that the fiercest resistance the Germans faced in France was ironically at the very end, when all hope was lost. French troops fought doggedly in the hedgerows of the Norman bocage much as their enemy would four years later for many of the reasons pdf27 states. When the panzers couldn't run free, the Germans were brought down a notch in bitter siege and sapper battles...

kurt
05-20-2010, 09:44 AM
That's already been addressed in another thread here.

Who were? The worn panzers that had very little in infantry support that were supposed to have gone into an urban built up area to attack infantry that outnumbered them several times over. Yeah, a few hundred tanks were going to drive into rubble filled, city streets and "massacre" a third of a million men? Really? Which military academy did you go to?

Try actually reading about the battle. The panzers were halted for a very good reason, and little of it had to do with making the British feel good about themselves...


Maybe you know better than Alan Brooke ,Mr. General.

Most of the British were still around Lille, over 40 miles from Dunkirk, and the French still further south. Two massive German armies flanked them: General Fedor von Bock's Army Group B was to the east, and General Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group A to the west. (Both these officers were later promoted to Field Marshal). Von Rundstedt's panzers were within 10 miles of Dunkirk.

"Nothing but a miracle can save the BEF now," wrote General Brooke in his diary. And General Lord Gort told Anthony Eden, the British Secretary of State for War: "I must not conceal from you that a great part of the BEF and its equipment will inevitably be lost even in the best circumstances." On 23 May, he put the army on half-rations. In Britain, 26 May was designated a "Day of National Prayer" for the Army.

Doesn´t look like a promising situation. At least British are decent enough to thank god for this miracle or maybe they should thank uncle Ady?

Nickdfresh
05-20-2010, 08:38 PM
Maybe you know better than Alan Brooke ,Mr. General.

Most of the British were still around Lille, over 40 miles from Dunkirk, and the French still further south. Two massive German armies flanked them: General Fedor von Bock's Army Group B was to the east, and General Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group A to the west. (Both these officers were later promoted to Field Marshal). Von Rundstedt's panzers were within 10 miles of Dunkirk.

Rundstedt's "panzers" within ten miles of Dunkirk? Thanks, Senor Obvious! But his infantry were miles behind him and exhausted from near constant fighting...

BTW, feel free to provide the order of battle and the actual German troop concentration around Dunkirk. I'm pretty sure a Brooke, in no small part responsible for his own little part in the debacle, would have no way of gauging this while on the run for the port...


"Nothing but a miracle can save the BEF now," wrote General Brooke in his diary. And General Lord Gort told Anthony Eden, the British Secretary of State for War: "I must not conceal from you that a great part of the BEF and its equipment will inevitably be lost even in the best circumstances." On 23 May, he put the army on half-rations. In Britain, 26 May was designated a "Day of National Prayer" for the Army.

Right, because again, Brooke had no real idea nor clear picture of what was unfolding in France and both Allied high commands were terminally befuddled from the minute Fall Gelb was launched to the final days of the battle. And he was right about the equipment, but wrong on the soldiers as they were now in a urban perimeter with concentrated, soon to be lost weapons and fortifications. And since the German navy was weak, and Luftwaffe overstretched, he should have known better...


Doesn´t look like a promising situation. At least British are decent enough to thank god for this miracle or maybe they should thank uncle Ady?

Really? You mean evacuating your defeated army isn't a promising situation? They did lose most of their equipment after all.

And why would they "thank" "Uncle Ady (Adolf I presume?)" He's not the one that ordered the halt...

But at least you've found some common ground with the Russians you seem to despise so much...

From a post in the following thread link:


Its complete nonsense.

First of all, lets get rid of the greatest part of the myth, Hitler didn't order the panzers to halt.
The order was issued by the Army Group Commander in charge of that sector, General Von Rundstedt. Hitler merely confirmed the order when Rundstedt told him the reasoning behind it afterwards
Rundstedt was concerned about the state of the ground around Dunkirk, he didn't consider it suitable for panzers. His panzer forces were also badly in need of rest and repair.
Here's a quote that shows his thinking
"A critical time in the attack came just as my forces reached the channel. It was caused by the British counter-attack at Arras … for a short time it was feared that our armoured divisions could be cut off before the infantry divisions could come up to support them"
The attack at Arras had put enough doubt in Rundstedt's mind to cause him to play safe as his spear-head units headed towards Dunkirk.

It is also forgotten that after only two days of rest and repair they were ordered to continue the attack on the Dunkirk position, but by then the British and French had formed a strong defensive perimeter, and they managed to hold off the attacking German forces.

Also at around this time, the French forces further south were putting up a dogged resistance to the German forces, and this caused the German High Command to concentrate their attention on that, instead of the British and French forces 'trapped' at Dunkirk.

When they finally took Dunkirk, the Germans were totally stunned when they realised just how many Allied troops had escaped.

Nickdfresh
05-20-2010, 08:42 PM
Here's the thread where the silly, nonsensical conspiracy theories are pretty much dispensed with...

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4189-Dunkirk.-The-reasons-for-quot-miraculous-escape-quot-.&p=168203#post168203

pdf27
05-21-2010, 01:12 AM
A friend of mine's grandfather was captured at Arras... within a couple of miles of the place his great-grandfather's battalion was wiped out in the first war. He's been researching what the British guys went through there in both wars - does not sound like fun.

kurt
05-21-2010, 10:04 AM
Rundstedt's "panzers" within ten miles of Dunkirk? Thanks, Senor Obvious! But his infantry were miles behind him and exhausted from near constant fighting...

BTW, feel free to provide the order of battle and the actual German troop concentration around Dunkirk. I'm pretty sure a Brooke, in no small part responsible for his own little part in the debacle, would have no way of gauging this while on the run for the port...



Right, because again, Brooke had no real idea nor clear picture of what was unfolding in France and both Allied high commands were terminally befuddled from the minute Fall Gelb was launched to the final days of the battle. And he was right about the equipment, but wrong on the soldiers as they were now in a urban perimeter with concentrated, soon to be lost weapons and fortifications. And since the German navy was weak, and Luftwaffe overstretched, he should have known better...



Really? You mean evacuating your defeated army isn't a promising situation? They did lose most of their equipment after all.

And why would they "thank" "Uncle Ady (Adolf I presume?)" He's not the one that ordered the halt...

But at least you've found some common ground with the Russians you seem to despise so much...

From a post in the following thread link:

The old Rundstedt was the only stupid to support that,

For reasons that are still debated by historians, Adolf Hitler's "Halt Order" of 11.42 hours was given in support of General Gerd von Rundstedt's request to halt Kleist's panzers at the front line on May 24 and not move into the pocket. To the amazement and immense frustration of commanders like Kleist and General Heinz Guderian, the genius of armoured warfare, the coup de grace that might have scooped up the entire northern Allied force was not put into operation, giving the Allies a vital 48-hour breathing space that they used to strengthen the perimeter and begin the exodus from the beaches of Dunkirk.
Let's read Von Kleist who was actually in command of the leading panzers, not Rundstedt behind a desk.

''I must say that the English managed to escape that trap in Dunkirk which I had so carefully laid," recalled Kleist afterwards, "only with the personal help of Hitler." He went on: "There was a channel from Arras to Dunkirk. I had already crossed this channel and my troops occupied the heights which jutted out over Flanders. Therefore, my panzer group had complete control of Dunkirk and the area in which the British were trapped.

''The fact of the matter is that the English would have been unable to get into Dunkirk because I had them covered. Then Hitler personally ordered that I should withdraw my troops from these heights."

Why is so hard to accept that Hitler let him go?

Rising Sun*
05-21-2010, 10:19 AM
Why is so hard to accept that Hitler let him go?

Probably for the same reason you stated before asking that question, which confirms that Hitler was responding to a request from a commander rather than initiating the decision.


For reasons that are still debated by historians, Adolf Hitler's "Halt Order" of 11.42 hours was given in support of General Gerd von Rundstedt's request to halt Kleist's panzers at the front line on May 24 and not move into the pocket.

kurt
05-21-2010, 10:28 AM
Probably for the same reason you stated before asking that question, which confirms that Hitler was responding to a request from a commander rather than initiating the decision.

More on this issue:

Flying over Dunkirk in September 1944, Churchill told André de Staerke, private secretary to the Prince Regent of Belgium: "I shall never understand why the German Army did not finish the British Army at Dunkirk."

And about Runstedt:

Rundstedt, who was credited with issuing the Halt Order that the Führer later rubber-stamped, vehemently denied having done so. "If I had had my way the English would not have got off so lightly at Dunkirk," he later recalled with bitterness. "But my hands were tied by direct orders from Hitler. While the English were clambering into the ships off the beaches, I was kept uselessly outside the port unable to move. I recommended to the Supreme Command that my five panzer divisions be immediately sent into the town and thereby completely destroy the retreating English. But I received definite orders from the Führer that under no circumstances was I to attack, and I was expressly forbidden to send any of my troops closer than 10 kilometres

pdf27
05-21-2010, 11:11 AM
Well of course Kleist would say that - it's after the war, Hitler's safely dead, and he's got his own reputation to think about.

Nickdfresh
05-21-2010, 07:08 PM
The old Rundstedt was the only stupid to support that,

For reasons that are still debated by historians, Adolf Hitler's "Halt Order" of 11.42 hours was given in support of General Gerd von Rundstedt's request to halt Kleist's panzers at the front line on May 24 and not move into the pocket. To the amazement and immense frustration of commanders like Kleist and General Heinz Guderian, the genius of armoured warfare, the coup de grace that might have scooped up the entire northern Allied force was not put into operation, giving the Allies a vital 48-hour breathing space that they used to strengthen the perimeter and begin the exodus from the beaches of Dunkirk.
Let's read Von Kleist who was actually in command of the leading panzers, not Rundstedt behind a desk.

''I must say that the English managed to escape that trap in Dunkirk which I had so carefully laid," recalled Kleist afterwards, "only with the personal help of Hitler." He went on: "There was a channel from Arras to Dunkirk. I had already crossed this channel and my troops occupied the heights which jutted out over Flanders. Therefore, my panzer group had complete control of Dunkirk and the area in which the British were trapped.

''The fact of the matter is that the English would have been unable to get into Dunkirk because I had them covered. Then Hitler personally ordered that I should withdraw my troops from these heights."

