The Most Terrifying Event of WW2?

[Vanoi]

...which attempts to justify anything under a demagogic excuse.



Daily Herald, 16 August 1945; cited in the book "Politics of Security"



Very high accuracy is not needed "to blast the German cities as a whole" (sic)

They blasted German cities whole because precision bombing didn't work. I'm glad they did too because without the bombing campaign, the war would have went on longer and more people would have died.

Its been so long debating this with you, but still you don't understand WW2 was a total war.

[Ludicus]

They blasted German cities whole because precision bombing didn't work

They blasted German cities whole because precision bombing didn't work

No, check the video.
Harris said,it was Government policy not to bomb specific targets.
----
"Sir Arthur, who died in 1984 aged 91, refused a peerage because his men were denied a campaign medal"
Guess why.

--

I'm glad they did

I know you are glad - because without the atomic bomb the war "would have went on longer"; you are glad because without the obliteration of Toqyo the war "would have went on longer"; it´s an excuse after excuse - ad nauseam.

[Gatsby]

One man's "excuse" is another man's logical justification. I for one would rather more damage be done to the aggressor nation to save lives and resources for the nation fighting in self defense. Start a total war get a total war, its not the fault of the USA and UK that they were just better at it.
The March to the Sea may not have been pretty but if it suppressed the rebellion faster and ended the immense bloodshed quicker it was justified. As Sherman said:
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."
The Holocaust wasn't intended to shorten the war, the Rape of Nanjing had no real effect in hurting the enemies strategic capablities - the Axis perpetrated destruction of areas already secured and occupied; they caused wanton destruction with no practical purpose. That is where the difference lies.

[Verr]

the cleansing of prussia

Holidays result in a horrible traffic jam.
wondering what happens when the entire Population is on the run... or not

[Vanoi]

No, check the video.
Harris said,it was Government policy not to bomb specific targets.
----
"Sir Arthur, who died in 1984 aged 91, refused a peerage because his men were denied a campaign medal"
Guess why.

We have been through this before. You like to ignore my evidence. The Allies in the initial bombing campaign pursed a policy of precision bombing, not area bombing. This changed however when it was found that dropping an un-guided bomb from 30,000 feet wasn't very accurate.

http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinea...8daylight.aspx

The Army Air Forces was the lone champion of daylight precision bombing. The Navy—for whom the Norden bombsight was originally developed—gave up on it in favor of dive bombing. The British, finding that they could not hit precision targets, relied on area bombing at night. Daylight precision bombing was conducted by various kinds of aircraft in World War II, but the real test of it was the long-range strategic bombing missions in Europe and Asia of AAF B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s.

Precision bombing did not come into its own until the 1930s, with the availability of high-quality bombsights from Norden and Sperry and the introduction of faster, longer-ranging bombers. The best Air Corps bombardiers achieved considerable success in good weather and against clearly marked targets, which were typically huge bull’s-eye circles painted on the ground.

Precision bombing was the original tactic in 1940:

[QUOTE]Daylight precision bombing became Air Force doctrine, inseparable from the push to obtain four-engine B-17 bombers in appreciable numbers. In 1940, Maj. Gen. Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Chief of the Air Corps, declared, "The Air Corps is committed to a strategy of high-altitude precision bombing of military objectives."[/QUOTE]

Now, for the accuracy of precision bombing during the war:

The planners were not misled by pickle barrel assumptions. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2 percent probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90 percent probability of destroying the target. AWPD-1 forecast a need for 251 combat groups to carry out the plan.

Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point. "

I know you are glad - because without the atomic bomb the war "would have went on longer"; you are glad because without the obliteration of Tokyo the war "would have went on longer"; it´s an excuse after excuse - ad nauseam.

Excuse? Do you know how many resources the Germans had to waste and tie up to defend and repair against bomber attacks? The bombing campaign not only hurt Germany but its air force too that was being shot out the sky trying to defend against these raids. Its why even after Barbarossa the majority of the Luftwaffe was still concentrated in the West and not in the East against the Russians.

[Markas]

"Sir Arthur, who died in 1984 aged 91, refused a peerage because his men were denied a campaign medal"
Guess why.

That was Churchill's shameful volte face over the issue of Directive 22 and it's results, of which Harris was obeying. The issuing would have come at a time when Churchill was unexpectedly kicked out by Atlee which may well have put the issue on the backburner. The problem lay in that the Bomber Command was part of the RAF and so required an individual award. The US had no such problem as the Campaign service medals were awarded the same as the Army (the USAAF being part of that branch). If they snubbed the Air crews they snubbed the Army, and that was never going to happen.

-----------------

If we accept Germany committed War Crimes by bombing Warsaw's City centre, Rotterdam and Guernica in '37 to terrorize civilians into submission then we have to accept that allied Bombing in Germany and Japan were as well. The question of whether it was justified by the ends, saved lives in the long run or that 'everyone else did it' is never going to end and may as well be moved to the Ethos section.

