Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

[Turtler]

Absolutely. However you need to look much further than the confines of Germany to explain the rise of such ideologies and practices. Galton was not a product of German culture, neither was Kellog. They preceded Hitler and he co-opted their ideas. Authoritarian regimes with homicidal practiceswas not a German trend either: even if we don't want to go back at Robespierre, just think of Mussolini, De Rivera, Cabecadas, Franco, Metaxas. There were actually few countries that did not toy with the prospect of an authoritarian regime, actually.

Depending on how widely and fairly we cast our net, I'd probably widen that qualification to say "no" countries did. You are also right to say that there was nothing "uniquely" polluted or wrong about German culture or politics, and if anything I'm a bit surprised you don't mention de Coasta, Salazar, Araki, Pilsudski, and *especially* the Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin troika. The diseases of authoritarianism and totalitarianism can strike anyone.

However, I think it's safe to say that while it's worthwhile to observe the international situation and the spread of such toxic ideologies, I also think its' worthwhile to observe where they struck and why. I think it's pretty safe to say that even by the standards of modern authoritarian, totalitarian, and pre-authoritarian/totalitarian dictatorships, German was messed up.

Of all the people after Robespierre mentioned, its' worth noting that Mexatas, De Rivera, and Pilsudski were basically unable to obtain a truly mass following, and were always at least *somewhat* unpopular amongst civil society. In addition, Mexatas and Mussolini (and to a lesser extent de Rivera) inherited control over nations with long-standing democratic, republican, and liberal traditions and so often had to appease or co-opt that sentiment in order to maintain power (rather than the grab-and-throw-away Hitler managed to do with Weimar). This shouldn't be taken as apologia for them or somehow "diminishing" how utter bastardly they could be (if anything it speaks less than well about those institutions, like the Italian constitutional monarchy), but at the same time it probably acted as a sort of stopper on their power that they never could quite jettison.

I think at least a big part of the reason why Germany fell as hard as it did (harder than even Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.) was because of what brought it about, and the recent history that had marked Germany's march to that moment. The fact is that Kellog and Galton did not seriously lay down roots as inspirations for an authoritarian regime on their native soils (excepting maybe the latter to some degree, but even he was viewed as a second or third fiddle for Vichy compared to their main theorists like AF). So clearly, not all racist or troublesome pathologies or their promoters were equal.

Hitler didn't happen in a vacuum either domestically or internationally, and you're right that it's vitally important we not forget that. However, I think there's also worth in pointing to the Nazi regime and the collapse of Weimar democracy which drew as much from Germany's history at that point as it did to international problems and inspirations.

[Garbarsardar]

Depending on how widely and fairly we cast our net, I'd probably widen that qualification to say "no" countries did. You are also right to say that there was nothing "uniquely" polluted or wrong about German culture or politics, and if anything I'm a bit surprised you don't mention de Coasta, Salazar, Araki, Pilsudski, and *especially* the Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin troika. The diseases of authoritarianism and totalitarianism can strike anyone.

However, I think it's safe to say that while it's worthwhile to observe the international situation and the spread of such toxic ideologies, I also think its' worthwhile to observe where they struck and why. I think it's pretty safe to say that even by the standards of modern authoritarian, totalitarian, and pre-authoritarian/totalitarian dictatorships, German was messed up.

Of all the people after Robespierre mentioned, its' worth noting that Mexatas, De Rivera, and Pilsudski were basically unable to obtain a truly mass following, and were always at least *somewhat* unpopular amongst civil society. In addition, Mexatas and Mussolini (and to a lesser extent de Rivera) inherited control over nations with long-standing democratic, republican, and liberal traditions and so often had to appease or co-opt that sentiment in order to maintain power (rather than the grab-and-throw-away Hitler managed to do with Weimar). This shouldn't be taken as apologia for them or somehow "diminishing" how utter bastardly they could be (if anything it speaks less than well about those institutions, like the Italian constitutional monarchy), but at the same time it probably acted as a sort of stopper on their power that they never could quite jettison.

