Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 70

Thread: Allied crimes during WW2

  1. #46
    Senior Member b0sco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Heatenings
    Posts
    5,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Einhander View Post
    Historical thread turns into bashfest. I guess there is no hope after all.
    Surprisingly enough, WW2 threads featuring Russians vs. Germans tend to go much more smoothly.

  2. #47
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    16,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b0sco View Post
    Surprisingly enough, WW2 threads featuring Russians vs. Germans tend to go much more smoothly.
    I guess this is because russians are much more cynical about historic rights and wrongs and in that share much of the attitude of germans regarding that matter.

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    Again Germany invented such attacks so they reaped what they'd sown with Rotterdam, Guernica, etc. Frankly, your lucky Germany was allowed to exist after 2 world wars and the Millions killed by your "Ordinary men" Imagine if the German plan for the slavs and east was instituted for Germans in 1945. I guess not everyone is not as savage.
    So the allies can never commit a warcrime as long as Germany did something similar first? Sorry that logic is downright absurd.
    Also I dont think its a great achievement to be less bad as Germany in this war, like you seem to think. With these kind of comparisons you dont do the allies a favor actually.

    Oh and Germany was not allowed to further exists as a souvereign state after WW2. It was divided into occupation zones which were incorporated into the defense and economy of the 2 now opposing factions of the victors.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    42
    Posts
    12,039

    Default

    ^^^^ If you want to troll LD just ask him what country invented ethnic cleansing and concentration camps or areas for their natives .................

    Now back on topic

    Deliberate bombing of civilian areas is a warcrime as per the Hague convention and first Geneva convention which is as old as 1899, 1907 and 1925 respectively. So far before 1940-1945.T hat kills the usual BS of "but the convention of Geneva was signed in 1949 so after the war so what happened during the war is not falling under its scope"

    Moreover from a legal pov the one who began the stuff is not important here. The one(s) who did the stuff were inside the scope of the La Hague/Geneva 1925 conventions so prosecutable as war criminals. That they werenot because of political issues, because they were the winners (so wrotte the history), because of yada yada is another thing.
    But from a legal pov all the signatories of the conventions of the Hague are prosecutable for war crimes for bombing civilian areas without discrimination and none respect of the laws of war.
    Including US, UK or other western forces (who are signatories)

  5. #50
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    16,542

    Default

    International law is different from criminal law in the sense that it is a law of equals, not a law of authority and subordinate.
    The participants decide what is a crime and what is not.

    So after WW2 the allies decided not to raise the issue of bombing in the war crimes trials.
    Apart from the eastern block, no military commander was ever sentenced for bombing alone and even Alexander Löhr in Yugoslavia was accused of not only the destruction of Belgrade, but also of crimes in the partisan war in Yugoslavia when he was commander there.
    I guess one reason of this was simply because making area bombing a crime would have de facto outlawed the nuclear bomb.

    Also, the right to reprisals against civilians and civilian property was still an accepted fact in international laws of war before 1945 and at least in the early years both sides justified their raids as reprisals for the previous raid of the other side.
    It was only outlawed in 1949

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,024

    Default

    Killing civvies is killing civvies.. doesnt matter if its a reciprocal act or not. Similar to shooting POW from your enemy because your enemy shoots your people they took prisoner. Two wrongs dont make it right. So, both sides of the war needed to be held accountable for the acts, regardless of the reasoning behind killing non-combatants.

  7. #52
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    16,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLUE THOR View Post
    Killing civvies is killing civvies.. doesnt matter if its a reciprocal act or not. Similar to shooting POW from your enemy because your enemy shoots your people they took prisoner. Two wrongs dont make it right. So, both sides of the war needed to be held accountable for the acts, regardless of the reasoning behind killing non-combatants.
    That is certainly the morally right point of view but it was not international law in WW2.
    Today it is but did it really change much?

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    Today it is but did it really change much?
    Yes I believe warfare is fundamentally different now in regard to civilans than it was back then.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    42
    Posts
    12,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redox View Post
    Yes I believe warfare is fundamentally different now in regard to civilans than it was back then.
    I don't
    God bless we don't have to live a new total war. Because in that case, civie or not civie, conventions or not conventions, there wouldn't be a lot of difference with WWII except the scale and power of weapons used

    Just check the stats anyway : those who die the most in our modern wars are civies
    Before industrialization of war the balance was leaning toward combattants/soldiers/fighters (up to 1914 it was something like 80-90% military casualties for 10-20% civies)

    After 1918 it began to lean toward more and more civilian casualties.
    During WWII should be something close to 50%/50%

    In post WWII it easilly leaned toward 10-20% military and 80-90% civies so totaly inversed ratio

  10. #55
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    16,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redox View Post
    Yes I believe warfare is fundamentally different now in regard to civilans than it was back then.
    Today, human rights are nothing more than a propaganda tool and that seems to include the ICC.
    While NATO might cautiously avoid collateral damage, it still supports rebels who shell cities with rockets.

  11. #56
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    16,542

    Default

    Why do you grace him with a reply?
    LD has this post in a text file somewhere and posts it whenever WW2 or bombing or so pops up.
    I've read this same post with minor alterations a dozen times or more.
    On the other hand, old people tend to get repetitive and preachy
    Leave him his pride of knowing of a single word of german

  12. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    34,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    Why do you grace him with a reply?
    LD has this post in a text file somewhere and posts it whenever WW2 or bombing or so pops up.
    I've read this same post with minor alterations a dozen times or more.
    On the other hand, old people tend to get repetitive and preachy
    Leave him his pride of knowing of a single word of german
    And young know nothings like yourself are condemned to repeat your mistakes since you wont own up to them

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    34,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redox View Post
    So the allies can never commit a warcrime as long as Germany did something similar first? Sorry that logic is downright absurd.
    Also I dont think its a great achievement to be less bad as Germany in this war, like you seem to think. With these kind of comparisons you dont do the allies a favor actually.

    Oh and Germany was not allowed to further exists as a souvereign state after WW2. It was divided into occupation zones which were incorporated into the defense and economy of the 2 now opposing factions of the victors.
    I never said that in fact I posted about a Specific US committed War crime. Tyon tired to be a flippant smart ass with his nuremburg trial comment and I responded.

  14. #59
    Senior Member CPL Trevoga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the MP.net Gulag.
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redox View Post
    Yes I believe warfare is fundamentally different now in regard to civilans than it was back then.
    War in its nature is a crime. Most of the casualties in the recent conflicts are non-combatants.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Smok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Poland, Wroclaw
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan2004 View Post
    My grandfather was with 45ID at Dachau, when they shot all those SS thugs in the camp.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre
    It wasn't a crime. It was justice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •