[jschultz]

Yes, the overarching crime of the Nazi's was to wage aggressive war (plus genocide + general slaughter of civilians), which is what made possible all their myriad other infractions. Aggressive war is a crime jus ad bellum, that is, Germany didn't have a legitimate right to go to war; whereas, carpet bombing a city is a crime jus in bello, which is against the laws of the conduct of war. A nation could wage aggressive war but conduct it completely within the laws of war and vice versa: it could have every right to go to war, but then conduct it like barbarians.

Anyway, if a man rapes and murders a woman, he is guilty of both crimes, not just the murder, which is the more severe crime.

EDIT - Maybe a better metaphor would be if a man kidnapped a woman and later raped her, then he is guilty of both crimes even though the kidnapping enabled the rape.

[Devil]

Originally Posted by jschultz

Yes, the overarching crime of the Nazi's was to wage aggressive war, which is what made possible all their myriad other infractions. Aggressive war is a crime jus ad bellum, that is, it is against the right to go to war; whereas, carpet bombing a city is a crime jus in bello, which is against the laws of the conduct of war. A nation could wage aggressive war but conduct it completely within the laws of war and vice versa: it could have every right to go to war, but then conduct it like barbarians.

Anyway, if a man rapes and murders a woman, he is guilty of both crimes, not just the murder, which is the more severe crime.

True and if the intent wasn't to 'kill' the woman that is rather secondary to the result.

Originally Posted by Devil in previous post

Wasn't the invasion of the Netherlands illegal unto itself?

Also, AFAIK the invasion was done without a DOW. That's something you can't do in HOI1 and HOI2 (I'm not sure about HOI3....I have to buy another copy).

[Fabsy]

Good stuff John. I am leaning to your position as it becomes clearer. I am not at all convinced that Rotterdam counts as a terror bombing but it was probably enough of an infraction to permit the allies to do similar bombings.

I am loathe however to take Rotterdam as sufficient excuse for the consequent Allied policy of terror bombing ALL German cities irrespective of the ground campaign. That truly is the nightmare scenario all reasonable people involved in drawing up the "rules" were concerned about. The idea that NO urban population is ever safe irrespective of where the front line is. THAT was my main point earlier. I personally consider Rotterdam a relatively minor issue: The population had ample time to evacuate and surrender before any bombardment and thus civilian casualties were low. You cannot POSSIBLY argue that German and Japanese civilians had the same possibility! Or are you saying that all 100 million or so should have immediately vacated their homes and workplaces to live in the sticks? And your comments about Dresden are outrageous: It is common knowledge that rail links etc were NOT TARGETED. The purpose (as admitted by Churchill himself) was PURELY TERROR. The people in Dresden did NOT consider themselves military targets (and the allies made no attempt to justify the attack on those grounds INTERNALLY). And as to the idea of the people having the option of surrender, how stupid a comment can you make! Do you have any idea what the consequences of even suggesting that would be? Any thought about the means by which they could do that even if they were aware they were to be bombed?

I would appreciate even SOME sense on your part that you acknowledge that Allied strategic bombing policy was criminal and merits the status of a war crime. Anything less is partisan propaganda.

[Fabsy]

Originally Posted by jschultz

Yes, the overarching crime of the Nazi's was to wage aggressive war (plus genocide + general slaughter of civilians), which is what made possible all their myriad other infractions. Aggressive war is a crime jus ad bellum, that is, Germany didn't have a legitimate right to go to war; whereas, carpet bombing a city is a crime jus in bello, which is against the laws of the conduct of war. A nation could wage aggressive war but conduct it completely within the laws of war and vice versa: it could have every right to go to war, but then conduct it like barbarians.

Anyway, if a man rapes and murders a woman, he is guilty of both crimes, not just the murder, which is the more severe crime.

EDIT - Maybe a better metaphor would be if a man kidnapped a woman and later raped her, then he is guilty of both crimes even though the kidnapping enabled the rape.

Which declaration of war are you referring to? The Germans certainly had casus belli against Poland... If you mean the Benelux then no, probably not but it certainly made an enormous amount of tactical sense!

Anyway, the concept of DoW is so abused today that it is almost an irrelevance. I mean, did the US declare war on North Vietnam? Grenada? El Salvador? Iraq? Afghanistan? It's meaningless. The act is the important point not declaring it a nanosecond before it happened. I mean, the Japs attempted to submit a declaration of war to the US contemporaneously with the Pearl Harbour attack. Would that have made any difference?

The concept was designed in an era when mobilising was so cumbersome and the element of surprise virtually unobtainable anyway.

[aahari]

Originally Posted by jschultz

EDIT - Maybe a better metaphor would be if a man kidnapped a woman and later raped her, then he is guilty of both crimes even though the kidnapping enabled the rape.

Perhaps I'm being a bit stubborn here but there is intent for a crime to be committed and then there's intent after a crime has been committed.

Let's go back to Rotterdam (as nobody in a right mind would argue Germany was not guilty of breaching neutrality treaties of Benelux and Norway).