I think at least a big part of the reason why Germany fell as hard as it did (harder than even Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.) was because of what brought it about, and the recent history that had marked Germany's march to that moment. The fact is that Kellog and Galton did not seriously lay down roots as inspirations for an authoritarian regime on their native soils (excepting maybe the latter to some degree, but even he was viewed as a second or third fiddle for Vichy compared to their main theorists like AF). So clearly, not all racist or troublesome pathologies or their promoters were equal.

Hitler didn't happen in a vacuum either domestically or internationally, and you're right that it's vitally important we not forget that. However, I think there's also worth in pointing to the Nazi regime and the collapse of Weimar democracy which drew as much from Germany's history at that point as it did to international problems and inspirations.

First, I did not mention the Soviets, not because I consider them benign or revolutionary or anything but because I was aiming more at countries that had a semblance of Democracy before the 20th century; the czarist reforms were probably too little and too late. Pilsudki I also omitted not because he was not a dictator but because he was considered a rather "benevolent" one.

Galton and Kellog were not instigators of a dictatorial regime, indeed, but propagated ideas that today are identified with the Nazi regime. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum either.

I will have to question the notion of "equality" here. I do not imply that proponents of eugenics were mass murderers but I don't think numbers alone can be the exclusive criterion for the nature of a regime; for example the Japanese were far less efficient in exterminating "subhumans" but that neither masks their determination to do so, nor the cruelty of their methods.

But in your main point we do not disagree. Hitler was a German phenomenon, concocted by German circumstances which cannot be viewed outside a European (or even global) pathology. Why this pathology found the probably most extreme expression in Germany is related with the post 1870 state of affairs in Weimar.

[NRohirrim]

The last fair election in Germany had the Nazi party win a 33.09% of the vote. If you wish to argue about the will of the German electorate, this is obviously not the way.

No, there was another free election in march 1933. During that time, NSDAP had almost 44% and another nazis from DNVP had aprox. 8%, so it was nearly 52%.

[Garbarsardar]

No, there was another free election in march 1933. During that time, NSDAP had almost 44% and another nazis from DNVP had aprox. 8%, so it was nearly 52%.

Yes, I am aware. However my post states "the last fair election". Not the last election. The subsequent election is generally recognized as marred by closure of newspapers, unprecedented attacks to political opponents, generalised violence etc.

No need to expand to the next after that, I presume.

[NRohirrim]

Yes, I am aware. However my post states "the last fair election". Not the last election.

I know. There were other elections later in III Reich. And march 33' was the last fair election.

[Garbarsardar]

I know. There were other elections later in III Reich. And march 33' was the last fair election.

Well, this is not the general consensus.

In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Storm troopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.[1] In the second half of February, the violence was extended to the Social Democrats, with gangs of brownshirts breaking up Social Democrat meetings and beating up their speakers and audiences. Issues of Social Democratic newspapers were banned.[2] Twenty newspapers of the Centre Party, a party of Catholic Germans, were banned in mid-February for criticizing the new government. Government officials known to be Centre Party supporters were dismissed from their offices, and stormtroopers violently attacked party meetings in Westphalia.[3]
Six days before the scheduled election date, the German parliament building was set alight in the Reichstag fire, allegedly by the Dutch Communist Marinus van der Lubbe. This event reduced the popularity of the KPD, and enabled Hitler to persuade President Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree as an emergency decree according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This emergency law removed many civil liberties and allowed the arrest of Ernst Thälmann and 4,000 leaders and members of the KPD[4] shortly before the election, suppressing the Communist vote and consolidating the position of the Nazis. The KPD was "effectively outlawed from 28 February 1933", although it was not completely banned until the day after the election.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...on,_March_1933

Not really fair, it seems.

[NRohirrim]

Not really fair, it seems.

Because of what? Because anti-democratic communists were arrested? I don't think so. Putting away III Reich and nazis, I would say that banning reds is good for democracy.

[Garbarsardar]

Because of what? Because anti-democratic communists were arrested? I don't think so. Putting away III Reich and nazis, I would say that banning reds is good for democracy.

Anti-democratic communists arrested by Nazis. Yep, nothing wrong with that sentence.

[NRohirrim]

So what about those communists? Instead of III Reich U would have Germany Socialist Soviet Republic cooperating as part of USSR. Really nice option!

[Aikanár]

That, in short, was what the unwanted republic was becoming, eaten by either the left or the right wing radicals since real democracts were far and between.

[Garbarsardar]

So what about those communists? Instead of III Reich U would have Germany Socialist Soviet Republic cooperating as part of USSR. Really nice option!

This is as false a dilemma as it gets. Do you seriously imply that the persecution of political opponents (that was soon to escalate to outright murder) by a bunch of thugs was somewhat positive because some of the political opponents had the hypothetical potential to become thugs themselves?

Apart from that, the Nazi party persecuted opponents along the whole political spectrum like Social Democrats and the Center Party. That of course before persecuting everyone it attracted its attention not excluding his own members.

[caratacus]

I think at the time the extreme right wing was referred to as Reactionary Forces by the extreme left, meaning being fermented by the revolutionary movement in Germany and elsewhere. To an extent this is true because in Germany of the 20's-30's violent demonstrations by the Anarchists and Communists were common place and civil disorder was being propagated. The Nazi's added another spectrum of extremism, but by toating German nationalism they were perceived by many as attempting to restore social order (which of course they were not because of their extremism) and Germany society began to be quickly transformed into something which was both violent and brutal a product of extreme politics and intolerance of others opinions.

[KEA]

I don't think either of us can provide sources proving one or the other, but I think your line of reasoning is problematic:

That's not a matter of reasoning but of facts: the supply of food during WWII was comparably good in Germany, compared in particular to WWI

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

Just to keep that documented: Your argument is that because the Axis set the standards for brutality the Allies had to outshine them in that field? But you do realize that, by all rules of logic, your argumentation would make the Allies even worse than the Axis....

BTW, strategic mass bombing by Russia? Can't recall when and where?

Obviously the death of civilians is a crime, but to handicap yourself in an even war while your enemy is doing everything it can is just plain stupid.

That's what rules are for: to prevent people from doing things that might give them an advantage, or from which they expect an advantage, but that would be a violation of the social standards of their culture.

Of course, warfare is easyer when you slaugther civilans at will and do whatever you like and might serve you best. But that's what (should) have made the difference between the Nazis and those that oppose them, shouldn't it?

[Vanoi]

That's what rules are for: to prevent people from doing things that might give them an advantage, or from which they expect an advantage, but that would be a violation of the social standards of their culture.

Of course, warfare is easyer when you slaugther civilans at will and do whatever you like and might serve you best. But that's what (should) have made the difference between the Nazis and those that oppose them, shouldn't it?

Rules? You realize this was World War II right? Total War ring a bell? Rules got thrown out the window. All sides bombed each others civilians. Its why no one after the war except one person was convicted of bombing civilians.

[Turtler]

First, I did not mention the Soviets, not because I consider them benign or revolutionary or anything but because I was aiming more at countries that had a semblance of Democracy before the 20th century; the czarist reforms were probably too little and too late. Pilsudki I also omitted not because he was not a dictator but because he was considered a rather "benevolent" one.

I understand and agree. Was a bit confused prior.

Galton and Kellog were not instigators of a dictatorial regime, indeed, but propagated ideas that today are identified with the Nazi regime. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum either.

Agreed, particularly when you factor in that many free nations did dabble in the insanity of eugenics years or even decades after the fall of the Axis powers revealed the lovely problems with that sort of thinking. To say nothing of the "lovely" cases of Apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia, with at least the former being a genuine case of a free democratic republic... so long as you're of a certain ethnicity based on state repression and violence against all others ("all others" including *the actual majority) of the population...).

I will have to question the notion of "equality" here.

I'm not altogether sure what you mean, even after the fact.