[Vanoi]

If we accept Germany committed War Crimes by bombing Warsaw's City centre, Rotterdam and Guernica in '37 to terrorize civilians into submission then we have to accept that allied Bombing in Germany and Japan were as well. The question of whether it was justified by the ends, saved lives in the long run or that 'everyone else did it' is never going to end and may as well be moved to the Ethos section.

And thats the problem, it wasn't. Not a one German or Japanese officer or soldier spent a single day in jail for bombing of civilian cities. People keep forgetting that until the Fourth Geneva Conventions aerial bombardment pretty much had no rules.

[Markas]

And thats the problem, it wasn't. Not a one German or Japanese officer or soldier spent a single day in jail for bombing of civilian cities. People keep forgetting that until the Fourth Geneva Conventions aerial bombardment pretty much had no rules.

Yes, because the Allies had realized they had done exactly the same thing which is why the UK and US were so antagonistic over the definitions in it's phrasing. The reason there were no standardized rules were due to them being under the Hague Convention of 1907 of 'Bombardment' written before the rise of Air Power which only counted for Land and Naval bombardment. Even so the rules were pretty clear, even if they were utterly unrealistic (such as the rule about not attacking undefended cities, which was never going to stop anyone).

Also note I said 'If we accept Germany committed War crimes by bombing..' If you don't then there isn't much to dispute.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Russian Gulags hands down.

[Vanoi]

Yes, because the Allies had realized they had done exactly the same thing which is why the UK and US were so antagonistic over the definitions in it's phrasing.

No, thats not it. German and Japanese bombing as according to the law at the time were not war crimes. Plain and simple.

The reason there were no standardized rules were due to them being under the Hague Convention of 1907 of 'Bombardment' written before the rise of Air Power which only counted for Land and Naval bombardment. Even so the rules were pretty clear.

Pretty clear? According to the Hague Conventions as long as the city is defended, it can be bombed. The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the most vague bombardment laws ever made. I can justify just about every single bombing in the war with those laws.

[Markas]

No, thats not it. German and Japanese bombing as according to the law at the time were not war crimes. Plain and simple.

...ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians.

— A.C. Grayling.

And that's from a Philosopher who doesn't think it was strictly a War Crime. Nobody got punished for it the same way Allied troops gunning down surrendering troops didn't. They were on the winning side or nobody cared.

I can justify just about every single bombing in the war with those laws.

Yes, I'm sure you could. I could justify the bombing campaigns also. There was just no interest in any rules. Dresden had some military significance but no garrison but it got flattened. It's against Article 25 of the 1907 Hague convention.

[Vanoi]

...ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians.

— A.C. Grayling.

And that's from a Philosopher who doesn't think it was strictly a War Crime. Nobody got punished for it the same way Allied troops gunning down surrendering troops didn't. They were on the winning side or nobody cared.

No, you still don't understand. Them being on the winning side meant nothing. There was no law in the world the Allies could have used to convict Germans or Japanese for bombing cities.

Yes, I'm sure you could. I could justify the bombing campaigns also. There was just no interest in any rules. Dresden had some military significance but no garrison but it got flattened. It's against Article 25 of the 1907 Hague convention.

The law does not require a garrison, but for the town to be defended. What you still don't understand is that the law is open for interpretation. There is nothing that says a city has to have a garrison to be considered defended. The Hague convention does not define was a defended city is

Also, Dresden didn't need a garrison when it had thousands of German troops being transported in and out of the city since Dresden was a major infrastructure and transportation hub to the Eastern Front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II
'

Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."^[34]

[Markas]

No, you still don't understand. Them being on the winning side meant nothing. There was no law in the world the Allies could have used to convict Germans or Japanese for bombing cities.

As I've pointed out, just because you commit a crime it does not mean you will be convicted or punished. The Germans were tried at Nuremberg. Allied War Crimes (excluding bombing) were not.

Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'

Why? Because they won. nobody wanted to hear about it. It didn't fit the narrative. Care then to explain why they weren't punished?

The law does not require a garrison, but for the town to be defended. What you still don't understand is that the law is open for interpretation. There is nothing that says a city has to have a garrison to be considered defended. The Hague convention does not define was a defended city is

Oh come on it's clear what the Hague convention is getting at as far as it can without predicting the rise of air power. If you don't like that how about-

Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

This is impossible to achieve with aerial bombing. It was still the rule, however.

Also, Dresden didn't need a garrison when it had thousands of German troops being transported in and out of the city since Dresden was a major infrastructure and transportation hub to the Eastern Front.

Like I said, it had some military significance (in this case the Eastern Front) and that would be a justification for it's targeting. Mostly it was chosen (as Ambrose states) as the Allies were running out of targets by this time.

