> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Quite. However, a proper examination of the Dresden incident,
> > specifically, will show that the US only bombed the rail yards. It was
> > the British who had firebombed the whole city the night before with HE
> > then incindiaries, and they did so because they wanted to "beat us to
> > it". While the US has some blame, the overwhelming blame belongs
> > specifically to european sources.
> I have always personally considered area bombing a war crime, but then
> again, if they hadn't used it, would the nazis have won?
> Were *any* allied soldiers charged with war crimes after WW2?
Yes, generally enlisted men for such things as rape, murder of
civilians, etc. General 'Bomber' Harris was not charged as such for the
Dresden fire bombing. The US has a much better record than other nations
in prosecuting its own soldiers for war crimes. The US Uniform Code of
Military Justice is the most comprehensive justice code for military
organizations and has been extensively borrowed from by other nations
As for area bombing, thats a matter of debate. Some targets are
legitimate for area bombing, others are not, today. Back when there was
no *other* sort of bombing, such a standard could not be applied. Under
the Geneva Conventions, military assets are supposed to be located
distinctly apart from civilians and civilian property. Germany and Japan
pointedly ignored this rule. They also ignored the rule against using
POWs as human shields.
> > Furthermore, I don't regard Hiroshima or Nagasaki to be primarily
> > terrorist acts. By late in the war, both the German and Japanese
> > governments had so thoroughly mobilized and armed their societies in
> > preparation for invasion of their home territories that the only people
> > there that could be considered 'non-combatants' under the Geneva
> > Conventions were those in POW camps and patients in hospitals.
> You know, I spent 2 minutes searching on google for "hiroshima end war"
> and found a lot of evidence to suggest that this is entirely wrong.
> Refer to my quote yesterday from the head of the Joint Chiefs, or
> whatever he was.
Accounts of the event at Hiroshima by people who were schoolchildren at
the time include references to school physical education programs that
were exclusively geared toward martial arts training with weapons like
spears, how to set up booby traps, etc.
> > Under the Geneva Conventions, when a combatant hides behind
> > non-combatants or in non-combatant facilities, those then become
> > combatant targets as well, legally.
> Ah, well, what about the "highway of death" out of Kuwait? Soldiers
> fleeing a battle are non-combatants, yet a hell of a lot of people were
> massacred on that road.
Soldiers fleeing a battle are not non-combatants, especially if they are
trying to take their weapons and loot with them. Nine out of ten
soldiers who die in battle are shot in the back during retreats.
The only conditions under which a soldier is a non-combatant is if they
are wounded and drop their weapons, if they surrender and drop their
weapons, or if they are parachuting from a damaged aircraft.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT