Birth of the Richthofen Circus?

[Chock]

There are plenty of incidents that could fall into the category of war crimes committed by the Allies in WW2, and indeed in WW1. The only difference for many of these is that the vanquished are rarely in a position to argue the point.

Al

[bristol scout]

Except ---and this is the point, ANY such acts---(and I must say I can't recall a Lovain or Dinant---or LIDICE or OURADOR in a 2nd. round of atrocities---or any of the thousands of such similar atrocities perpetrated on innocent civilians in Russia ever recorded by the allies) will have been in retaliation and as a way to defeat first of all Wilhelmian Germany with all it's odium and then Hitlerite Germany ---with all it's odium.

The bombing campaign in W.W.2 was terrible--and not just for Germans (i'm sure you don't need me to remind you of the casualties incurred by both British and American Bomber Commands) but it was---and this is not at all as simplistic as it first sounds---Retaliation for something that Germany started----And just as I feel sorry for those Germans under the bombs so also do I feel (even more so because this was German aggression) sorry for those British under the bombs.

And War crimes can also be extended further ---Gas in W.W.1 and unrestricted submarine warfare in both war's---both started by Germany.

International treaties were not trashed by the British or French ---surrender terms were contravened by the Germans within two years of being defeated on the battlefield and agreeing to those terms (which were nowhere near as harsh as those imposed on Russia at Brest-Litovsk.

War is hell i'm afraid and those that embark on it should not expect to be able to wage it with Extreme ruthlessness --yet have it waged AT them with kid gloves...

If someone kicks you in the 'sphericals' then they are very stupid indeed not to expect at the very least a kick straight back----

No, as i said---the greatest immorality would have been to let NAZISM win.

Dave.

[Chock]

That's exactly the mistake you are making however Bristol, in suggesting Brits committed no war crimes; a war crime is not defined as a moral judgement, it is a legal description. It is indeed based on a moral judgement, but like all laws, once it is a law, it is then a black and white ruling and not an emotional response.

To think otherwise is to get one's wires crossed, and to suggest that some stuff the Allies did was not a war crime based on a moral judgement rather than a legal one, is not correct.

The legal definition of a war crime is based solely on the participant nation's signature of documents and treaties which define what is a war crime. That's a definition which is not bound, nor exceeded by, any feelings of moral superiority, except by those who incorrectly argue it to be. The simple fact is, a war crime is just that, a legal definition of a crime having been committed during a state of war, which contravenes the accepted rules of that war as ratified in any treaty the combatant nation is a signatory of.

For example, the Russians undoubtedly committed what many would perceive to be horrendous war crimes in WW2, torturing and mutilating women prisoners in the most foul way one can possibly imagine, which is in contravention of the the 1929 Geneva Convention. However, the Soviet Union was not a signatory of that Convention, and was therefore not bound by its statutes. But the Soviet Union (in its pre-revolutionary former guise) was a signatory of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and these were merely supplemented by the 1929 Geneva Convention, which is a ruling the Hague Convention confirmed, so the Soviets were indeed committing war crimes, since they were bound by preceding normal 'rules of war'.

1929 Geneva Convention signatory nations:

International Humanitarian Law - State Parties / Signatories

Hague Convention member nations:

Member States

As you can see from the above lists, most of the belligerents in WW2 were signatories of the Geneva Convention, and most of the combatant nations of WW1 were similarly signatories of the Hague Conventions. Now, check out this handy compilation of a few Allied events from WW2:

Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is by no means a comprehensive list, and is subject to the regulation occasional inaccuracy wikipedia is famous for. Nevertheless, it is a good general guide, and it doesn't even mention anything about WW1, where most nations sidestepped the Hague Conventions fairly often when it suited them, for example with the uses of incendiary rounds. For further study, read about the British ship Baralong if you don't think the British did anything nasty in WW1. Here's a summary of it, which does in fact miss a few important points out, but it is generally correct:

Baralong Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of the above excuses Germany from having in large part kicked things off, but one has to be very careful about parading around in a white hat of innocence when talking about the Allies fighting Germany always from a position of moral superiority.

Al

[Ginger.]

Don't mention the monks.... I did a bit back but I think I got away with it!

[Chock]

Originally Posted by Ginger.