All sour grapes, post-war blame gaming by ex-German generals passing the buck onto the Fuhrer. That's fine, because it is generally, and correctly, accepted that Hitler was incompetent at strategic command, but a lot of the said fellows like to ignore their own blunders. Guderian has been criticized in recent years for being over-rated and possibly injecting himself onto a pantheon largely by leaping off the shoulders' of others. And for two men who seem to unilaterally want to blame the Fuhrer and Von Rundstedt for the inability to storm the town and the beaches, it's rather odd that Kleist tried to have Guderian fired...

Secondly, if you're going to cut and paste quotes, at least please attribute were you got them from.


Why is so hard to accept that Hitler let him go?

Because it's a completely idiotic notion that makes absolutely NO sense on any level whatsoever. Why would be let them go? Because he wanted peace with Britain? Then why give them the cadre of their Army back?

kurt
05-21-2010, 08:14 PM
All sour grapes, post-war blame gaming by ex-German generals passing the buck onto the Fuhrer. That's fine, because it is generally, and correctly, accepted that Hitler was incompetent at strategic command, but a lot of the said fellows like to ignore their own blunders. Guderian has been criticized in recent years for being over-rated and possibly injecting himself onto a pantheon largely by leaping off the shoulders' of others. And for two men who seem to unilaterally want to blame the Fuhrer and Von Rundstedt for the inability to storm the town and the beaches, it's rather odd that Kleist tried to have Guderian fired...

Secondly, if you're going to cut and paste quotes, at least please attribute were you got them from.



Because it's a completely idiotic notion that makes absolutely NO sense on any level whatsoever. Why would be let them go? Because he wanted peace with Britain? Then why give them the cadre of their Army back?

The most important personalities involved in the Dunkirk issue, both on british side and german side, have pointed out that there is no rational military explanation for that 48 hours delay of the german army. The only possible explanation is the one that Liddell Hart and Leon Degrell gave to this historical event.
There are plenty of documents about it in internet, if you have any doubt about the autenticity of any of them, it's very easy to verify all of this quotes.

The stubborness of accepting overwhelming testimonys is discouraging,
from certain people there is only a passionate attitud that doesn't contributte to clarify this and many other issues related with WWII.
And it is sad that whenever this people has no rational arguments, they appeal to the old recipe of accusing contradictors as neonazi or alikes.

On the british side:

"Nothing but a miracle can save the BEF now," wrote General Brooke in his diary.

General Lord Gort told Anthony Eden, the British Secretary of State for War:
"I must not conceal from you that a great part of the BEF and its equipment will inevitably be lost even in the best circumstances."

Flying over Dunkirk in September 1944, Churchill told André de Staerke, private secretary to the Prince Regent of Belgium: "I shall never understand why the German Army did not finish the British Army at Dunkirk."

From his discussions with Guderian and other German generals, Liddell Hart concluded that Hitler permitted the British Army to escape on purpose, hoping that this generous act would facilitate the conclusion of peace with Britain

On the german side:

During one discussion with his Fuhrer, Degrelle states: “We talked about England. I asked him bluntly: “Why on earth didn’t you finish the British off at Dunkirk? Everyone knew you could have wiped them out.” He answered: “Yes, I withheld my troops and let the British escape back to England. The humiliation of such a defeat would have made it difficult to try for peace with them afterwards.”

To the amazement and immense frustration of commanders like Kleist and General Heinz Guderian, the genius of armoured warfare, the coup de grace that might have scooped up the entire northern Allied force was not put into operation, giving the Allies a vital 48-hour breathing space that they used to strengthen the perimeter and begin the exodus from the beaches of Dunkirk.

Von Kleist''I must say that the English managed to escape that trap in Dunkirk which I had so carefully laid," recalled Kleist afterwards, "only with the personal help of Hitler." He went on: "There was a channel from Arras to Dunkirk. I had already crossed this channel and my troops occupied the heights which jutted out over Flanders. Therefore, my panzer group had complete control of Dunkirk and the area in which the British were trapped.

Rundstedt, who was credited with issuing the Halt Order that the Führer later rubber-stamped, vehemently denied having done so. "If I had had my way the English would not have got off so lightly at Dunkirk," he later recalled with bitterness. "But my hands were tied by direct orders from Hitler. While the English were clambering into the ships off the beaches, I was kept uselessly outside the port unable to move. I recommended to the Supreme Command that my five panzer divisions be immediately sent into the town and thereby completely destroy the retreating English. But I received definite orders from the Führer that under no circumstances was I to attack, and I was expressly forbidden to send any of my troops closer than 10 kilometres .

Respectfully,

Nickdfresh
05-21-2010, 09:08 PM
...,

Kurt, I'll respond to all this in the next day or so as I'm a bit busy. But if you're just going to cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, at least attribute it properly. Or we're going to have a problem...

But I'm sure in reading Wiki, you came across this paragraph:


On 24 May, Adolf Hitler had visited General von Rundstedt's headquarters at Charleville. Von Rundstedt advised him the infantry should attack the British forces at Arras, where they had proved capable of significant action, while Kleist's armour held the line west and south of Dunkirk in order to pounce on the Allied forces retreating before Army Group B.[1] This order allowed the Germans to consolidate their gains and prepare for a southward advance against the remaining French forces. The terrain around Dunkirk was considered unsuitable for armour,[11] so the Allied forces' destruction was initially assigned to the Luftwaffe and the German infantry organised in Army Group B. Von Rundstedt later called this "one of the great turning points of the war."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Hitler.27s_halt_order

Librarian
05-22-2010, 05:47 AM
It's good to know that there is something tangible awaiting an old official traveler when his relaxation is roughly uncertain. I just cant thank you enough for this opportunity, honorable ladies and gentlemen. :)


But the law may not be universal.

I really don't know much about legal situation in Australia, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, but as far as I know certain laws are absolutely unified and universal even today. For example, food laws in the EU insist that the consumer must be informed of all artificial substances in a product. All ingredients, including additives from either man-made or natural sources must be declared on the label in every single country. Certain potentially dangerous substances added to flavor, color or volume increase are also universally prohibited (Diethylstilbestrol, for example).


So the law which regulates society is not the same law for the same person in transactions which are identical save for the status of the other party… There’s not much sense or universal fairness in a legal system which grants or removes legal rights by looking at the status of one of the parties.

I absolutely agree with you upon that, but yet again we have some countering examples which are connected with the promises the merchant makes, either in his advertising or in the guarantee that he offers to assure you that the particular item will serve the required purpose. In the case of the unconditional warranty, for example, the dealer is stating that your dishwasher will work to your satisfaction for one year. If it doesn’t, you can choose to have him either replace it with a matching article or to give you back your money. No legal "ifs" or "buts", and no "special statuses." ;)


250 kw, not hp. That’s about 335 hp. Anyway, I’m looking at getting only 240kw / 320 hp, because I value and want to maintain my environmental credibility

Oh, silly me! I’m glad you told me. Well, I wish you, my dear Sir, a great deal of fun with your brand new Kenworth Pilgrimage. :lol:


But nobody knows what the law is in a given case until the judge’s decision is delivered.

Furthermore - only for the time being, my esteemed colleague! As you know, the court may later reverse its own decision, or we, the people may overrule the courts judgment by constitutional amendment, and, as we do know, any law contrary to the constitution is void. Quite a nice mess, isn’t it? :cool:


But despite all that the law is not certain.

Law does not exist in the abstract, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. Nor does it consist of absolute or immutable rules. It always was and still is a product of constantly changing human relations. Traffic rules, for example, have changed considerably since the days of the one-hoss shay, and even today the rules must vary from throughways to city streets, from mountain roads to desert flats.

In a democracy, the laws presumably reflect what the majority of people believe is right or good for the greatest number. However, having read this far you will be on guard against presumptions of this sort. You know, the government itself, under separation of powers, may have not one, but several wills – especially if the executive and the legislature are under separate party management, or if the judiciary consists mainly of the appointees of the preceding administration. Moreover, organized and articulate minority groups, rather than an amorphous and incoherent majority, normally formulate the law and determine how it will be enforced in the areas of their special interest.

That’s why Aristotelian ethics is so important, since the firmament of law, embedded in ethics, is vastly greater and more intricate than could ever be devised by any government.


But what if the "elected government" was elected fraudulently, as many in the world are?

No problem at all, my dear Mr. Rising Sun: in that case we shall employ our dearly beloved Election law for the clarification of all those uncertain electoral affairs in a given country - election methods, principles of participation in the elections, voting system, existence of imposition of any kind of direct or indirect restriction on voters or candidates, etc, etc.


Where is the legitimacy in an illegitimate government applying the criminal law to opponents trying to overthrow it, which is often the case with revolutionary movements?

Legitimacy is absent if there is no popular and valid consent of the governed. It is the only legitimate basis of power, and this proposition implies the right of revolution. The enduring appeal of the Declaration of Independence, for example, spring from this immortal legal proposition "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends , it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

But there must be strongly conclusive evidence that the accused actually is guilty, and each one element of the charge must be proved. :)


Don’t hold your breath waiting.

Oh, don’t worry, my dear Mr. Rising Sun – I am a very patient man, and – as you already do know, patience is a poultice for all wounds.


This is an enjoyable debate. I think it occurs primarily because I am coming from a pragmatic practitioner's viewpoint and I think you are coming more from a highly informed jurisprudential viewpoint.

Thank you very much for this truly heartwarming compliment, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. Our dialog indeed was very joyful, because your input was always filled with deeply thoughtful utterance, crammed with knowledge and garnished with strong common sense. If we can envision that day when - like in the 1946 film masterpiece Stairway to Heaven - the ultimate jury, citizens from all over the world will sit in judgment on a case tried in front of the universal court, it will be my privilege, dear Sir, to serve with You there. :)

You see, I have the impression that people usually tend to rise to the occasion when they have someone who truly believes in their capabilities. Perhaps we just need some mutual encouragement to show us who we really are deep inside.

But before that, my esteemed colleague, I think that we will have to put some effort here toward clarification of certain laws that govern the giving of evidence in the courtroom, generally known as the Laws of evidence. These have evolved over one thousand years for the ultimate protection off all parties in a dispute, and – quite surprisingly – even for establishment of the truth. You did your part tremendously well. Now it is time for the old representative of the Crown. :)

Firstly, we have to emphasize one general rule which is particularly important in all legal issues – the fact that hearsay will not be permitted as evidence, because the original speaker is not in the witness box under oath. Because of that inexorable legal obligation, which is absolutely universal in all legal systems of the world, we have constant obligation to claim only what we can prove with items of tangible evidence. Of course, another extremely important legal fact is that the burden of proof always lies upon him who affirms, and not upon him who denies. Consequently, we must claim only what we can prove, and we must be prepared to prove everything what we are claiming.

Now, let’s apply all these previously mentioned legal propositions to certain claims previously already mentioned in this thread, for example, upon this one:


As for the Italians and the soviets for which it seems to me you try to glorify if we compare them there is one big major difference - Italians : no Gulags , no NKVD…

You see, if someone is a properly trained governmental official, who conducts criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state, you have to put direct evidence before the jury to prove the alleged crime in all its elements and beyond reasonable doubt. In that case you will present to the court something like this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DFJ-DZKZUZOINP1055-45.jpg

Officially issued Order of Deportation to the concentration camp on the Island of Lipari issued in case of Mr. Stevan Popovic, natural born non-combatant citizen of Yugoslavia. Reason for deportation: membership in political party

After that, you will be completely able to provide evidence for existence of the system with approx. 200 concentration camps (Campo di Concentramento) for the internment of political prisoners, civilians and Jews, with the annual mortality rate of about 18 %, primarily caused by diseases, malnutrition and forced labor.

Perhaps this slightly desiccated, tedious, but highly failsafe and retentive method will be utilizable in the main case of this thread as well.

In the meantime, as always - all the best! :)

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 04:52 PM
All recent Dunkirk related posts have been moved. Please carry on related discussion in the following thread:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4189-Dunkirk.-The-reasons-for-quot-miraculous-escape-quot-.

Rising Sun*
05-28-2010, 11:16 AM
I really don't know much about legal situation in Australia, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, but as far as I know certain laws are absolutely unified and universal even today. For example, food laws in the EU insist that the consumer must be informed of all artificial substances in a product. All ingredients, including additives from either man-made or natural sources must be declared on the label in every single country. Certain potentially dangerous substances added to flavor, color or volume increase are also universally prohibited (Diethylstilbestrol, for example).

We're not subject to EU food laws here, which is part of the reason why we get to eat stuff you can't, and we probably shouldn't.
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/factsheets/Factcoloursworld.htm#UKEU

Which demonstrates that there are no universal laws at the legislative level.

Or even at the social or 'moral' level


Aceh's religious police crack down on tight jeans
TOM ALLARD IN WEST ACEH
May 27, 2010

''LET me ask you a question,'' says the regent of West Aceh, Ramli Mansur, leaning back in his chair in his spacious office. ''What do you think when you see a woman's round shapes?''

''Rather nice, I suppose,'' I reply. ''But it wouldn't make me feel like raping anyone.''

''Aah, but that's because you are used to it!''

Mr Ramli's dismissive response was hardly surprising. The former member of Aceh's independence movement, school teacher and traditional Islamic healer is on a mission to implement perhaps the most austere form of sharia seen in Indonesia, and his first concern is the appearance of his district's 85,000-odd women.

Starting today, he will begin distributing 20,000 long skirts, a campaign to stop women wearing trousers. While almost all women in Aceh wear the jilbab, or headscarf, many follow the Indonesian fashion for tight jeans, even if they are worn modestly under a tunic.

''Obviously, there is a problem with sexy dressing,'' Mr Ramli explains. ''We see that rapes take place in big cities where free access is allowed between different sexes. Here the economy is small and we don't want it to be like that.''

Even before the policy is introduced, West Aceh's Wilayatul Hisbah, or religious police, have been setting up roadblocks outside the district's capital of Meulaboh, inspecting every car and stopping motorcycles if there is a female rider on board wearing trousers.

In a 60-minute operation in the hamlet of Arongan, more than 25 women were yesterday taken aside for a lecture on Islamic morals and asked to sign a document, vowing not to repeat their mistake and pledging to ''immediately report'' to the religious police if they notice someone else violating Islamic law. http://www.smh.com.au/world/acehs-religious-police-crack-down-on-tight-jeans-20100526-weap.html




I absolutely agree with you upon that, but yet again we have some countering examples which are connected with the promises the merchant makes, either in his advertising or in the guarantee that he offers to assure you that the particular item will serve the required purpose. In the case of the unconditional warranty, for example, the dealer is stating that your dishwasher will work to your satisfaction for one year. If it doesn’t, you can choose to have him either replace it with a matching article or to give you back your money. No legal "ifs" or "buts", and no "special statuses." ;)

No California lemon laws here.

Here you’d need to establish a lot more than that it doesn’t work to your satisfaction, or even that it just doesn’t clean all that well. And then you might be limited to damages, .i.e. compensation in money terms for an estimate of your loss.


Oh, silly me! I’m glad you told me. Well, I wish you, my dear Sir, a great deal of fun with your brand new Kenworth Pilgrimage. :lol:

That is a seriously disgusting motor vehicle.

And I am offended that you could think I might consider it a suitable conveyance in preference to, say, this 240 KW charmer http://autospeed.com.au/cms/title_New-Car-Test-Ford-Falcon-XR6-Turbo/A_1613/article.html ;) :D


Furthermore - only for the time being, my esteemed colleague! As you know, the court may later reverse its own decision, or we, the people may overrule the courts judgment by constitutional amendment, and, as we do know, any law contrary to the constitution is void. Quite a nice mess, isn’t it? :cool:

Not here.

Our national constitution doesn’t guarantee any human or other rights, apart from some peripheral comments about compulsory acquisition of property and establishing or requiring religions or religious observance.

As for overruling a court’s judgment by constitutional amendment, that is virtually impossible here as it requires the issue to be put to a referendum and a for a majority of the people plus a majority of the states to approve it. It is something that would never happen in relation to an individual criminal or civil case, although it might in some far-fetched instance of a wider principle.



Law does not exist in the abstract, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. Nor does it consist of absolute or immutable rules. It always was and still is a product of constantly changing human relations. Traffic rules, for example, have changed considerably since the days of the one-hoss shay, and even today the rules must vary from throughways to city streets, from mountain roads to desert flats.

I would say that all laws exist in the abstract.

They are merely rules, which at best are in written form.

There is no substance to them.

Any substance comes from the physical acts of compliance or breach.

For example, the law that one shall not drive past a red traffic light gains substance only when someone drives past it. If nobody drives past it, the law is just an abstract prohibition.




In a democracy, the laws presumably reflect what the majority of people believe is right or good for the greatest number.

No, they reflect what the majority in government want.

Which is why here my State government resolutely refuses to have a corruption commission, which could look into all sorts of political, government and police corruption.




Moreover, organized and articulate minority groups, rather than an amorphous and incoherent majority, normally formulate the law and determine how it will be enforced in the areas of their special interest.

If only that were true in matters of major community interest which conflict with the government’s / legislature’s self-interest in preserving itself from scrutiny about the corruption in which major political parties routinely engage, and which are the real fabric of what passes for government in a modern supposed ‘democracy’.



That’s why Aristotelian ethics is so important, since the firmament of law, embedded in ethics, is vastly greater and more intricate than could ever be devised by any government.

Aristotelian ethics in this area aren’t any more useful in the modern world than his pre-Copernican attempts to explain the movements of the planets, or other aspects of his teleological thinking.

The problem remains that nobody has come up with a universally accepted definition of ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical conduct’ because they are all culturally based.

What is ethical for a shaven headed, bewigged Jewish woman in a house where she has two kitchens separating dairy and meat to conform with her ethics or laws is not ethical for a Muslim woman with her own hair concealed under a hijab carefully shopping for halal ingredients which aren’t all that different to the kosher ingredients of the Jewish woman although the Muslims and Jews are happily opposed to each other on ethical and other grounds. And then there are Christians and people who aren’t religious and people who are humanists and so on, and they all have different views, ethics and laws.

Yet all of them are supposed to live under a secular government run by crooks of various or no religious persuasions, and all be happy under it in a supposed democracy where they are all trying to impose some of their idiotic views and practices upon the rest of us, whether it be support for or opposition to Israel or wanting some mystical special government treatment for Indian / Chinese students who are exploited by their own countrymen as students, employees, and tenants.

There are laws to protect those Indian / Chinese students from exploitation. The problem is that their countrymen don’t observe those laws.

So what’s the problem?

Laws?

Or people?

Librarian
05-29-2010, 09:35 PM
Well, well… small circles are spreading into bigger ones. :D


Which demonstrates that there are no universal laws at the legislative level.

No, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. It only demonstrates my truly sorrowful personal inability to find some important legal examples. I was somehow under impression that by modern, greatly unified international Food laws, all manufactured food products, counting those marketed in Australia too, must have a food label on it, and that those labels have to list all additives by means of the internationally recognized additive numbering system which is used throughout the world. Probably my stool pigeon was somehow erroneous:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcpdf.nsf/ByPDF/Food_labels_explained/$File/Food_labels_explained.pdf

But don’t worry. If my previous example was somehow wide of the mark, I think that finally we do have a suitable one. So, how about cigarette packaging laws? As far as I know, those laws are absolutely universal in requiring that a printed warning that cigarette smoking is representing a health hazard has to be issued on every single cigarette package. This time we do have certain direct examples as well:

http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/156/marlboro2.jpg

German warning label

http://www.cigarettesreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/cigarettes2.jpg

US warning label

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5451/pljuge.jpg

Croatian warning label

Further examples are also available here:

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Europe%20-%20warnings.htm

It seems to me that certain universal legal regulations are available on this planet after all. :)


Or even at the social or 'moral' level...

Are you absolutely sure about that, my dear Mr. Rising Sun? You see, as far as I know, nudity is strictly and stringently prohibited in every courtroom on this planet. Perhaps Australia is representing some kind of a legal exception yet again? ;)


That is a seriously disgusting motor vehicle. And I am offended that you could think I might consider it a suitable conveyance in preference to, say, this 240 KW charmer http://autospeed.com.au/cms/title_Ne...3/article.html

Well, yo know, when you have mentioned all those numerous horses (actually a whole regiment of cavalry hitched up there!), my first impression was that you actually do need something capable to pull a train of cars, to carry you from one place to another, and, of course, something able to ditch the Joneses. :D

But, of course, today no longer need you to be tied down to the fuzziness of yesteryears, as with that freshly restyled Ford of yours. You need something strong, yet lightweight, spacious yet nimble, luxurious yet involving, something capable to take stress out of human being, and something capable to smile about on your way to the dentist. Something like this, my dear Mr. Rising Sun:

http://www.imagecows.com/uploads/88c4-Mercedes-Benz-F-700a.jpg

Yes, my esteemed colleague – a fine car designed for modern living and powered to leave the past far behind, to escape problems, Joneses and all… with only 5,3 liters of gasoline per 100 kilometers. ;)


Not here. Our national constitution doesn’t guarantee any human or other rights, apart from some peripheral comments about compulsory acquisition of property and establishing or requiring religions or religious observance.

