Yes I believe warfare is fundamentally different now in regard to civilans than it was back then.Originally Posted by JCR
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?
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
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.
So its not a warcrime since "we" invented it?
Is shooting someone not murder if the shot person is chinese? After all they invented the whole stuff.
So you like bombing cities. Ok no problem from my side.
How about what most pilots did. After all they couldnt return with bombs on their plane. So they dropped them on towns that had nothing to with the war effort.
You probably love that. And I can understand that. Dead germans are good germans.
Also my Volk? Are you really going there? Thats kind of retarded.
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 themWhy 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
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.
War in its nature is a crime. Most of the casualties in the recent conflicts are non-combatants.
It wasn't a crime. It was justice.
No, it wasn't. What kind of weird point of view is this? Stop trolling and start with some arguments.
Hum
Justice is when you prosecute somebody. It wasn't the case there. So it wasn't justice (at least no in modern definition of it, after that if you want to rely on the tribal/clanic definition of the beginning of humanity of "eye for an eye", that's up to you)
Was it a crime ?. By nowadays standards (in our countries) it was.
Was it explainable and justifiable at that moment ? : of course it was and you won't see me shed a single tear for those SS butchers that had a deserved fate
But please have you use of word straight and correct.....
For most of those killed probably yes but there's a chance they got one or two clerks, cooks, medics or whatever and some deserters/stragglers who just happened to be around.
And some of the wounded in the Hospital who had no connection to the KL also were killed out of hand. There's an interesting interview with a wounded one armed Waffen-SS NCO who was in the hospital that day. He had just been assigned to the hospital after being wounded fighting in the east.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau...rsKilled2.html
I also once found a page on a US 42ID Patrol that came across a wandering Waffen-SS patrol the next day and shot them all not too far away from Dachau.(I believe it was in After the Battle Magazine Issue. 27). It was the sigrunes that became their deathwarrant after the Americans took Dachau.
I would closely read that particular website and it's supplemental pages. While being very informative about holocaust camps and sites like the holocaust museum and anne frank's house - it has a subtle apologist and denial subtext. He especially likes to caption all photos of dachau prisoners as either communists/criminals and makes a special point of saying the platoon cmdr of the 45th Div who's men machine gunned the lined up SS POWs was an American Indian like somehow his non white background had to do with his savage hatred of the Germans and that because the 45th was from Arizona and had many Native Americans in its ranks was why it committed numerous war crimes. The shooting was investigated and there are apparently different witness accounts as to why the gunner opened fire and how many were actually killed. That website likes to emphasize they were mainly wounded SS troops from a hospital not associated with Dachau etc. He also praises German technology and ingenuity while describing the holocaust...draw your own conclusions I guess. Just saying I noticed it...
Posting Permissions