I do not imply that proponents of eugenics were mass murderers

Well, maybe not by definition, but I think that a good argument can be made for at last a number of them (especially Sanger, Kellog, etc. al.) even thought it was passive or through more morally fuzzy methods than *put gun to back of the head pull trigger which must serve as some mitigating factor. To say nothing of the guys who unconditionally were, like Himmler, Mussolini, etc. al.

but I don't think numbers alone can be the exclusive criterion for the nature of a regime; for example the Japanese were far less efficient in exterminating "subhumans" but that neither masks their determination to do so, nor the cruelty of their methods.

Agreed, though with a bit of qualification. To put it bluntly, the Japanese leadership of WWII couldn't agree on whether or not they *liked* themselves; nevermind much else. Unlike in Nazi Germany, I am not sure the Japanese leadership ever arrived at much of a firm consensus of WTH they qualified as a "subhuman" beyond a few generalities (Caucasians, Africans, and general disapproval of a LOT of their so-called "brother Asians", which swung back an forth in intensity based on how badly PO'd they were with them at a given time). I'd have to say that part of the reason for the lack of efficiency on their part actually stemmed from problems with determination due to the myriad circle-jerk arguments they tended to have amongst themselves over what actually qualified as subhuman in their eyes. And furthermore what would be considered *enough*: whether you had to actually kill them all, or whether it would be good enough to just "Japanize" them.

The Nazis, Fascist Italians, Soviets, and a number of others had their problems, but when you compare them they look like models of clarity compared to the Japanese government's problems. Which in no way mitigates the brutality of their methods, the human tragedy they caused, or the fact that they did intend to do it. It's just that they were nooowhere near as clear about it as most of their contemporaries.

But in your main point we do not disagree. Hitler was a German phenomenon, concocted by German circumstances which cannot be viewed outside a European (or even global) pathology. Why this pathology found the probably most extreme expression in Germany is related with the post 1870 state of affairs in Weimar.

Agreed.

This is as false a dilemma as it gets. Do you seriously imply that the persecution of political opponents (that was soon to escalate to outright murder) by a bunch of thugs was somewhat positive because some of the political opponents had the hypothetical potential to become thugs themselves?

Apart from that, the Nazi party persecuted opponents along the whole political spectrum like Social Democrats and the Center Party. That of course before persecuting everyone it attracted its attention not excluding his own members.

Sorry to drop in for a bit, but I feel obliged to play Devil's Advocate and nitpick one point: the KPD as a whole on an institutional level could already be called thugs. Thalmann etc. al. had geared their party to revolutionary violence without completely going underground or withdrawing from the normal political process (in order to keep drumming up support).

I don't think they would've avoided taking power if the electoral process would've allowed them to that way, but I also don't think they ever seriously saw it as their primary road to power. Which was why they invested so much time trying to "win the streets" and spread revolutionary violence using their paramilitaries in the hopes of creating proper conditions for a Communist revolution (or coup). It's worth noting that one of the great, unheralded stepping stones on Hitler's road to Fuhrer was how in the 1931 he recalled Roehm from his military advisor "exile in the wilderness" in Bolivia and over the course of 1931 and '32 they led the SA to pretty decisive victory in "the streets" over the Communist and pro-Communist paramilitaries.

It's important because this basically crippled the KPD as a force that could dictate German politics... or stand in Hitler's way. They had invested so much in reovlutionary violence that they weren't prepared for someone being able to outdo them in it, and while they remained a potent electoral force (oh the irony) through sheer inertia and popularity, '32 basically saw them screwed.

Again, just a Devil's Advocate clarification, particularly since the Nazis absolutely did not care about which ones were actually involved in trying to destroy the republic or not. Just that the KPD was already heavily "thuggish" to begin with.

NRohiriim: I will try to be as polite and thorough as I can. However, the false dillema in particular is grating.

I myself would make the argument that it is *possible* that the March '33 election could be taken as *reasonably* free enough to count as a reasonable expression of German sentiment. NOT because I believe the use of terror tactics, intimidation, or murder is a valid electoral tactic, but IN SPITE of those methods being utilized by the Nazis, just like I would support the legitimacy of the previous Weimar elections IN SPITE OF the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the Communists, and other radicals. HOWEVER, I can see why many others would take a far harder line than I. No matter how you put it, the 1933 elections were fatally undermined.

It is one of THE most essential parts of democratic and republican tradition that in order for an election to be valid, it must not be compromised by intimidation, corruption, or rigging. In practice, it is impossible to completely remove any of the three in even the fairest and best of systems. But they can be reduced to being effectively irrelevant. Suffice it to say that the Reichstag elections of March 1933 were compromised even on the poor level of Weimar elections. They were not free of intimidation, as shown by the rampant Nazi abuses well outside of anything that could be justified. They were not free of rigging, as shown by how the emergency powers passed in January were used to squelch the organs of free government. They were thoroughly illegitimate by "virtue" that it is impossible for an electorate as a whole to freely voice their opinions in such a circumstance, and whatever legitimacy they *might* command comes not BECAUSE of such abuses, but IN SPITE of them.

You could have argued this point, but instead you are trying to shoehorn us into the most repugnant of choices: that between a Nazi totalitarian state and a Communist totalitarian state. It is MY DUTY as a free person to proudly say NEITHER!

Come back when you are willing to debate this honestly.

Just to keep that documented: Your argument is that because the Axis set the standards for brutality the Allies had to outshine them in that field? But you do realize that, by all rules of logic, your argumentation would make the Allies even worse than the Axis....

If you meant to make yourself sound buffonish you succeeded. For future reference, refrain from putting words in peoples' mouths and making rash and indefensible leaps in...well, I guess you can call it "logic." They do nothing but make you look like an idiot.

At no point did he or any of the rest of us argue that the Axis set the standards of brutality, and thus the Allies had to EXCEED it. At no point did we argue that the Allies (excepting maybe a few "special cases" like the USSR and China) DID exceed them. We merely pointed out that International law is not a suicide pact! There was a reason why the Germans were not the only faction of WWI to utilize poison gas even though they were the ones to break international law and deploy them first.

BTW, strategic mass bombing by Russia? Can't recall when and where?

Mainly from 1942 onwards, and mainly against Germany and its' allies' home territories. Nothing quite like the mass Western Allied bombings, but they certainly did as much as their relatively modest capacities allowed them to.

That's what rules are for: to prevent people from doing things that might give them an advantage, or from which they expect an advantage, but that would be a violation of the social standards of their culture.

Of course, warfare is easyer when you slaugther civilans at will and do whatever you like and might serve you best. But that's what (should) have made the difference between the Nazis and those that oppose them, shouldn't it?

This is the most wrongheaded comment I have read since Mr "Black and White" left this thread. No, believe it or not, the Rules of War do NOT subscribe to a "Tie your hands behind your back, even if it lets someone and punch or crowbar you to death" approach. It's called reciprocity, and it's a feature rather than a bug, and the reason why Geneva etc. al. have survived as long as they have. In the face of a power that is engaged in ruthless disregard for the laws and rules, the other powers are *allowed the choice* of responding in kind to a degree (as shown by how the Western Allied use of poison gas did not translate to genocide of the German peoples in the Rhineland after the wars). The alternative is to turn international law into a suicide pact, which only harms those that are party to it at the benefit of those that are not, and which would have Jean-Henri Dunant rolling in his grave.

[Sire Brenshar]

That's not a matter of reasoning but of facts: the supply of food during WWII was comparably good in Germany, compared in particular to WWI

Can you give a source then?

[KEA]

Can you give a source then?

uh? Source for what? I don't get what you reject. Do you have any informations on mass starving of German civilians during WWII?

If you meant to make yourself sound buffonish you succeeded. For future reference, refrain from putting words in peoples' mouths and making rash and indefensible leaps in...well, I guess you can call it "logic." They do nothing but make you look like an idiot.