Goring and upper echelon command had intent to commit a war crime by breaching Hauge C.
The fact that the Goring order was executed carried out the intent.
Had the 54th been able to abort then the "intended crime" would not have been executed and thus no crime would have happened.

Put another way a bunch if lads talk for months about robbing a bank but they never carry it out, are they guilty?
Or if a woman thinks of killing her spouse but doesn't, is she guilty?

[Fabsy]

You have just decribed the concept of "precrime" in the film "Minority Report"

[jschultz]

Originally Posted by Fabsy

I would appreciate even SOME sense on your part that you acknowledge that Allied strategic bombing policy was criminal and merits the status of a war crime. Anything less is partisan propaganda.

I already addressed this point long ago (link).

Originally Posted by jschultz

You'll get no argument from me on the claim that all sides purposely committed terror bombing in WWII and that overall the allies were the far worse offenders ... Later, during and after the London Blitz, the brits did purposely engage in terror bombing of german cities ... Later on, the germans reaped what they sowed tenfold in terror bombing due to their violations against London (and Rotterdam and other cities).

Originally Posted by Fabsy

I am loathe however to take Rotterdam as sufficient excuse for the consequent Allied policy of terror bombing ALL German cities irrespective of the ground campaign.

For me it depends on exactly what you mean. I think that terror bombing (i.e. - purposely targeting civilians + solely civilian structures) is a war crime in all cases. However, targeting enemy sites that are being directed towards military use (e.g. - tank factories, etc.) and logistical support (e.g. - railroads, bridges, roads, etc.) is completely legitimate even if they are far behind the front lines. There is, of course, a line of distinction there that is subjective (i.e. - the slippery slope) and you also can't be negligent in your attacks such that you are likely to do civilian damage disproportionate to the military advantage a successful attack would gain, which is another judgement call.

Originally Posted by Fabsy

And your comments about Dresden are outrageous: It is common knowledge that rail links etc were NOT TARGETED. The purpose (as admitted by Churchill himself) was PURELY TERROR. The people in Dresden did NOT consider themselves military targets (and the allies made no attempt to justify the attack on those grounds INTERNALLY). And as to the idea of the people having the option of surrender, how stupid a comment can you make! Do you have any idea what the consequences of even suggesting that would be? Any thought about the means by which they could do that even if they were aware they were to be bombed?

Why does it matter if the rail links were targeted? The city center of Rotterdam had no legitimate military purpose. All that Hague requires is that the city be defended at all, which Dresden was, then, using the logic previously applied to Rotterdam by others in this thread, it would be valid for the allies to level the entire city.

Hague also makes almost no distinction about a city being directly on the front lines or not, modulo a few minor provisions about (land) assault getting small exceptions to the typical rules and sieges.

How can you claim the people of Dresden did not consider their city a target when all the other cities in Germany were getting hit and they had significant military production, logistics and activity in and around their city?

As far as making a separate peace, yes, that would prove difficult but I'm sure a diplomat of envoy of some sort could have made contact with the allies and negotiated something before Dresden was bombed. Once it was found out about by the Nazis it wouldn't be pretty but then "traitors" are usually dealt with quite brutally.

Originally Posted by Fabsy

Which declaration of war are you referring to? The Germans certainly had casus belli against Poland ... If you mean the Benelux then no, probably not but it certainly made an enormous amount of tactical sense!

We were talking about the Netherlands in particular. Even the war against Poland probably would not meet the requirements of just war.

Originally Posted by aahari

Had the 54th been able to abort then the "intended crime" would not have been executed and thus no crime would have happened.

I get your point, but (a) it is partially wrong (see next comment) and (b) the crime was carried out, so your point seems entirely moot. It'd be like saying, if the Germans hadn't carried out the Holocaust, then they wouldn't have been guilty of genocide. Yes, and if I was the Queen of Persia, then I'd be royalty.

Besides, the Germans attempted to call off the attack not because they realized it was wrong, illegal, negligent, etc., but rather because the dutch were in the process of capitulating to their illegal demands. It'd be like a mugger saying, "Give me your watch or I'll shoot you." Then in the process of taking off your watch he (accidentally) shoots you anyway. How does this series of events lessen the legal gravity of his crimes at all?

Originally Posted by aahari

Put another way a bunch if lads talk for months about robbing a bank but they never carry it out, are they guilty?
Or if a woman thinks of killing her spouse but doesn't, is she guilty?

It actually depends on how far they go. If they just daydream about it, then they might not be guilty of conspiracy. If they actually start making plans, casing the joint, buying necessary supplies, etc., then they are certainly guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery, which often has punishment just as harsh as the actual crime. Same goes for the wifey.

If you care to test this out, then I suggest you publicly form a group of people who are interested in discussing assassinating the President of the United States. I imagine quite quickly you will have Secret Service knocking on your door and would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, possibly treason and other crimes as well.

In the case of Rotterdam, the attack orders themselves were illegal and had the bombing runs been called off mid-run the commanders still would have been guilty of, at the very least, issuing illegal orders. I agree that the punishment would likely be far less than if the war crimes were actually carried out, but such reasoning is ahistorical and doesn't apply to this situation.

[Fabsy]

John, you are not adressing the issue of the air war, if not linked at all to the land war, effectively makes ALL urban civilians a target. That was the essence of the guidelines established. To prevent the horror whereby all urban civilians were targets (as they indeed were under the allied policy) with no hope of surrender or opportunity to escape.

Up until 1941 civilians could reasonably hope to escape death by violence by retreating from the front line or, if they found themselves besieged, surrendering. After 1941 that possibility to save themselves effectively ceased to exist and it is probably the single biggest reason for the high rate of civilian casualties in WW2 vs WW1 (excepting of course the Holocaust). Can you see that? Can you see why that would be the purpose of the guidelines? Can you see that by ignoring the link to land war the allies made the biggest jump, not the Germans?

And I do not regard bombing factories as legitimate. You may do today because you are inured to it but I view it as similar to the ancient practice of burning crops etc. It may be practical and effective but it is not morally justifiable given the inevitability of massive civilian casualties.

[jschultz]

Originally Posted by Fabsy

John, you are not adressing the issue of the air war, if not linked at all to the land war, effectively makes ALL urban civilians a target ... And I do not regard bombing factories as legitimate. You may do today because you are inured to it but I view it as similar to the ancient practice of burning crops etc. It may be practical and effective but it is not morally justifiable given the inevitability of massive civilian casualties.

No, I simply disagree with your assessment.

Again, purposely attacking civilians and/or purely civilian sites is always a war crime. We do, however, apparently disagree on what qualifies as a "(purely) civilian site." A factory producing war materiel far behind enemy lines should obviously be fair game in my book. This was even recognized in the never adopted inter-war drafts that tried to address air warfare.

Originally Posted by Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare

ARTICLE XXIV

(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.

(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.

(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population ...

Originally Posted by LoN Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

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

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

I do agree that the allies in WWII did not comply with these requirements and did purposely conduct terror bombings of civilians. I don't know what more you want me to admit?

Today, we do actually have the ability to hit pin point sites, even in a dense city, and therefore can comply with both (3)s. Today, we require that any expected civilian damage be proportionate to the military advantage gained by the attack, which is a subjective call. This isn't to say that we actually comply with the laws, but what they are.

[aahari]

Originally Posted by jschultz

It actually depends on how far they go. If they just daydream about it, then they might not be guilty...

In the case of Rotterdam, the attack orders themselves were illegal and had the bombing runs been called off mid-run the commanders still would have been guilty of, at the very least, issuing illegal orders. I agree that the punishment would likely be far less than if the war crimes were actually carried out, but such reasoning is ahistorical and doesn't apply to this situation.

Let's carry out the point then; was the bombing of downtown Rotterdam a premeditated action? In otherwords, aside from Hitlers wish to put the Dutch out of comission asap and Goring putting out a call, is there evidence (and frankly I'm not aware of any but would welcome it) that German leadership had methodically developed plans well before indicating they bad intent all along to bomb civilians & structures?

Ps still hate reading and typing in this reply box w/iPhone. Weakness is the inability to scroll.

[Fabsy]

Originally Posted by jschultz

No, I simply disagree with your assessment.

Again, purposely attacking civilians and/or purely civilian sites is always a war crime. We do, however, apparently disagree on what qualifies as a "(purely) civilian site." A factory producing war materiel far behind enemy lines should obviously be fair game in my book. This was even recognized in the never adopted inter-war drafts that tried to address air warfare.

I do agree that the allies in WWII did not comply with these requirements and did purposely conduct terror bombings of civilians. I don't know what more you want me to admit?

Today, we do actually have the ability to hit pin point sites, even in a dense city, and therefore can comply with both (3)s. Today, we require that any expected civilian damage be proportionate to the military advantage gained by the attack, which is a subjective call. This isn't to say that we actually comply with the laws, but what they are.

I think you should have put more of the passages in bold, including the part where it states that legit targets if embedded in civilian areas shouls not be targeted.... Of course, automated factories or bombing remote facilities outside working hours could be justified. THE KEY IS THE RISK TO CIVILIANS.

[jschultz]

Originally Posted by aahari

Let's carry out the point then; was the bombing of downtown Rotterdam a premeditated action? In otherwords, aside from Hitlers wish to put the Dutch out of comission asap and Goring putting out a call, is there evidence (and frankly I'm not aware of any but would welcome it) that German leadership had methodically developed plans well before indicating they bad intent all along to bomb civilians & structures?

Why do you require methodically developed plans prior to the invasion for there to be a war crime?

The germans didn't expect the dutch to put up as tough a fight as they did. Goering thought, and was correct, that bombing out the heart of one of their cities might push them over the edge. He gave the orders down the chain of command and they were carried out. From what evidence we know, it seems fairly clear that this decision came up during the campaign in response to the unexpected dutch resistance.

If that makes the attack slightly less nefarious or damaging for you, then have at it.