Bomber harris tried for war crimes page 2 alternate history discussion gas water heater reviews 2012

########

Click to expand…Well, arguably, even though neither side deserved it, the civilian populations providing the soldiers of the Third Reich e gasoline with food and recruits and supplies, and the guards of the concentration camps are a more legitimate target than the other armies’ civilian populations, which provided all the above except for concentration camp guards. In addition German troops were rather more likely to commit atrocities on native populations – Jewish or not. They did this in the 1870-1 war with France and those soldiers’ descendants did the same during the WWII occupation. Guerilla activity punished by killing half a village – and not even known terrorists, but randomly chosen people is cruel.

I know this has been morally equated to the bombing campaign, but that’s a bit disingenuous. On the one hand we have a occupied country seething for freedom. On the other hand a nation actively engaged in an aggressive war against its neighbours. I don’t seek to deny the sterling work of the German Resistance, but it’s in a different context.

Sorry, Sikitu, afraid it’s just my vague recollection of a modified set of wargames rules (Von Boltenstern’s Principles of War) in an article in either Miniature Wargames or Wargames Illustrated about 5-7 years ago. If I err, then I’m sorry. In fact, I’m now very embarrassed, as a mere glance gas hydrates energy at the net would’ve revealed no evidence. My apologies.

Oh, I wasn’t saying that atrocities committed justify attacks on the civilian infrastructure supporting those troops. Sorry if it sounded like that! I meant attacks on the civilian infrastructure of a more evil side can be justified much more easily than terror attacks on the good side. By that logic, it is indeed easier to justify such potential VC attacks. However, they would not have been just. One can e payment electricity bill bangalore always attempt to justify the unjustifiable, but that makes it no more just. For example, the invasion of Iraq could be justified by an appeal to one’s audience to consider the inhumane and barbarity of Saddam. Nonetheless, this would not justify the deaths of those innocents killed in the war who otherwise would have lived. Not to them. But to oppressed minorities it might.

Guys, don’t forget the use of the atomic bomb and the overall justification of preventing an Okinawa-style bloodbath from the active execution of Op DOWNFALL in invading the home islands. Cpuld the Allies really have afforded to NOT use the A-bomb when it was ready and expend 10s of thous of American and Allied lives trying to take Japan inch by inch ?

The strategic aerial bombing of cities (including deliberate terror bombing aimed to distrupt production and break civilian morale) began in the First World War and had become a fairly widespread item electricity kwh calculator of doctrine and dogma among airpower advocates in Britain, Germany, the US, Italy, the USSR, and Japan by the time WW2 started. It had already been employed by Germany in WW1, Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, and Germany in Spain. All major nations were expecting such attacks once the war began (as evidenced by the existence of functioning civil defense brigades, civilian aerial spotter corps, the placement of anti-aircraft bateries in cities grade 9 static electricity test, and air-raid drills with everybody in gas masks – in fact the widespread expectation that cities would be bombed with poison gas was even worse than the reality).

In this context, it is hard to consider Harris or his equivalents in any other WW2 airforce that employed terror bombing a war criminal. It seems to me part of what makes something a war crime is its uniqueness – something which stands out from normal gas mask bong how to use warfare as particularly reprehensible. One can argue all day whether the allied strategic bombing campaign was a good use of resources, or whether it was wrong in an abstract moral sense, or whether it was symptomatic of the growing insanity which is modern total war, but I do not believe it should be considered a war crime.

in 1937, the American State Department protested to Japan about its bombing of Chinese cities, Any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity. In 1938, the United States protested again (also protesting bombing of cities in the Spanish Civil War) and now called v gas llc such bombing barbarous. The protest continued: Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of human conduct which have been developed as an essential part of modern civilization.

City bombing was a war crime in 1944, as it is now. The important thing is that, in war, you can commit crimes if you think they are necessary, and get away with it provided you don’t loose the war. And yes, everybody did, but they are still crimes. What gives city bombing a disguise of warfare is the weapon. Imagine a P-51 pilot is shot down. On land, they give him a machine gun and point towards german troops. Keep doing your job! And he will without hesitation. Now a B-29 pilot is shot down. They give him a flamethrower, send him to some neigborhood where families are sleeping and tell him, keep doing your job! What would he do, and why? From above, you don’t smell the burning flesh, but from the vicitm’s point of view, there is no difference. Now you can tell me that in total war everything changes and there are no more moral laws. Maybe so, but then it smells to hipocresy that we condemn gas 6 weeks pregnant the other side crimes, and do not thing for a moment that I am condonig them.

Yep. More evidence that, for all its flaw’s, the Nurnburg tribunal was an attempt to meet out more than crude victor’s vengeance. And in reference to Karlos’ points about US protests against Japanese and German aerial bombing in China and Spain, it is easy to make such protests when one’s own country is not involved in a war. It was also a little unfair, since the gasco abu dhabi location US Army Air Corps was full of air power advocates desiring to build up a strategic air force to bomb, among other things, enemy production centers and cities. I’m not claiming the allied aerial bombing campaign against Germany and Japan was not immoral. It was highly immoral. In hindsight, if those who believe it did not hasten the wars end are correct, it may not have been justified as well. It was not, however, on a par with the deliberate extermination of people practiced by the Nazis and cannot grade 6 electricity unit ontario be considered a war crime because bombing of civilian targets was practiced to one extent or another by all combatants who had the technical capability to build advanced airforces. And, odd as it may seem, I would consider the individual chasing and shooting of civilians by allied fighter pilots as described by Steffan as much more deserving to be considered a war crime which allied courts should have looked into than the destruction of Hamburg or Tokyo.