For future reference:

NO ONE PUT YOU IN THE POSITION TO GIVE DIRECTIVES TO OTHER MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD

and

NO ONE GAVE YOU THE ALLOWANCE TO THROW OUTRIGHT OFFENSES TO ANYONE HERE

At no point did he or any of the rest of us argue that the Axis set the standards of brutality, and thus the Allies had to EXCEED it. At no point did we argue that the Allies (excepting maybe a few "special cases" like the USSR and China) DID exceed them.

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

did you read it?

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

again, did you read?

We merely pointed out that International law is not a suicide pact!

BTW, who is "we"? I have been replieing to motiv-8. Are you motiv-8 or had you been entiled to speak in his name or interpret his words for the rest of us

No, believe it or not, the Rules of War do NOT subscribe to a "Tie your hands behind your back, even if it lets someone and punch or crowbar you to death" approach.

I see that this is a very complex matter and not everyone gets it. Let me try to explain it a second time in a more simpler way that might fit you more:

Killing of civilians is not considered good by the western civilization's rules of war. There also is no backdoor in the sense of "becomes good when the other sides does first", or "not is a violation when you are on the losing track", and certainly not "is acceptable as long as you are winning".

[Turtler]

uh? Source for what? I don't get what you reject. Do you have any informations on mass starving of German civilians during WWII?

For Future Reference: He's not *rejecting* persee. He's just asking you to show your own Goddamned Sources because he doesn't trust you on instinct. Nothing personal, nothing wrong about it *UNLESS YOU MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT.* It's just that he's asking you to show and tell.

For future reference:

NO ONE PUT YOU IN THE POSITION TO GIVE DIRECTIVES TO OTHER MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD

and

NO ONE GAVE YOU THE ALLOWANCE TO THROW OUTRIGHT OFFENSES TO ANYONE HERE

INCORRECT.

YOU gave me the allowances, dear friend. Through your sloppy argumentation, poor usage of factual information, and blatant lack of good will, you gave me all the justification I needed to rip you and your argument apart. Particularly since YOU THINK TALKING IN ALL CAPS + BOLD SOMEHOW GIVES YOUR WORDS GREATER VALIDITY.

did you read it?
again, did you read?

Yes and yes, you gadfly. In fact, if you even BOTHERED TO READ you would know I actually nitpicked about that, particularly by saying that Russia/the USSR actually was one of the factions that actively *set* the stupefyingly low standards of the war.

Now will you drop the DID YOU? DID YOU HUUUUUHHH? method of interrogation? It serves no purpose and makes you look like you're trying for a cheap gotcha.

BTW, who is "we"? I have been replieing to motiv-8. Are you motiv-8 or had you been entiled to speak in his name or interpret his words for the rest of us

I was speaking OF- not FOR- myself, Motiv-8, Garb, and Sire. As I am sure someone who was not actively looking for a cheap gotcha win and had a fair bit more goodwill would recognize.

I see that this is a very complex matter and not everyone gets it.

Especially yourself, obviously. If you did get it, you would never have acted as dunderheaded as you have and are now.

Killing of civilians is not considered good by the western civilization's rules of war.

Which ones? I am sure that Renaissance or Roman rules of war would beg to differ (what with the sanction of rape, enslavement, and extermination for entire settlements....).

If you are referencing the modern one, then yes, you are correct. However, while it is not considered good- this is a big one- up until the age of spectaculars like Desert Storm IT WAS CONSIDERED UNAVOIDABLE ON SOME LEVEL. When you lay siege to a city, it isn't just the soldiers that go hungry. When you fire rockets into it, it is not just the soldiers who are felled. When you and your rival fight over the same ground for years on end, what happens to those who owe their livelihood to it?

Civilian death and suffering are unavoidable in war. Which is why the main emphasis was on trying to minimize it.

So, what then happens when your enemy is consciously trying to exacerbate their suffering and dying?

There also is no backdoor in the sense of "becomes good when the other sides does first", or "not is a violation when you are on the losing track", and certainly not "is acceptable as long as you are winning".

