Yet another reason . . .

@cystic:

Yeah, good going GG,
you took another discussion topic on American incompetance w.r.t. Iraq and turned it into a F_alk/TG love-fest.
darn it all anyway, and it was just getting interesting . . . (hit him with your purse F_alk!)

sorry CC…

@TG:

… But the point still stands, it was you who brought up these “war crimes.” Read how the post started. …

Well, yes. I kept on this, one class of war crimes. War crimes in general were a topic already though.
Why i jumped onto it was your notion of unfortunate cilvilians in the crossfire. That did upset me. Expecially, as you say in the following sentence, that these massacres had the strategic sense of lowering the morale. This means, they were not in the crossfire and not unfortunate, but clearly aimed at and in some cases the main target.

@cystic:

i had figured Dresden to be a revenge for the evil rained on Coventry. …

Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.
But, did you know that it was actually the British air force that first bombed civil targets in WW2? The Germans already had blodd on their list from the Spanish Civil War though.

@cystic:

Yeah, good going GG,
you took another discussion topic on American incompetance w.r.t. Iraq and turned it into a F_alk/TG love-fest.
darn it all anyway, and it was just getting interesting . . . (hit him with your purse F_alk!)

lol

I thought I would get complemented for stopping it :-? :lol:

Why i jumped onto it was your notion of unfortunate cilvilians in the crossfire. That did upset me. Expecially, as you say in the following sentence, that these massacres had the strategic sense of lowering the morale. This means, they were not in the crossfire and not unfortunate, but clearly aimed at and in some cases the main target.

I think you really need to polish up on your English a bit more. :-? “Unfortunate” does not means: expendable, necessary, or otherwise. For clearification, the lives lost to SBR was tragic, but nevertheless it happened. As for the lowering morale, they did - as much as Doolittle’s raid was more psychological than physical. Instead, you see the correlation (civilian deaths) and take it as causation (the reason for SBRs) - to which you were wrong.

Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.

Really? And what city was this?

@TG:

I think you really need to polish up on your English a bit more. :-?

Why don’t you express yourself that there is no chance of misunderstanding? :roll: … And, i try to polish up my English.

“Unfortunate” does not means: expendable, necessary, or otherwise.

Exactly, i understand it as something like unlucky… Fortuna, roman goddess of luck… Well, then you had some unfortunate civilians in the Twin Towers, and surely you can understand and appreciate that those arabs who see the US as an enemy cheered when the towers were attacked.

For clearification, the lives lost to SBR was tragic, but nevertheless it happened. … Instead, you see the correlation (civilian deaths) and take it as causation (the reason for SBRs) - to which you were wrong.

That i am wrong still has to be proven, and is absolutely not necessary for making the bombings a war crime.

From:
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)
Section II, Article 85
3. …the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:

Making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
Launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, … Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, …
Making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack; …

Yes, that was set up after WWII, but if you want to argue on that, then i can’t help you at all. Just remember which crimes have been done “legally” through-out history, which were (or were not) later condemned.

But, when i look at this: Has anyone of the USAF or gov’t ever been charged for the bombings during the Vietnam “police action”?

Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.

Really? And what city was this?

I really have to polish my English as it seems.

alright you two, what do you want the topic’s name to be? is WW2 legality ok?

Exactly, i understand it as something like unlucky… Fortuna, roman goddess of luck… Well, then you had some unfortunate civilians in the Twin Towers, and surely you can understand and appreciate that those arabs who see the US as an enemy cheered when the towers were attacked.

Yeah, I would too if I thought of the US as the enemy. Though I still don’t see where you’re going with this…

Well, i think the term term “unfortunate” is way too sarcastic to be used.
But … i probably really only read too much into/between your lines.

Fine, then it should be replaced with “tragic, appalling, calamitous, grievous, devastating, et al” to get the point across. However, at the same time, SBRs shortened the war by months - if not years (just look a Polesti for an example) - more lives were saved in the end (I believe so, though the point is debatable). Another comparision was Sherman’s march to the sea. Was what he did wrong? Many Southerns believe so (as I’m sure German civies would of SBRs), but even being affectionate for the South, I still accept what Sherman did as justifiable. And let us not forget this was the era of total war. Humanities, rights, justification, all of these change in total war.

@TG:

… However, at the same time, SBRs shortened the war by months - if not years (just look a Polesti for an example) - more lives were saved in the end (I believe so, though the point is debatable). …And let us not forget this was the era of total war. Humanities, rights, justification, all of these change in total war.

The first one is debatable to a point. The second one… is something i can not agree to. It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war. And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.

It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war.

Just because its cities weren’t bombed? :-? What US citizens gave was a total war effort, both on the battlefield and on the homefront. Of course, I could take this as a “sarcastic effect” - just as you said with my usage of the word “unfortunate.” :-?

And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the war, and FDR violated similar “human rights” (the fundamental 1st Amendment Included) during his war. Were they wrong for what they did? I say that in wars, the rules in peacetime are more easily bent and some are even broken. Even a blind man can see this.

@TG:

It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war.

Just because its cities weren’t bombed? :-? What US citizens gave was a total war effort, both on the battlefield and on the homefront.

Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…

And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the war, and FDR violated similar “human rights” (the fundamental 1st Amendment Included) during his war. Were they wrong for what they did? I say that in wars, the rules in peacetime are more easily bent and some are even broken. Even a blind man can see this.

That has nothing to do with my point. Just because crimes happen, and even a blind man can see that, doesn’t make them right.
So, yes, i say they were wrong.

Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…

The British Isles were never invaded. Your second statement is flawed. And the third point is hardly sufficent.

That has nothing to do with my point. Just because crimes happen, and even a blind man can see that, doesn’t make them right.
So, yes, i say they were wrong.

Then it would be pointless to try and convince you otherwise then.

geez you two there is a special place I set up to argue this in…

@TG:

Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…

The British Isles were never invaded. Your second statement is flawed. And the third point is hardly sufficent.

True, the third one was for illustration purposes.
Please explain why the second one is flawed.
Please interprete the first one just a very tiny bit more freely. Maybe replace the “fighting on” by “frequent fighting on and over”…

I would not have thought that you could be worse than me in picking on words (and not going for the IMHO obvious meaning), yet still accuse me of rethorics…

Then it would be pointless to try and convince you otherwise then.

I had this feeling towards you as well for some time in this thread.

Please interprete the first one just a very tiny bit more freely. Maybe replace the “fighting on” by “frequent fighting on and over”…

What’s the difference between that and bombing as I mention earlier?
As for the second, it is impossible to say “everything was rationed” for whatever country. And also, since what important articles weren’t rationed in the US?

There is no real difference between the bombing you mentioned and my line.

Second, not every food was rationed in the US. I could not find how the rationing developed over the years in the US, if you know more there, would you mind to share that with me? … But of course, it comes down to what you consider “important”. And of course, the rationing was only one example fo the “total war” that you spoke of. How long was the weekly work time in the US in the “total war” era? It was 70h in Germany, with all “unnecessary” companies being closed, gas and electrical power heavily restricted, no cultural or sports events…
and i guess that the situation in the UK (esp. during the Battle in the Atlantic) or SU was only slightly different from the german, in comparison to the situation in the US.

SUD-

Thanks-You stole my thunder! excellent post!