But actually you are not denying the legal ability of court to invalidate and overrule its own decision, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. For example, in case Margaret John versus Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 63 ALJR 166, the High Court of Australia overruled a previous decision in Curran versus Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1974) 131 CLR 409. Please, just follow this link:

http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/papersandarticles/NEW%20FINAL%20APPELLATE%20COURTS%20-%202006.pdf

American experiences are even more intriguing. The Eleventh and the Sixteenth Amendments, for example, attest to that ultimate power retained by the people. Please, take a look:

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_eleventh_amendments_curious_history

American Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times by formal amendment, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, and countless times by interpretation. How can we say that now, at this moment of this day, all change must cease? :)


As for overruling a court’s judgment by constitutional amendment, that is virtually impossible here as it requires the issue to be put to a referendum and a for a majority of the people plus a majority of the states to approve it…

Well, "virtually" and "absolutely" are two completely different expressions, my esteemed colleague. :)


I would say that all laws exist in the abstract...There is no substance to them. Any substance comes from the physical acts of compliance or breach.

On the contrary, my esteemed colleague - legal regulations as mental objects are not abstract entities, but completely tangible (as a matter of fact molecularly encoded!) factual descriptions of appropriate and inappropriate behavior directed to a particular social purpose. The rules of the law may provide for a sanction in case they were not acted upon by certain members of the society, but this is not essential for their factual tangibility, because they - by their very existence - are always clearly indicating standards of conduct (how we should and should not behave), and they exert positive mental pressure on people to conform. In Durkheim’s terms, they are social facts.


No, they reflect what the majority in government want.

Excuse me, my dear Sir, but the majority of constitutions worldwide are clearly indicating that all legislative powers of the national government are in jurisdiction of the Parliament/Congress. For example, the Constitution of the United States of America begins with this declaration: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of representatives." Amen! It is the congressmen - and not government! - who stands at the center of the legislative stage, the central figure on whom all other societal preferences converge. The legislator may feel a lonely responsibility in carrying out that awesome task, but at least it is the loneliness of one in a crowd. All kinds of people, with motives ranging from the best to the worst, are eager to help him to carry his usually well-paid burden, but the star performers in law-making are the congressmen, and not members of the government.


The problem remains that nobody has come up with a universally accepted definition of "ethics" or "ethical conduct" because they are all culturally based…

Oh, what a sorrowful relativistic misconception that is, my esteemed colleague. You see, Aristotle’s approach to ethics was basically teleological, that is he discussed ethics not in terms of moral absolutes, but in terms of what is conductive to man's good. That approach has nothing in common with this nowadays so popular cultural relativity, with all those coexisting and supposedly equally valid, although significantly and sometimes mournfully dissimilar patterns of human life, thus prohibiting every form of deontic analysis of any social practice, including slavery, cannibalism, infanticide or genocide. If you adopt that relativistic position, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, then you can't be critical about manifestations of evil at all, even if you do notice it in the world around you.

And that’s exactly why Aristotle examined various kinds of good, and why he identified the highest good as the attainment of human happiness. After careful discussion of the problematic concept of happiness, he concluded that the human happiness is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. He distinguished moral virtues and intellectual virtues, which are determined, respectively, by the irrational and the rational powers of the human soul. He differentiated virtue from vice, arriving at the definition of virtue as a middle disposition between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. Consequently, the highest virtue is the activity which distinguishes man from other animals – namely the activity in accordance with reason. And that’s exactly why he indicates that practical human disciplines, like politics, are incapable for the exactness, because their subject matters are not limited to things that are amenable to precise definition, but always involve habits and skills, which can be acquired and lost.

Due to that strong requirement toward accuracy, he then anticipated employment of the calculus of the propositional modalities, relating to normative (or valuational) classifications of human actions and states of human affairs, such as the permitted, the obligatory, the forbidden and the meritorious, which are to be characterized as deontic modalities (deontos – that which is binding), systematized in the deontic logic, and applied for the practical human purposes in a set of mathematically established legal rules.

Mathematical ethics, that final expression of the Aristotelian teleological doctrine, that set of rules capable to establish legal norms ascertained by calculation of the total net utility of gratification and pain effects of an action on all possible parties, is completely capable to constitute the central stabilizer and regulator of the accumulated human controversies in the world, to eliminate insecurity and to thwart uncertainty. :)


So what’s the problem? Laws? Or people?

Only the ignorance, my esteemed colleague. That’s the only problem we are dealing with through the ages. :(

Rising Sun*
05-30-2010, 09:17 AM
No, my dear Mr. Rising Sun. It only demonstrates my truly sorrowful personal inability to find some important legal examples. I was somehow under impression that by modern, greatly unified international Food laws, all manufactured food products, counting those marketed in Australia too, must have a food label on it, and that those labels have to list all additives by means of the internationally recognized additive numbering system which is used throughout the world.

That is largely observed here under our food laws, and of course appears on foods imported from the EU, but we have a delightful avenue of escape which allows food manufacturers to say things like "No added MSG", which means only that it wasn't added by that manufacturer but there could be buckets of it added by a supplier of some ingredient, with or without the connivance of the final manufacturer.

We allow food additives and pharmaceutical drugs and other things here which are not permitted in the EU and US, possibly because we are still of strong colonial frontier stock rather than just stupid. ;) :(

On the other hand, we are careful to warn susceptible people of other risks, such as packets of peanuts containing the warning “May contain traces of peanuts’. I would prefer a bit more than a trace.


But don’t worry. If my previous example was somehow wide of the mark, I think that finally we do have a suitable one. So, how about cigarette packaging laws? As far as I know, those laws are absolutely universal in requiring that a printed warning that cigarette smoking is representing a health hazard has to be issued on every single cigarette package. This time we do have certain direct examples as well:

http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/156/marlboro2.jpg

German warning label

http://www.cigarettesreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/cigarettes2.jpg

US warning label

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5451/pljuge.jpg

Croatian warning label

Further examples are also available here:

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Europe%20-%20warnings.htm

It seems to me that certain universal legal regulations are available on this planet after all. :)

In Western countries perhaps, but not elsewhere, such as Indonesia where a very different view is taken about marketing and selling tobacco products.


While there is no legal age limit in Indonesia, Youth Smoking Prevention (YSP) initiatives rest primarily with the industry itself and include Philip Morris and Sampoerna’s efforts to work with retailers to instil adherence to a policy of preventing sales to minors below 18 years old.

Another effort is to include the phrase "18+" on promotional materials to instil awareness in consumers that this is an adult product.

"All manufacturers and associations would like to see a comprehensive law passed a tobacco control law - that would include an age restriction o the purchase and consumption of tobacco products," Moeftie told Tobacco Asia. "The industry would also like to have its input enshrined in the law so that it can be part of any discussions hereinafter."

The issues involved with tobacco legislation in Indonesia revolve as much around social consequences as they do health issues. During the process of issuing the PP19/2003, the industry proposed a minimum age law. The government rejected this proposal because of concerns over children selling cigarettes in the streets – the government was seeking to protect the income of minors selling cigarettes at the time. The consensus has now shifted and most in government realize that protecting the rights of minors to sell cigarettes is probably not in the best interests of anyone in the final analysis. http://www.tobaccoasia.com/previous-issues/features/60-articles-q4-09/161-the-pressure-mounts-on-indonesian-tobacco.html

Similarly, what would be regarded as child abuse in the West by allowing a two year old child to smoke up to 40 cigarettes a day is not illegal in Indonesia.


Anti-tobacco advocates worldwide are stunned, but the dad of a chain-smoking Indonesian toddler doesn’t see what the big deal is. And, mom adds, don’t even think about taking the coffin nails away from their little stovepipe terror of a tyke.

“He’s totally addicted,” mother Diana Rizal, 26, said of Ardi, the 2-year-old ashtray of her eye. “If he doesn’t get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick.”

Ardi had his first smoke at 18 months under Dad’s unconcerned eye, British papers reported. Mohammed Rizal, 30, opined, “He looks pretty healthy to me. I don’t see the problem.”

The boy is overweight and uses a toy truck to get around because he can’t keep up with other kids.

The boy’s disturbing habit hasn’t escaped public notice in Sumatra. Concerned officials hit on the idea of offering to buy the family a car if the pint-sized puffer quits. No luck.

The disturbing video of the butt-slinging short-stuff has become an Internet sensation. Scandalized anti-tobacco advocates say it shows what a vice grip the cigarette industry has on the third world.

“I was horrified but not surprised,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “This video demonstrates how truly tragic the global use of tobacco is.”

Myers said multinational tobacco companies are buying up local tobacco producers and hooking new smokers, who know little about the health effects.

He said a recent study projected tobacco use to grow the fastest in Vietnam and Indonesia, where cigarettes are cheap and undertaxed. He faulted the United States as well as nations such as Indonesia for failing to sign a World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Myers said data show low-income Indonesian families spend as much as 12 percent of their income on tobacco products.

“The tobacco companies are treating the developing world as the great new growth market and are taking maximum advantage of the lack of understanding among the poorest of the poor in these societies,” Myers said http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100527butt-smoking_baby_draws_global_outrage/srvc=home&position=5

Continued ...

Rising Sun*
05-30-2010, 09:25 AM
I cannot think of any law which is universal.

The general idea of some laws such as prohibitons on murder and theft is common to most societies, but the details are so different that there is nothing remotely like a universal law.

For example, rape is generally against the law, but the law of evidence in some Islamic countries makes it impossible to obtain a conviction because four adult male witnesses must confirm the crime. Experience suggests that if four adult males witness a rape then they are probably the offenders and not likely to give evidence implicating themselves.

Bringing this back for a moment to victor’s justice or injustice, many people think that the Nuremberg Trials reflect some universal laws against war crimes. But Article 1 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp gives the lie to that by limiting jurisdiction to the major war criminals of the European Axis. Which neatly excluded the Allies from prosecution under Article 6 (b) for “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity” which might have included Dresden and other bombing raids.

It might be said in response that limiting jurisdiction to major Axis war criminals did not alter the fact that the war crimes specified in Article 6 were of universal application. The problem with that is that the Soviet Union which sat on the IMT at Nuremberg did not sign the 1929 Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs so it was not subject to a law which under Article 6 (b) of the Charter of the IMT would be applied to the Axis.

This leads to the glorious farce of the Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg relying upon the 1929 Geneva Convention in his argument against the indicted Germans:


“Thus, the Hague Convention not only forbids the violation of rules of war, but also stipulates that these violations "should be made the subject of legal proceedings", that is, must entail criminal responsibility.