Don't mention the monks.... I did a bit back but I think I got away with it!

LMAO

'You started it'

'No we didn't'

'Yes you did, you invaded Poland!'

Al

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by Ginger.

Don't mention the monks.... I did a bit back but I think I got away with it!

Dave.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by ManfredT

Dave,

I'm happy that the Germans doesn't burn Paris on 7th of September 1918 and London a few days later. No military need.

That Great Britain and the USA in 1944/45 burned systematically the heart of culture in Germany was war crime. No military need.

It must be said.

ManfredT

No Chock---I refute that i am 'making a mistake'. And as Ginger amusingly recalls--I was the one who first raised the relevance of the Hague convention in a long drawn out thread regarding the refusal by some to face facts so I need no prompting there!

And make no mistake the 'war crime' Manfred was referring to was the bombing campaign against Germany--"that Great Britain and America systematically burnt the heart out ---etc".----I utterly refute the allegation and repeat to you what I said to him---"There is no War Crime of Great Britain"

Are you saying that the bombing campaign against German cities in ---as Manfred puts it 1944/45--though I would put it starting much earlier---constitutes a war crime?

Are you saying that the use of poison Gas (disregarding the niceties of words like 'shells' as opposed to 'canisters') did not contravene every civilised concept and interpretation of the relevant statutes?

Are you saying that the commecement of unrestricted submarine warfare--of sinking ships AND there crews--and then very often machine gunning those survivors in the water---did not and does not strike at the very foundation of internationnally accepted constraints in warfare between nations?

Are you saying that murdering civilians and exterminating whole villages does not constitute an acceptance by the people that do those things that international law can go hang?

And as for moral supremacy-----well, I never said that---what I did and do say---again is that the greatest act of immorality would have been--in both wars to let the perpetrator of these and countless others-- win! do you disagree?

Dave.

[bristol scout]

My records---I won't 'go on again about German atrocities in W.W.1 as I feel that case is made---for those with eyes to see it!----for W.W.2 show no grounds for believing the allies had ANYTHING like the long catolouge of atrocities (again imposed on Belgium and France----civilians don't forget as well as soldiers.

Do you recall the massacre in Belgium in 1940 at the Vinkt bridge---it bears looking at! Or the British soldiers massacred at PARADIS?

Worth also reading about the Christmas Eve 'seasons greetings' meted out to the Belgians At BANDE--in 1944---or American Negro soldiers murdered in cold blood at WERETH.....

THe French Assistance given to the Nazis in the rounding up of Jewish children in 1944 at IZIEU....

You must not compare anything done in retaliation (that word again) by the allies---and I dare say the list is very thin---with acts like that---repeated don't forget right across Europe and elsewhere---Norway, Denmark, Greece--and always---RUSSIA!

Dave.

[Ginger.]

Originally Posted by ManfredT

Germany, in the centre of Europe, has had always a to much heterogenous population as to state a 'character' like you do. I am a revisionist. In my opinion it's absolutely necessary to search more documents and to proof history every day. Official history is always written by the mighty, with a bias to destroy the documents of the defeated. German documents were destroyed during 1944/45, when Great Britain initiated with the help of the USA a systematic action to liquidate the heart of old German towns with their city halls, archives, libraires and museums, all easy flammable due to construction. Good information here: "The Fire" by Jörg Friedrich and Allison Brown, Columbia University Press 2006. (Apropos firestorm: on 7th of September 1918 the city of Paris was the target of 20.000 Elektronbomben, a systematic firestorm was planned. Half an hour before the Gothas, Friedrichshafener, AEG's and Riesenflugzeuge were getting airborne the armageddon was stopped, like that against London. As we know today, it would have been worked.)

ManfredT

Manfred, a question for you if I may? Sadly my questions are usually ignored during these type of discussions, but I think you're a better man than that, so here goes.....

What do you think would have happened to Great Britain in the summer of 1940, if Nazi Germany had possessed a thousand four engined heavy bombers each with a capacity to carry 20,000 lbs worth of bombs?

[dirtyshirt]

Well..........seeing as I have been mentioned, I would suggest that anyone, having opened this thread because of its title, would consider it to have veered wildly off topic and would further suggest that it is plumbing the depths with pseudo-intellectual claptrap.