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. In case you haven't noticed, Jean-Henri Dunant and his allies recognized that if international law were only loosely applied to one side or a few nations and not the others, than those nations would find themselves at a vast disadvantage in combat. Which was why the diplomacy and politics behind the adaption of Geneva etc. al. were so byzantine: they wanted a good chunk of the major European/Western nations to join at the same time or else they wouldn't get it passed at all.

Secondly, once in place, they recognized that in all due likelihood there would be violators. As it was just about every nation adhered to it on the terms of some very strict legalese that amounts to "we will adhere to this IN MOST CASES excepting when military necessity DEMANDS." Of course, some nations took to this a lot more faithfully than others, and by the time of the 1870's international law had faced its' first great challenge.

And it had failed miserably. In the face of Otto Von Bismarck's Prussian military rampaging across Europe and its' employment of terror tactics to force French surrender, international law could. Do. Nothing. And it could furthermore do very little when towards the end of that decade, Russia and the Ottoman Turkish Empire went to war with each other and promptly devastated the Balkans and Caucasus in tit-for-tat violence. So obviously, something had to be done to fix matters up. To show the world that international law could survive under the strain of those signatories to it who were willfully and systematically violating it.

That is where the basic principle of reciprocity comes in. In realizing that the signatory nations would not stand for being subject to illegal tactics indefinitely without retaliating on their own accord (if they could), we reach more or less where we are today. The recognition that International Law is not a suicide pact. The recognition that our laws of Western morality and ethos are not either. The recognition that no nation can reasonably be expected to refrain from "illegal" tactics in the face of a *zealous* application of illegal tactics by an aggressor.

This did not make carpet bombing right, but under a number of strategic situations it made it the least-unright, at least by the judgement of the men in charge of applying it.

[motiv-8]

No, there was another free election in march 1933. During that time, NSDAP had almost 44% and another nazis from DNVP had aprox. 8%, so it was nearly 52%.

That was not a free election, at all. There were no free elections in any part of Germany from 1932 to 1952.

[KEA]

For Future Reference: He's not *rejecting* persee.

For future reference: the spokesman of how many members in this forum you believe to be?

YOU gave me the allowances, dear friend. Through your sloppy argumentation, poor usage of factual information, and blatant lack of good will, you gave me all the justification I needed to rip you and your argument apart.

Aha... so accroding to that you think it would be ok when I call you piece of ing because your "argumentation" is just nothing but nonsense? No, I won't do that, it would be against my better education and againts the rules of this community

(even though according to your logic, and that of all the others that seem to be inside you, doing anything is ok as long as the other one did first. That's something every primary school teacher would recognize: "but he started it, Sir!")

Yes and yes, you gadfly. In fact, if you even BOTHERED TO READ you would know I actually nitpicked about that, particularly by saying that Russia/the USSR actually was one of the factions that actively *set* the stupefyingly low standards of the war.

So you read it but you didn't understand it.

"nitpicking" *lol*

I was speaking OF- not FOR- myself, Motiv-8, Garb, and Sire. As I am sure someone who was not actively looking for a cheap gotcha win and had a fair bit more goodwill would recognize.

I am not sure if the named persons are realy happy to be represented by your troll postings. But that's something you have to clear up with them.

Which ones? I am sure that Renaissance or Roman rules of war would beg to differ (what with the sanction of rape, enslavement, and extermination for entire settlements....).

I guess we are talking about the 2nd World War in this thread and it neither happened during the Renaissance or Roman times.

Civilian death and suffering are unavoidable in war.

Looks like we are talking about two different things: Allied mass bombing of German cities during WWII not was part of combat situations in which civilians got harmed, but was deliberate killing of civilians and destruction of civilian structures. As a matter of fact, most bombs were dropped on Germany in the last month of 1944 and the few month the war went in 1945.

Just take Dresden for example, which was leveled on 13th/14th of February 1945, with no allied or German forces of note around and a point when everyone, save Hitler, knew that the war was over.