[Vanoi]

As I've pointed out, just because you commit a crime it does not mean you will be convicted or punished. The Germans were tried at Nuremberg. Allied War Crimes (excluding bombing) were not.

Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'

Why? Because they won. nobody wanted to hear about it. It didn't fit the narrative. Care then to explain why they weren't punished?

Just stop now. You are purposely ignoring my point that the Germans and Japanese did not commit a war crime by bombing cities. It wasn't because the Allies did it too, but because it was completely legal to do.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Thats quotes funky though as Allied soldiers were put on trial in Nuremberg or did you not know that some Allied soldiers were in fact convicted of war crimes?

Oh come on it's clear what the Hague convention is getting at as far as it can without predicting the rise of air power. If you don't like that how about-

Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

This is impossible to achieve with aerial bombing. It was still the rule, however.

Article 26 can't be followed unless the enemy follows article 27. If the defenders do not mark such buildings and places with a distinctive and visible signs, then how can you blame the attacker for violating article 26? No side during the war made an attempt to mark such buildings or places. Thus, no side can be blamed for violating Article 26.

Also, if any of those buildings or places are being used by the military, then they become legal targets.

You are quickly discovering why the 1907 Hague conventions were replaced. They are vague, open to interpretation by anyone, and it never actually dealt with aerial warfare.

[Ludicus]

. It wasn't because the Allies did it too, but because it was completely legal to do.
1907 Hague conventions were replaced. They are vague, open to interpretation by anyone, and it never actually dealt with aerial warfare.

Really? Well, if nothing is criminal except by law, what you have to say about the Tokyo Judgment?

----

"True, Americans have engaged in national expiation with regard to Indians, the slavery, lynching and segregation of African-Americans, and the internment of West-Coast Japanese-Americans during World War II. But the “good war” is still too fresh in their memory or too necessary a perception to be subjected to the same emotional scrutiny"
Targeting the city: Debates and silences about the
Charles S. Maier Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History (Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies) at the Harvard University, Cambrigde, MA, USA

[Vanoi]

What about the Tokyo Judgement?

[Ludicus]

What about the Tokyo Judgement?

The charges against the japanese were based on "ex- post facto law".

Wiki explains:

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed.

The Tokyo indictment contained charges such as "crime against peace" /"crime against humanity", together with "conventional war crimes"

You see, I can´t follow your line of reasoning, because if nothing is criminal except by law, the japanese were not guilty.

--------

As Judge Pal ( Tokyo Judgment) put it,

"... I would hold that each and everyone of the accused must be found not guilty of each and every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted of all those charges.

....I need not give in detail the incidents taking place since November 1944.We are given several incidents taking place during this period and certainly these were atrocious misdeeds. These are the instances of atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese Army against the civilians at different theatres during the entire period of the war".The devilish and fiendish character of the alleged atrocities cannot be denied"

He explicitly says,

The so-called trial held according to the definition of crime now given by the victors obliterates the centuries of civilization which stretch between us and the summary slaying of the defeated in a war. A trial with law thus prescribed will only be a sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge

...It would be sufficient for my present purpose to say that if any indiscriminate de struction of civilian life and property is still illegitimate in warfare, then, in the Pacific war, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first world war and of the Nazi leaders during the second world war"

And the painful truth,

"...I would only like to observe once again that the so-called Western interests in the Eastern Hemisphere were mostly founded on the past success of these western peope in transmuting military violence into commercial profit"

-------

This changed however when it was found that dropping an un-guided bomb from 30,000 feet wasn't very accurate

The obliteration of the city centers was very accurate.
The bombing of Dresden destroyed 15 square miles of the city centre; "Sorry, my dear enemy, our area bombing is not very accurate, has the nasty tendence to destroy entire cities."

Btw, Tokio?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Markas]

What about the Tokyo Judgement?

I think he's referring to the fact that, like some of the Nuremberg judgments, many defendants were accused of crimes that weren't actually illegal when they committed them. The Nazi's for example could not be charged with murdering jews if they were German citizens, because International Law doesn't have restrictions against States disposing of of it's own citizens, even by murder. They had to charge them ex post facto, same with the accusations of making aggressive war. Just because it wasn't law at the time they did it, it didn't stop them from being War Crimes. Like I already stated, the US and UK didn't agree an ex post facto fourth geneva convention because they knew they would get crucified for it.

Additionally, the Nazis also tried the defense of claiming that their appalling treatment of Soviet soldiers was allowed because the USSR had not signed the Geneva convention and the Nazis had pulled out of it. They had also repudiated the Hague Convention so they actually technically couldn't be tried for those violations either. Didn't make any difference.

[Papay]

By far the atomic bombs. 100.000 dead civilians in some minutes and many thousands more burned horribly.Ive seen some pictures from people exposed on radiation. Its sick really

[nce_wht_guy]

Russian Gulags hands down.

I can think of 20 million people who would disagree, if the Germans hadn't killed them.