Article 29 of the 1929 Geneva Convention states with still greater precision that:
"The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose penal laws may not be adequate shall likewise take or recommend to their legislatures the necessary measures to repress in time of war all acts in contravention of the provisions of the present convention.

Finally, the principle of criminal responsibility for all acts in violation of the laws and customs of war is expressed with the utmost precision in Article 3 of the provisions of the Washington Conference for the Reduction of Armaments and for the Pacific and Far Eastern Problems, which states that:
"The Contracting Powers, wishing to ensure the execution of promulgated laws. . . declare that any person in the service of any power who violates one of these rules, and independently of the fact whether he is subordinated to an official personality or not, wit be considered a transgressor of the laws of war and wit be Cable to be tried by civilian or military authorities."

Consequently, according to the directives of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and according to the provisions of the Washington Conference, the enforcing of criminal responsibility for the violation of the laws and customs of war is not only possible, but is actually compulsory.

Thus, Subparagraph (b) of Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, concerning War Crimes, defined with greater precision and generalized the principles and rules contained in the international conventions previously signed.

The defendants knew that cynical mockery of the laws and customs of war constituted the gravest of crimes. They knew it, but they hoped that total war, by securing victory, would also secure their impunity. But victory did not arrive on the heels of the crimes. Instead came the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany, and with it came an hour of grim reckoning for all the outrages they had committed.

I myself, speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union, and my honored colleagues, the chief prosecutors of the United States of America, England, and France, we all accuse the defendants of having ruled over the entire German State and war machine through a criminal conspiracy and of turning the machinery of the German State into a mechanism for the preparation and prosecution of criminal aggression, into a mechanism for the extermination of millions of innocent people." end p.148 to 149 at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-08-46.asp

That glorious farce was, however, considerably less glorious and vastly less farcical and hypocritical than his opening comments which conveniently ignored the inhumanity of Stalin’s regime and its apparatus, domestically and externally (e.g Katyn) before and during the Soviet involvement in the war.


GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.SR.): May it please Your Honors, on delivering my opening statement, the last to be made at this Trial by the chief prosecutors, I am fully conscious of the supreme historical importance of these proceedings.
For the first time in the history of mankind is justice confronted with crimes committed on so vast a scale, with crimes which have entailed such grave consequences. It is for the first time that criminals who have seized an entire state and made this state an instrument of their monstrous crimes appear before a court of justice.

It is also for the first time that, by judging these defendants, we sit in judgment not only on the defendants themselves, but also on the criminal institutions and organizations which they created and on the inhuman theories and ideas which they promulgated with a view to committing crimes against peace and humanity, crimes which were designed by them far in advance of their perpetration. ibid.

The breathtaking hypocrisy of Rudenko exceeds the hypocrisy of the other Allies in limiting prosecution to the Axis, but in neither case is there any commitment to or application of universal laws. Partly because not every nation was a signatory to the relevant international conventions and partly because the victors were able to impose their own legal inventions on the vanquished.

It’s not all that different to other legal systems where the legislatures tend to be in the pocket of the big end of town and make laws accordingly, despite proud statements of moral commitment and other vomit-inducing hypocrisy from the major political parties which rely upon the big end of town for campaign donations.

And bringing that hypocrisy back to your point about cigarette marketing, why is it that everybody knows that cigarettes kill people but governments do not ban them instead of happily taking taxes from them to under-fund the hospitals which treat those made very sick by smoking?

A purely moral or purely altruistic government or one which put public health ahead of everything else would ban cigarettes. So why do they just pussy foot around with fairly meaningless and ineffective controls on sale to minors and advertising? Because laws often reflect what the legislators think is best for the survival of their party in government, not what is best for the community they govern.

And that is why there are no universal laws: Because there is no universal government or system of law on the planet, so governments and judges make laws which respond to their local conditions.

Librarian
06-02-2010, 02:55 PM
Finally, certain materials have arrived, so we can carry on our truly outstanding discussion. :)


In Western countries perhaps, but not elsewhere, such as Indonesia where a very different view is taken about marketing and selling tobacco products.

Sorry, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, but perhaps I do not understand properly this tiny piece of information:
"A health law passed in 2009 formally recognizes that smoking is addictive, and an anti-smoking coalition is pushing for tighter restrictions on smoking in public places, advertising bans and bigger health warnings on cigarette packages."

Original source is located here:

http://www.physorg.com/news193646336.html

It seems to me that actually Indonesian cigarette packages are equipped with those printed warnings, but those are somehow undersized. ;)

And here we have another highly intriguing official announcement:

http://snus-news.blogspot.com/2010/05/philippines-department-of-health-wants.html

Actually, already existing, but insufficiently persuasive bland text warnings will be amplified very soon by new, completely explicit warnings on cigarette packs that would illustrate the ill effects of smoking.

Hooray for our dearly beloved International Law! :D


Cannot think of any law which is universal.

Oh, come on, my dear Mr. Rising Sun – universal law theory is absolutely not so incomprehensible like the Holomorphy of the Maximum Helicity in Twistor Spaces. You are exceedingly attached to the Austinian doctrine, that’s all. Fortunately, we have some encouraging examples on our side too. ;)

The legal historians, of whom Sir Henry Maine was the most distinguished, had effectively disputed the view that law was nothing more than a command enforced by a sovereign authority. He ascertained that the primary relationship is always between man and man, and that law actually prescribes the duty which the one owes to the other, and not to the higher entity of the artificial person, known as state.


The general idea of some laws such as prohibitons on murder and theft is common to most societies, but the details are so different that there is nothing remotely like a universal law.

On the contrary – in numerous systems you always do have an invariable, prescription of duty against the commitment of wrongful act. Thus if X steals Y's property he is breaking a law of the Christian religion because the Ten Commandments provide "Thou shalt not steal", because in doing so he has violated his duty to God. In the very same tame X is breaking the State law against larceny, and he is therefore violating his duty to the artificial person known as State. Finally, he is breaking the moral law by violating the obligation which he owes to all men not to steal from any of them. A society constitutes a relationship between the various members, and it follows that they must owe a mutual duty to each other. It is interesting to note that it is still the theory of the English criminal law that a prosecution is brought by an individual, and that that individual need not to be the person who has been injured by the crime, therefore there is the recognition that it is the moral dutyof everyone to protest against a breach, because each member owes a duty to the others to protect their rights. :)


Bringing this back for a moment to victor’s justice or injustice, many people think that the Nuremberg Trials reflect some universal laws against war crimes. But Article 1 of the Charter of the International Military tribunal gives the lie to that by limiting jurisdiction to the major war criminals of the European Axis. Which neatly excluded the Allies from prosecution…

Truly excellent legal argument, my esteemed colleague. But finally those countless souls deeply interested in a penetrating analysis about ethical values in a morally avaricious society of today, all those souls interested into modern and codified applications of ethical principles do have a final legal precedent which resolutely proves that members of the Allied forces during the WW2 are completely responsible for every violation of the humanitarian rules in the Hague Convention and Regulations from 1907, which were "recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war" by 1939.

Precedent was served by the Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in case of Kononov v. Latvia, (App. No. 36376/04) in which the defendant was a former Soviet partisan, officially recognized member of the Grand Alliance against the Axis.

Verdict is available here:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=867803&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

Briefly, my esteemed colleague, we finally do have an official legal precedent issued by the European Court of Justice (established in 1953) which openly proclaims that the offenses of Allied soldiers, committed against the laws and customs of war as those were understood at that time, are constituting war crimes thus being criminally accountable.

You see, if certain legal provisions are applicable to transgressions committed by Soviet Partisans, they are ipso facto completely applicable for those wrongdoings which were committed by certain Air Chief Marshals.

Consequently, it seems to me that we finally do have a completely straight case in the main issue of this thread as well, my esteemed colleague.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that the Bomber Command and commanding officers within it have violated regulations of the Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 and the annexed Regulations, (October 18, 1907) which were "recognized by all civilized nations and regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war", namely Art. 27 of the previously mentioned Convention:

"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."

It was indubitably established that during the operation 22 hospitals and clinics in Dresden were destroyed by Allied bombing:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Dresden-KrankenhausJohanstadt.jpg

Hospital Johannstadt, Dresden – February, 1945

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Dresden-Kinderklinik.jpg

Clinic for Children, Dresden – February, 1945

Probable Verdict of the European Court of Justice in this case could be expressed along these lines:

"Presentation of factual steps which were undertaken toward protection of hospitals and places where the sick and wounded were collected never occurred, nor any demonstration of protective measures was ever presented to the Court. Consequently, legally accountable personalities within the Allied Forces have demonstrated a wanton disregard for the safety of legitimately and specifically protected places, thus being responsible for the commitment of the offense of criminal negligence and therefore are affirmed by this Court of Justice of the European Union as guilty."

In the Old Testament a verse reads: "A day of little things, no doubt, but who would dare despise it?"

Sorry, honorable ladies and gentlemen, but here is again that boring little massage:
"The text that you have entered is too long (17148 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long."

OK – no problem at all...:roll:

END OF PART 1

Librarian
06-02-2010, 02:57 PM
PART 2


The breathtaking hypocrisy of Rudenko exceeds the hypocrisy of the other Allies in limiting prosecution to the Axis, but in neither case is there any commitment to or application of universal laws.

Not quite, my esteemed colleague. You see, the most ludicrous ever presented hypocrisy at Nuremberg actually was delivered by the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Mr. Robert Houghwout Jackson:

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

(Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials, November 10 - 1945).

And if you are asking me why, my esteemed colleague, my answer is because that tiny passage actually represented the essence of the Legal Fiction that was used to substitute the realm of the Justice in the waning Age of Faith, because those words actually expressed the bitter farewell of the ending Renaissance to Eternity of Formalized Pragmatic Immorality, ascendance of a Brilliant Interpretation of a Monumental Inquiry into the Nature of Ethical Values in an acquisitive society that we inhale even today.

We have seen, my esteemed colleague, how in those post-WW2 years the loyalties, the allegiances, the virtue and the wisdom were constantly weakened, and the discovery of that apostasy set up a further current of fear and uncertainty. Greedy demagogues, disguised as lawyers, have exploited these fears with such a ruthless intellectual cruelty as to endanger the right of the Equal Justice Under Law, essential substance to the survival of human society. For once the right of equal justice under law, with its corollary of voluntarily accepted responsibility, is gone, then physical survival always is and will be threatened somewhere on this planet.

We are realizing today, my esteemed colleague, how vacant conformity can be enforced by coercion, intimidation, the kind of detestation spread by reckless demagoguery. And herd-conformity achieved with empty words is the very essence of it, the sign and symbol of the dreadful confusion of ends and means that represents the destroying agent of our world. As he was coerced to conform by those words, the individual was made to serve numerous ends determined outside his own knowing. By this utterly cynical, although completely honestly and without any doubt idealistically outspoken daydream, we were forced to accept a stature less than that of a free human being, and our awareness of this still produces a deep and bitter frustration in our desperately outdated souls. Essentially, my esteemed colleague, with those words we were told that:

The Nations United have pledged it,
The Charter has spoken it plain,
That mercy from clouds of compassion
May fall as the healing rain,

That Peace shall flow as a river
And water the desert and plain,
The Word has gone forth to the peoples
And shall not return in vain.

O, young men of courage undaunted,
Ride out toward the new frontiers,
In newness of life great-hearted,
For Love casts out all fears.

No more let the peoples be haunted
By the ghosts of fear and dread,
For brother shall share with brother
And Truth shall be their bread.

No wonder that well-educated observers could seldom see anything to admire in the open viciousness of the Realpolitik, of the moral crusades which were only substitutes for ordinary bargaining. Instead of that brilliant new world we got this:

T is one dull chaos, one unfertile strife
Betwixt half-polished and half barbarous life;
Where every ill the ancient world can brew
Is mixed with every grossness of the new;
Where all corrupts, though little can entice,
And nothing’s known of luxury but vice.

In my days, my esteemed colleague, the idealistic youngsters wanted to mount intrinsically just crusades to wipe out the remnants of criminal and dishonest ambiguity, but their honest efforts were reputed because virtue and wisdom no longer guided the United Nations of Earth. What they saw was not encouraging at all. Too a new United Planetary Society, nominally based upon Law & Justice, a mass of well paid demagogues, all of them intrinsically democratic, insisted on applying every stimulant that could inflame the worst appetites, while at the same time instantly taking away every influence that had helped to restrain the passions. Greed for wealth, lust for power, yearning for the blank void of savage avaricious freedom such as wolves delighted in – these were the fires that flamed under the cauldron of our so called modern post-ww2 society, in which, as the old fools like us believed, the proven crust of law, logic, moral, ethics, knowledge and reason, and even common respect for age, education and experience was rapidly melting away, and was indeed broken into fragments, swept away by the seething mass of scum ever rising in greater quantities to the surface.

Therefore, beware of scientific and especially legal brilliance, my good colleague: the future of this world lies in outstaying it.

For your own good - let them outtalk you, even outshine you, but never let them to isolate you! I feel sure you are an idealist despite your strong practical tone. Even prayer, I find, is best in company. For my part – I am assuring you – Rudenko was also a man of high principle whenever he could afford to be one, which was not as often as he would have liked. Therefore don't strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Old fashioned Chivalry obliges.


why is it that everybody knows that cigarettes kill people but governments do not ban them instead of happily taking taxes from them to under-fund the hospitals which treat those made very sick by smoking?

I think that this sorrowful praxis is somehow connected with the peculiar philosophical concept called Freedom of Choice - ability of human beings to make their choices free from constraints, even if those choices are directly harmful for them. As far as I remember, one school of thought, for example, still holds that the Higher Entity from above made liquor for temptation to see if man could turn away from sin… :o


Because laws often reflect what the legislators think is best for the survival of their party in government, not what is best for the community they govern.

Hallelujah! If someone was to tally the number of human hours wasted in governments by people trying to accomplish objectives without being given the public authority to do so, we would be appalled. So what is your suggestion, my esteemed colleague? Perhaps the abolishment of indirect democracy? :D


And that is why there are no universal laws: Because there is no universal government or system of law on the planet, so governments and judges make laws which respond to their local conditions.

Very good, my dear Sir. Although I agree with Mr. Vishinsky and You concerning the importance of a correct description of law on this planet, I have a tiny question for both of you.

The most important society of all at the present time is the National State. Thus it has been said that the nation State differs fromm all other societies in that it has a monopoly of physical force at its command. Unfortunately, historical experience has shown that the force at the disposal of the State may be inferior to that which a particular political party in the State controls. If it is said that aforementioned monopoly must exist in theory even if it does not exist in fact, than the answer is that in social science a theory is meaningless if it is in conflict with the facts. Actually, it is respect for authority and not physical force which is the essential element in a Nation State. But that’s not all, my esteemed Comrades in Theory. ;)

It has been said in theory that a State differs from all other societies in its structure as well, because it must have a Sovereign and Subjects. This tyheory, because of its apparent simplicity, has a superficial attraction when applied to a unitary State, such as Great Britain, in which it is possible to ascribe sovereignity to the Crown-in-Parliament. But in a federal state, such as the United States or Soviet Union, it is impossible to find a sovereign unless sovereignty is ascribed either to the written Constitution (which is absurd, as a document obviously cannot exercise power itself), or to the People-as-a-Whole (which is one of the most dangerous fallacies of modern political thought, because the people, as an unorganized body cannot act coherently). And so the demagogues are free to CLAIM that they are speaking in the name of the sovereign people, or a document.

If, then, the distinction between the State and other societies (for example – United Nations) cannot be found in the material element of force or in the very system of government, how can be it determined? ;)

Once again, my dear Sir, your splendid intellectual input testifies to your truly excellent personal ability. I cannot refrain from expressing my personal appreciation of your eloquent adress. I found it to be one of the most interesting of its kind. I shall be deeply grateful for every further courtesy you may extend to us here. :D

In the meantime, as always – all the best!

mkenny
06-02-2010, 04:35 PM
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the Bomber Command and commanding officers within it have violated regulations of the Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 and the annexed Regulations, (October 18, 1907) which were "recognized by all civilized nations and regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war", namely Art. 27 of the previously mentioned Convention:

Sorry but it is not as you state. You may BELIEVE it is but you should not confuse your beliefs with reality.

Librarian
06-03-2010, 07:37 AM
Excellent, my dear Sir. Unfortunately, burden of proof is still upon you, and it can be fulfilled only by presentation of supportive evidence. Therefore please – proceed with your legal argumentation. :)

BTW: The Laws of Evidence provide that deliberately avoiding knowledge of illegal activity does not rank ignorance, but rather as willful blindness. ;)

Rising Sun*
06-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Excellent, my dear Sir. Unfortunately, burden of proof is still upon you, and it can be fulfilled only by presentation of supportive evidence. Therefore please – proceed with your legal argumentation. :)

mkenny can put his own arguments, but if I was defending Harris et al the first argument I'd make is that the 1907 Hague Convention does not define bombardment and, in its historical context, it is clear that all references to bombardment are to artillery bombardment as aerial bombing was not then practised nor in contemplation by the signatories to the Convention.

Therefore the Convention had no application to aerial bombing in general and pattern bombing in particular, and more so as the Convention contemplated the considerable accuracy of early 20th century artillery rather than the woeful accuracy of heavy bombers from 20,000+ feet as a factor in avoiding civilian and other targets.

That said, in addition to your earlier reference to Article 27, I think that there is more strength against bombing cities in Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited. Of course, the counter argument is that any city which has an anti-aircraft gun is not undefended, which puts the defender in the awkward position of not deploying AA in the faint hope that the attacker will abide by Article 27 or installing AA and thereby depriving the defender of the protection of Article 27.


Article 26 might also have relevance: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.


BTW: The Laws of Evidence provide that deliberately avoiding knowledge of illegal activity does not rank ignorance, but rather as willful blindness. ;)

The IMT at Nuremberg was not bound by the laws of evidence, as Article 19 of its constitution provided:
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.


It was, after all, a military tribunal created by the victors to try the vanquished, not a court of justice evolved by a democracy or any other system.

Librarian
06-03-2010, 09:54 AM
Unfortunately, my esteemed colleague, the judgment at Nuremberg, confirmed as obligatory by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in case of Kononov v. Latvia, established that by 1939 the Hague Convention and Regulations 1907 were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war, and Hague Convention of 1907 inter alia, also provided a residual protection, through the Martens Clause, to inhabitants and belligerents for cases not directly covered by the specific provisions of the Hague Convention and Regulations 1907. Here it is:

"Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), 18 October, 1907

This clause, therefore, was confirmed by IMT and the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as the general statement for humanitarian principles, as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of all already existing rules of international law. The exclusion of sick and wounded from the scope of hostilities therefore represented the fundamental distinction between lawful and unlawful warfare, and application of aerial bombardment against hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded were collected (including specially protected categories of population like children) is logically unacceptable for anyone, however credulous, as act being carried out with strict regard to the obligatory dictates of humanity and in accordance with the rules of civilized warfare. Yet again, old fashioned Chivalry obliges.


The IMT at Nuremberg was not bound by the laws of evidence…

But the European Court of Human Rights is bound by those laws. ;)


It was, after all, a military tribunal created by the victors to try the vanquished, not a court of justice evolved by a democracy or any other system.

Yes, my dear colleague. In one of history’s more astounding ironies, the law without justice was righted by justice without law. Still, the quality of ethics continues to be essential to the working of law. ;)

Rising Sun*
06-03-2010, 10:44 AM
Unfortunately, my esteemed colleague, the judgment at Nuremberg, confirmed as obligatory by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in case of Kononov v. Latvia,

I was putting forward a defence for Harris et al at the time of the IMT and the law then, not some much later interpretation based in part on the decisions of the IMT as in Kononov v. Latvia.


"Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."

High-minded principles, but empty.

What is civilized about war?

Where is the humanity in war?

As for the dictates of public conscience, what does that mean when America as the supposed fount of all that was good permitted this in one of its major magazines during WWII? http://seaurchinseaurchin1.blogspot.com/2007/09/arizona-war-worker-writes-her-navy.html


Still, the quality of ethics continues to be essential to the working of law. ;)

Ethics and law the same thing? Now you're just being silly. ;) :D

In the first few months of my legal career I attended a conference with my client and a barrister. In the course of it my, and the barrister's, client said something along the lines of "But that's immoral."

The barrister replied "I'm a lawyer. If you want opinions on morals, see a moral philosopher."

I have no idea how many times I have said, to a client who asserts that something is unjust, something along the lines: "I work in the legal system. It deals with law, not justice."

Ethics and law are not mutually exclusive, but there is no requirement that they coincide. Which is just as well, as often they do not.

mkenny
06-03-2010, 11:56 AM
Excellent, my dear Sir. Unfortunately, burden of proof is still upon you, and it can be fulfilled only by presentation of supportive evidence. Therefore please – proceed with your legal argumentation.

Sorry but I am not one to use 200 words when one will do. Keep it short and simple.
1 You made a claim that the Bombing was a crime. This is not the general opinion.
2 You are the one trying to overtun the status quo thefore the burden fall upon you. Show how it was a crime.



BTW: The Laws of Evidence provide that deliberately avoiding knowledge of illegal activity does not rank ignorance, but rather as willful blindness. ;)
To begin with evidence assumes different properties depending on which set of laws you use. There is no 'universal' law of evidence.
I do not consider myself myopic nor am I avoiding anything. You make the common mistake in asuming what you believe to be true must be true.

kurt
06-03-2010, 12:12 PM
I was putting forward a defence for Harris et al at the time of the IMT and the law then, not some much later interpretation based in part on the decisions of the IMT as in Kononov v. Latvia.



High-minded principles, but empty.

What is civilized about war?

Where is the humanity in war?

As for the dictates of public conscience, what does that mean when America as the supposed fount of all that was good permitted this in one of its major magazines during WWII? http://seaurchinseaurchin1.blogspot.com/2007/09/arizona-war-worker-writes-her-navy.html



Ethics and law the same thing? Now you're just being silly. ;) :D

In the first few months of my legal career I attended a conference with my client and a barrister. In the course of it my, and the barrister's, client said something along the lines of "But that's immoral."

The barrister replied "I'm a lawyer. If you want opinions on morals, see a moral philosopher."

I have no idea how many times I have said, to a client who asserts that something is unjust, something along the lines: "I work in the legal system. It deals with law, not justice."

Ethics and law are not mutually exclusive, but there is no requirement that they coincide. Which is just as well, as often they do not.

I´m aware that this thread has turned into a high level lawyers discussion, very interesting by the way, but on this late post I dare to say that we must try to avoid cynisism, this quote could be useful for this purpose:

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as "the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience." (Annals of America, 2:11)

mkenny
06-03-2010, 12:44 PM
Which 'god' would that be. I understand there are several hundred gods on this planet so perhaps you could narrow down which god it is?
Does this also mean that a godless person has no natural morals? I know that Babylonian 'laws' that pre-date one of the major god figures of the present were filched wholesale by the new gods followers and despite attempts to claim otherwise they were not something introduced by this new religion.

Librarian
06-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Oh, goodness me, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, but why did you make that unnecessary and quite illogical assumption? You have previously acknowledged that "…the International Military tribunal gives the lie to that by limiting jurisdiction to the major war criminals of the European Axis."

It was completely obvious that legally responsible personalities in this case were not members of the Axis. But, after all, that tiny mistake is corrected by now. :)


Where is the humanity in war?

Who knows, my esteemed colleague? Perhaps in some tiny, fragile, repeatedly forgotten things. Perhaps in the rule that nobody wins until we all do. :(


I have no idea how many times I have said, to a client who asserts that something is unjust, something along the lines: "I work in the legal system. It deals with law, not justice." Ethics and law are not mutually exclusive, but there is no requirement that they coincide.

Of all other ends to which law has been directed, the most important in the whole of legal history has always been justice. It is no coincidence that in every legal system the words "law" and "justce" tend to be bracketed together. We speak interchangeably of the "Courts of Law" and the "Courts of Justice", although we know that the two concepts are not identical. All attempts to define justice in precise terms have failed, but it is generally accepted that the essence of justice is "to render to each man what is his due".

The problem of justice affects the law in different ways which are not always clearly differentiated, but in the first place we are concerned with justice in the administration of law. This is frequently explained to mean that the law will be applied to every man without fear or favor. This enables every man, without cost or risk, to bring a legal claim against an offense - whatever the result of that action may be. Therefore a just law must seek to adjust the competing interests of innumerable subjects in a fair, reasonable and rational manner. Justice, it has been said, wears a bandage over her eyes, as she cannot bear to see some of the things that are done in her name. But although blind, she never validates exchange of power for principles.


You made a claim that the Bombing was a crime.

No, I did not. I claimed only that the bombing of hospitals and places where the sick and wounded were collected is representing a war crime, and my claim is completely substantiated by the Hague Convention of 1907.


This is not the general opinion.

General opininon is irrelevant in this case. Unlike the Eurovision Song Contest, International Law is not a popularity contest in which general opinion is relevant.


Show how it was a crime.

Observe this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Dresden-Kinderklinik.jpg


There is no 'universal' law of evidence.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. In Europe we do have European Law of Evidence:

www.gbv.de/dms/sub-hamburg/31853021X.pdf


You make the common mistake in asuming what you believe to be true must be true.

Your claim concerning existence of my faith or belief is not substantiated by any proof. Therefore please - substantiate your claim. :)

mkenny
06-03-2010, 06:24 PM
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. In Europe we do have European Law of Evidence



'Europe' (or more exactly European nations that sign up to this document) is not Universal.



Your claim concerning existence of my faith or belief is not substantiated by any proof. Therefore please - substantiate your claim. :)

You seem to delight in filling the page with arcane and obscure points so I will leave the 'substantiation to you. Just because you believe does not mean it is fact.

kurt
06-03-2010, 06:55 PM
Which 'god' would that be. I understand there are several hundred gods on this planet so perhaps you could narrow down which god it is?
Does this also mean that a godless person has no natural morals? I know that Babylonian 'laws' that pre-date one of the major god figures of the present were filched wholesale by the new gods followers and despite attempts to claim otherwise they were not something introduced by this new religion.
You should ask Jame Otis, but I think it would be any god (even Maradona's hand of god) :), understood as a superior ideal wich inspire human beings to get close to it's perfection while walk away from predatory animal condition.

Rising Sun*
06-04-2010, 09:30 AM
Librarian & kurt: Natural Law

The problem for a worn out old practising lawyer like me with all the mind-numbing deep philosophical debates about (the various forms of claimed) natural law and its relationship to man-made law is that they end up being circular and prove nothing to a purely logical mind which tries to apply the theory to the real world. It’s the same sort of circularity Christians use to prove the existence of their God by relying upon the Bible (or their preferred Testament in it).

The underlying, unstated, and illogical assumptions in both cases are that natural law and the Bible are 'true', and that this is proved by the fact that some things in the world accord with them.

When confronted with things which contradict their belief in natural law or the Bible (or the Torah or the Koran or casting the runes or examining the entrails of an ox), the believers assert that the contradictions are not contradictions at all but are invalid and therefore not probative of anything.

Thus the Nazi racial purity and other laws which offend (mostly post-war, there not being much sympathy for Jews worldwide pre-1945) notions of human rights are said to be invalid because they offend natural law. This was not much comfort to people who were subject to those laws, living as they did in Germany and other places subject to Nazi laws where the supposedly invalid laws applied harshly to them instead of luxuriating in some soft puffy cloud where an abstract debate about the dichotomy between natural and real law could be conducted congenially in an academic common room with cheapish wine and worse cheese.

Similarly, in the minds of the believers the prevalence of paedophile priests in the Catholic Church (not that it has a monopoly on that, unlike its monopoly as Christ's True Church) and the protection afforded them all over the planet by bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes does not in any way undermine the authority and standing of the Church as the instrument of God on earth and his One True Church, notwithstanding Christ’s injunction “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” Matt 18:6. Because all those things within the Church by the people who run it and are God’s channel to the Church’s believers are aberrations from what the Church truly believes and teaches and therefore invalid because they conflict with belief.

When confronted with other contradictions of natural law another cop out is to assert that something is invalid because it is not even a law because the society which observes it is not sufficiently sophisticated to make ‘real’ laws. So, for example, Aztec human sacrifice or cannibalism in, among others, some Melanesian and Polynesian societies is said not to be a law because those societies are too primitive to make real laws, despite killing someone to eat them being even more repugnant to the natural law’s moral imperative of the sanctity of human life, which according to natural law applies to all human beings, than mere murder. Or are we still going to label people who don't fit the natural law argument as savages?

Adherents of natural law would say that a mature society capable of making ‘real’ laws would not allow cannibalism as that offends natural law, as indeed a mature society did not allow it in the 1884 English case of R. v Dudley & Stephens where the necessity for survival of killing and eating a shipwrecked crew member was held not to be a defence to murder. http://www.justis.com/data-coverage/iclr-bqb14040.aspx

The only problem with holding this case up as a demonstration of how man-made law reflects natural law is that it took until 1884 for a court to outlaw the long-established custom of shipwrecked sailors practised in Dudley & Stephens.

Nobody was prosecuted for cannibalism in the Donner Party where many people were eaten, and possibly killed to be eaten, on a stranded American wagon train in 1846-7, only about forty years before Dudley & Stephens. In 1820 survivors of the Essex, an American ship, did the same as Dudley and Stephens without being prosecuted. In 1816 the survivors of the French ship Medusa engaged in similar conduct to Dudley & Stephens, again with no prosecutions. Going back to the Old Testament we have a king upset by voluntary cannibalism of a woman’s own child, but no regal legislation against or punishment for it, which shows that it was not against the law (assuming one accepts the Old Testament as a reliable historical record).

2 Kings 6:25-30 (King James Version)
25And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ***'s [note: the ****ing auto censor again demonstrates its inherent stupidity, as here the writer was talking about a donkey, not a ****ing arse, yet arse is fine but not ****ing a s s' s ] head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.
26And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.
27And he said, If the LORD do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress?
28And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
29So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.
30And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh.


All of this gives us only about 126 years since 1884 out of roughly 5,000 years since the Egyptians were a mature society in which survival cannibalism, or any form of cannibalism, has been against man-made law despite cannibalism being against natural law. If they knew enough history, that must have really pissed off Dudley & Stephens.

It must also have pissed them off even more to realise that natural law, which supposedly is immutable through the ages and societies, isn't.

Librarian
06-05-2010, 08:59 AM
Some truly sorrowful, but utterly authentic examples of modern intellectual nanism, which was developed by wasted decades of our inherently democratic schooling system. Fortunately, my good old Alma Mater was never tired of "Just before the Battle, Mother"… :army:


'Europe' (or more exactly European nations that sign up to this document) is not Universal

Fallacia non causae ut causae – That document is completely binding for you and your esteemed country. :D


You seem to delight in filling the page with arcane and obscure points so I will leave the 'substantiation to you.

Mutatio controversie - The burden of proof is always upon the person making a contentious claim. ;)

We didn’t invent being intellectually helpful, but we believe in it. Hopefuly, our tiny excurse in academic Shelte will be able to solder a pot and mend the dam. :)

mkenny
06-05-2010, 06:58 PM
Fallacia non causae ut causae – That document is completely binding for you and your esteemed country.

I fail to see why you are having a problem here.
You said laws were 'universal' and to prove it you show me some laws that apply to CERTAIN European Countries.
Try as I might I just can not convert a law that applies to a section of one land mass into a 'law' that applies all over the planet.


Mutatio controversie - The burden of proof is always upon the person making a contentious claim.

Correct. You claim there is a Universal set of 'Laws'. That is contensious so prove it.

Librarian
06-07-2010, 08:08 AM
Desipere est juris gentium... :roll:


I fail to see why you are having a problem here. You said laws were 'universal'…

Circulus in probando. I said only that "CERTAIN LAWS are absolutely unified and universal even today", and that "CERTAIN UNIVERSAL LEGAL REGULATIONS are available on this planet." Please learn how to quote correctly. :)

For your information: The European Court of Human Rights is an International Court of Justice and it has Universal Jurisdiction in all Nation States of the EU. Your esteemed country is part of the EU, and certain Air Chief Marshal, responsible for bombing of hospitals in Dresden, was an citizen of your esteemed country. Ergo…


Correct. You claim there is a Universal set of 'Laws'. That is contensious so prove it.

Petitio principii. Punctum Controversie is: Existence of my faith or belief. ("Just because you believe does not mean it is fact.")

And please – don’t worry. I am a very patient old man. ;)

Rising Sun*
06-07-2010, 09:58 AM
Circulus in probando. I said only that "CERTAIN LAWS are absolutely unified and universal even today", and that "CERTAIN UNIVERSAL LEGAL REGULATIONS are available on this planet."

Name one law or regulation that applies equally to everyone everywhere on earth.


For your information: The European Court of Human Rights is an International Court of Justice and it has Universal Jurisdiction in all Nation States of the EU.

The reason it is called the European Court of Human Rights is that it is not a universal court of justice but merely a European one.

And then its jurisdiction is limited to breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a long way short of complete jurisdiction over all legal matters even in Europe.

As is always the unfortunate case in international law where there is no universal law, the Court has jurisdiction only over those nations which choose to submit themselves to it. Last time I looked, it didn't have jurisdiction over, among others, the USA, South American nations, nations in the Pacific and Oceania, Middle East nations, Central Asian nations, India, China, all nations on the African continent, both Koreas, Taiwan, anywhere in South East Asia, and sundry bits of soil dotted around the planet as various island nations, not the least of which in size is Australia.


Your esteemed country is part of the EU, and certain Air Chief Marshal, responsible for bombing of hospitals in Dresden, was an citizen of your esteemed country. Ergo

It remains to be established that Harris was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time.

For reasons which I outlined earlier there are sound legal, as distinct from emotional or moral, arguments that he wasn't.

Anyway, Harris has been dead a long time. Although the EU through its various agencies likes to engage in hilarious absurdity at times, I doubt that even its Court would bother to try a dead man. Although I wouldn't entirely discount it.

mkenny
06-07-2010, 10:20 AM
I said only that "CERTAIN LAWS are absolutely unified and universal even today", and that "CERTAIN UNIVERSAL LEGAL REGULATIONS are available on this planet." Please learn how to quote correctly.

Sense at last. You now admit there are no 'Universal' laws!




For your information: The European Court of Human Rights is an International Court of Justice and it has Universal Jurisdiction in all Nation States of the EU. Your esteemed country is part of the EU, and certain Air Chief Marshal, responsible for bombing of hospitals in Dresden, was an citizen of your esteemed country.

Hmmm...............so you are trying to say this court has the power to deal with something from WW2?




And please – don’t worry. I am a very patient old man.

You may be able to confuse some with your padded posts but the basic fact is you made a claim of 'Universal Laws' which you can not support.

Harris was not charged with any War Crime and as such all you have is a turgid ( Excessively ornate or complex in style or language) carping ( To find fault in a disagreeable way; complain fretfully.) calumny (A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation) .
A farago (An assortment or a medley; a conglomeration)of lies and distortion with no real grounding in reality.

Rising Sun*
06-07-2010, 10:27 AM
Hmmm...............so you are trying to say this court has the power to deal with something from WW2?

The Court has decided that it does.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=53657713&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=82150&highlight=

Librarian
06-07-2010, 11:37 AM
Well, finally we do have some progress here. Good! :D


Name one law or regulation that applies equally to everyone everywhere on earth.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Sir. It sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. :)


It remains to be established that Harris was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time.

Reductio ad absurdum. It remains to be established that Adolf Hitler was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time as well. Perhaps he was really innocent, even though he issued that notorious Commando Order … :roll:


The reason it is called the European Court of Human Rights is that it is not a universal court of justice but merely a European one

I have never claimed that it is or was Universal. But indubitably it is International in its essence, being completely capable to adjudicate certain misdeeds which were committed by certain allied soldiers, as previously confirmed by you.


You may be able to confuse some with your padded posts but the basic fact is you made a claim of 'Universal Laws' which you can not support.

Please, read the first paragraph of this post. :)

mkenny
06-07-2010, 12:41 PM
The Court has decided that it does.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=53657713&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=82150&highlight=

Wrong . The Court decided not to intervene.



Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Sir. It sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

Good. Now let us see how it is enforced in The USA or China. Explain how these courts are bound by the 'Universal Declaration'.



Reductio ad absurdum. It remains to be established that Adolf Hitler was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time as well. Perhaps he was really innocent, even though he issued that notorious Commando Order

So your defence is that as Hitler was not convicted of any crimes then it follows that anyone else not convicted of War Crimes could be as guilty as Hitler? A perfect an example of Reductio ad absurdum as I have ever seen!

Rising Sun*
06-07-2010, 06:45 PM
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Sir. It sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

Alas, no.

It applies only to member states of the UN, not to every person everywhere on the planet.

Many member states of the UN flagrantly deny their citizens the rights in the Declaration.

Others, being the 45 Islamic nations which subcribed to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ARAB,,,3ae6b3822c,0.html have explicitly repudiated their obligation to observe the Declaration in favour of the supremacy of Sharia law.

Also, not everyone is a citizen of a member state of the UN, notably people in the Palestinian Territories who are in desperate need of the protections in the Declaration.

At the other extreme we have the Vatican State, which is governed by the Code of Canon Law which is as remote from the Declaration as is Sharia law.


Reductio ad absurdum. It remains to be established that Adolf Hitler was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time as well. Perhaps he was really innocent, even though he issued that notorious Commando Order … :roll:

That's not a reductio ad absurdum which bears on Harris's guilt as the allegations against Harris relate to bombing which injured civilians and damaged civilian property. It is debatable, and has been hotly debated since the war, whether they were war crimes or not.

Rising Sun*
06-07-2010, 07:06 PM
Wrong . The Court decided not to intervene.

But in so doing demonstrated that it had jurisdiction over war crimes in WWII, not least because the primary issue was whether or not Article 7 of the Convention prevented Latvia from prosecuting Kononov for events during WWII.

There was no need for the Court to 'intervene' because it upheld Latvia's right to prosecute Kononov and the Latvian court's findings, so there was nothing to alter.

It had nothing to do with the Court finding it lacked jurisdiction to decide a matter relating to WWII. Indeed, the majority judgment http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=867801&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 goes into quite some detail about events and law in 1944 in coming to its findings.

It should also be noted that the Court was sitting as a court of appeal to determine questions of law, not as a trial court determining guilt which had a much more direct relationship with the crimes alleged against the accused.

Librarian
06-08-2010, 11:22 AM
Gratia gratiam parit… :D


Now let us see how it is enforced in The USA or China. Explain how these courts are bound by the 'Universal Declaration'.

Pacta sunt servanda, Domine. Exempla in iniuriam illustrant, non restringuunt legem. Concentrate yourself upon these well-known legal principles, and everything will be perfectly clear for you. And if you do have some especially difficult problems involving a certain area of International law, the size of the fee in each case will depend upon the nature, or difficulty of the legal problems. Drawing up a non-commercial legal analysis in International Law, based upon suggested fee schedule of the Legal Club of America, will be charged with $750. Tax free. ;)


A perfect an example of Reductio ad absurdum as I have ever seen!

Thank you very much, Sir, for that heartwarming compliment. Yes, severity of the circular reasoning established by that truly sorrowful sentence ("It remains to be established that Harris was guilty of any war crime under international law at the time.") which confronted the general rule A ratione ad rationatum valet consequentia actually necessitated application of the Reductio ad absurdum.

And no, I am not claiming that anyone else not convicted of War Crimes could be as guilty as Hitler. God forbid. That is only your tiny eristic extension. :)

I’m only claiming that certain Air Chief Marshall was responsible for a wanton disregard for the safety of legally specifically protected places where the sick and wounded were collected, and that he is responsible for the commitment of the offense of criminal negligence.

That’s all.

Rising Sun*
06-08-2010, 11:42 AM
I’m only claiming that certain Air Chief Marshall was responsible for a wanton disregard for the safety of legally specifically protected places where the sick and wounded were collected, and that he is responsible for the commitment of the offense of criminal negligence.

That’s all.

Is that a war crime under the Hague Convention?

Librarian
06-08-2010, 12:44 PM
Alas, yes - it was a violation of rules of war, and Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the annexed Regulations were "recognized by all civilized nations and regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war".

mkenny
06-08-2010, 12:44 PM
Gratia gratiam parit… :D



Pacta sunt servanda, Domine. Exempla in iniuriam illustrant, non restringuunt legem. Concentrate yourself upon these well-known legal principles, and everything will be perfectly clear for you. And if you do have some especially difficult problems involving a certain area of International law, the size of the fee in each case will depend upon the nature, or difficulty of the legal problems. Drawing up a non-commercial legal analysis in International Law, based upon suggested fee schedule of the Legal Club of America, will be charged with $750. Tax free.

No thanks. I recognise bullshit when I see it. Bullshit in latin smells no sweeter than in English.



Pacta sunt servanda, I’m only claiming that certain Air Chief Marshall was responsible for a wanton disregard for the safety of legally specifically protected places where the sick and wounded were collected, and that he is responsible for the commitment of the offense of criminal negligence. [/quote]

Thank you for your opinion. You do know what they say about opinions .............

Librarian
06-08-2010, 12:47 PM
When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both. :(

Nickdfresh
06-08-2010, 01:43 PM
Let's keep this debate civil and respectful please.

mkenny
06-08-2010, 01:50 PM
When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both. :(

I think a better indicator of 'weak argument' is grandiloquence.