Military Historical Dates

[lwd]

...Dresden? It served no military purpose, neither.

It most defintily did/

So, it can be regarded as a plain war crime in every aspect of the expression.\

Not really. Indeed by the laws of warfare at the time it was indeed a permissable target.

The pretty thing is that no one was ever charged for it, ...

That's becuase there was no crime committed.

[RF]

From February 13 to February 15, 1945 a war crime was commited against the city and people of Dresden.
...

Nope. Not a war crime.

I agree.

Some in Britain argue that the bombing of Coventry was a war crime, principally because the cathedral was destroyed. I don't agree with that either - it was legitimate military action involving two countries legally at war.

[alecsandros]

A slippery slope? Maybe. But a sense of purpose and reacting in cold blood to the threats posed by aggressors is the way to deal with that situation. Our motives are different and ultimately for the better.

Hello,
I hope you're not implying that the end always justifies the means...

[RF]

What I am saying alecsandros is that a sense of proportionality is required to overcome the enemy's capability to be a threat.

I don't really see how the statement you quote implies that ''the end justifies the means'' rather it implies the opposite. That should be clear from reading the whole of my post rather than selectively quoting from it to try to find a slant that isn't there.

[Bgile]

When are two countries legally at war? Isn't that an obsolete concept?

[RF]

When are two countries legally at war? Isn't that an obsolete concept?

It is a legal concept derived from international treaty applying at the time of that conflict. Britain declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939 - and later declared war on Hungary, Romania, Finland (December 5 1941), on Japan on 8 December 1941 and Bulgaria on 28 December 1941 (after, be it noted, the RAF had already bombed Sofia).

Obsolete? The concept of using war as an instrument of foreign policy has effectively been banned under United Nations protocols. But war still happens. So when does the war against terror become an obsolete concept?

[Bgile]

When are two countries legally at war? Isn't that an obsolete concept?

It is a legal concept derived from international treaty applying at the time of that conflict. Britain declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939 - and later declared war on Hungary, Romania, Finland (December 5 1941), on Japan on 8 December 1941 and Bulgaria on 28 December 1941 (after, be it noted, the RAF had already bombed Sofia).

Obsolete? The concept of using war as an instrument of foreign policy has effectively been banned under United Nations protocols. But war still happens. So when does the war against terror become an obsolete concept?

Thank you for the lesson in international law. The USA hasn't declared an official state of war since WWII. We've lost over 100,000 KIA since then and countless men crippled (you see some of them begging on street corners), but haven't been in any "official" wars, which require the US congress to declare war against someone. How do you declare war on some scraggly bearded jihadist in a cave, with an organization that is present to some degree in pretty much every country in the world?

[RF]

With respect bgile your (now ex) President George W Bush managed to declare a war on terror, which is why I mentioned it, without the formality of a Congressional vote. So on that basis it looks to me that the US is at war. There is no formal declaration of war because there is no lawfully constituted authority (such as a government) against which the US can declare itself to be at war.

But there is war - against irregulars. But war all the same. And being of no legal legitimacy or signee to international conventions on warfare there is no legal protection on prisoners etc afforded to those irregulars. Which presumably allowed the US to operate the camp at Guantanamo Bay.

[alecsandros]

What I am saying alecsandros is that a sense of proportionality is required to overcome the enemy's capability to be a threat.

I don't really see how the statement you quote implies that ''the end justifies the means'' rather it implies the opposite. That should be clear from reading the whole of my post rather than selectively quoting from it to try to find a slant that isn't there.

No rant intended here. It was just what I was thinking about while reading your post...

From what I've read previosly on the topic, it seemed to be concerned with the correct actions to take while in war. I pretty much agree with you in saying a "proportional response" must be exerted, but I think we should not abandon all our values just to "mantain the edge" (if the enemy starts torturing our PoWs, what should we do? Torture their's more?). So, a very carefull analysis should be done on each asserted WW2 war crime and on the correct response to the given situation.

Dresden, Tokyo, London, Leningrad, must be viewed with a sense of detachment...

[Bgile]

With respect bgile your (now ex) President George W Bush managed to declare a war on terror, which is why I mentioned it, without the formality of a Congressional vote. ...

Yes, he did. Many people called for his impeachment, but there weren't the votes. How ironic when his predecessor was presented with articles of impeachment for lying about an affair and this one starts an undeclared war under false pretenses that results in bad things happening on a large scale ... and gets away with it.

Obviously different priorities at work. There are a large number of people who will delay any legislation indefinitely not on the merits of the thing, but just because it was proposed by the opposition. This may be the first time in our history that this has happened on such a large scale. The theory is that if Obama can't get anything done he won't be reelected, and the Democrats won't have the stomach to do the same in return.

Then we have a Supreme Court which votes to allow multinational corporations unlimited license to spend their way into control of government.

Time for me to get off my soap box. I'm just completely disgusted and sometimes I need to vent.

[tommy303]

I'm just completely disgusted and sometimes I need to vent.

Quite understandable.

[lwd]

...How ironic when his predecessor was presented with articles of impeachment for lying about an affair and this one starts an undeclared war under false pretenses that results in bad things happening on a large scale ... and gets away with it.....

Hardly ironic. First of all Clinton lied under oath. That's a crime. Furthermore haveing an afair with a subordinate fits into the sexual harreassment regs. Similar activities have lead to military, civilian, and government officials being fired. Second the "false pretenses" is simply your interpretation and hardly supportable in any sort of legal venue at least from what I've read.

[Karl Heidenreich]

However Dresden is likely to be war crime. I`m saying this after been in agreement that the bombing of Schwinfurt, Hamburg or Berlin cannot be considered as such because they were legitimate targets, as were Tokio, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By February 1945 Germany was technically defeated, Marshall Konev could have managed to get his way without the bombing and there was the "deliberacy" of creating a fire storm. In this particular case no warmaking capability of the Germans was attacked. To many it was just an experiment for further use in the Pacific.

[RF]

Dresden, Tokyo, London, Leningrad, must be viewed with a sense of detachment...

Yes - and the most problematic scenario is that posed over the bombing of Rotterdam on 14 May 1940. The city was bombed after the Dutch commander, General Winkelmann, had surrendered the Dutch Army in Holland to the Germans - the Luftwaffe crews took off in obediance to lawful orders before the surrender was announced and couldn't be recalled. Was the bombing a crime - or an accident of war?

Now the bombing of Dresden was described by the British as ''a severe case of overbombing'' a judgement given after the event, when the terrible effects of the bombing were evident. Before the attack there were military reasons for an attack. Were the results of a heavy bombing attack forseeable as to the scale of devastation, set against the military objectives? How do you get ''the right amount of bombing'' for each air attack?
And, more importantly, how innocent are the individual civilian victims of the attack, given their support for and their working in the economy of the Third Reich? I don't think you can have an objective clear cut answer to this, and this is why I can't classify that attack as a crime.

[RF]

. By February 1945 Germany was technically defeated,

This is opinion Karl, not fact. And in February 1945, whilst it would seem blindingly obvious Germany was facing defeat, Germany was still fighting and killing Allied servicemen, so why ease up and get more casualties and a longer duration of war as a result?

In June 1940 many believed Britain was defeated. Without Churchill it probably would have been. But it wasn't was it?