Dresden and other Allied Bombings
Chuck Ferree
Carpet bombing of the Reich
Early in 1945, the Allied bombers turned their full
fury upon the Reich, now
virtually defenseless. Vast carpets of bombs
unrolled across its cities, leveling those
that had escaped Allied attention and piling rubble
upon ashes in those that had not. By
then, large parts of most big German cities-those
with populations of more than
100,000-lay in ruins.
2. "Bomber" Harris and his British critics
The champion of the area - bombing policy, Air Chief
Marshal Harris, had started in
early 1943 with a list of 60 cities he intended to
destroy, and he kept ticking them
off one by one. He persisted despite intense
pressure from his boss, Chief of the Air
Staff Portal, to concentrate on the top Allies
bombing priorities, oil and
communications - targets whose destruction was
paying far greater dividends to the
Allied cause than were being gained by the wholesale
onslaught on the cities. Portal
and his superiors questioned only the effectiveness
of the area bombing, not its
morality.
3. US "precision bombing" vs. British "area bombing"
US General Carl Spaatz opposed the entire concept of
bombing cities. The U.S. bomber
boss said he did not want to be "tarred" with the
aftermath-the recriminations that
would surely follow after the War. Despite Spaatz's
intentions, however, the
distinction between British area bombing and US
precision bombing was not all that
clear. When bad weather prevented the sighting of a
target, the American
bombardiers resorted to blind bombing, using newly
developed radar devices like
those employed at night by the British. Bombs
dropped by radar-a method exploited at
least in part during about 80 percent of the
American raids in the last three months
of 1944-sprayed all over the area, spreading
destruction far from the refinery or
railway marshaling yard that was the specific
target. On the average, fewer than one
third of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the
target.
4. Target Dresden
Moreover, early in 1945, after Hitler's Ardennes
offensive had shaken Allied
confidence in the likelihood of an early end to the
War, there was increasing pressure
on Spaatz to come up with some decisive blow from
the air. In this atmosphere of
impatience and frustration, Spaatz abandoned his
usual stance. On February 3, 1945,
he sent nearly 1,000 bombers against Berlin. Perhaps
25,000 Berliners died in that
raid. An even deadlier attack on another city soon
followed. On February 13 and 14,
British and American bombers raided Dresden, 100
miles south of Berlin. The
destruction of Dresden became the symbol of the air
war's final months of terror
from the sky.
5. An historic city
On the hit list kept by Air Chief Marshal Harris,
Dresden ranked near the bottom; it
was, in fact, the largest German city to have
escaped full - scale bombing thus far. It
had been touched by bombs just twice-in both
instances by American planes that were
diverted to Dresden's rail yards after clouds
obscured their primary targets, oil
installations. Dresden had little else of importance
to the Allied strategists.
Throughout Germany, it was known for its cultural
and historical amenities-parks,
museums, an opera house and buildings, some of which
dated back to the 13th
Century. The world beyond Germany identified Dresden
with the delicate porcelain
that was actually produced in a village about 12
miles away.
6. Churchill's thinking
The initiative for the attack on Dresden came from
Prime Minister Churchill, as part
of a larger plan to bomb a number of cities in
eastern Germany. Churchill's motive
was essentially political. He and President
Roosevelt were soon to meet with Stalin at
Yalta, and neither Western leader had much to show
the Soviet dictator in way of
recent Anglo - American ground successes. The
British and U.S. armies were stalled
at the western approaches to Germany while a massive
Russian Army offensive was in
progress along the Reich's eastern borders. Blasting
Dresden and other cities in
eastern Germany from the air would give Stalin
tangible proof of the efforts of the
British and the Americans on Russia's behalf.
7. A "routine" attack
The manner in which the attack on Dresden was
delivered was, by this late stage of the
air war, distinctly routine. On the night of
February 13, the British sent two
separate waves of Lancasters. The first wave, 234
planes, bombed for 17 minutes.
The second wave, 538 planes, arrived three hours
later and aimed at the fringes of
the spreading flames below. Altogether, the British
dropped 2,656 tons of bombs, a
load now regarded as unexceptional. About 75 percent
of the bombs were incendiaries,
standard procedure for an old city whose wooden
buildings were so flammable. Some
10 hours after the last British bombs fell, the
Americans arrived. It was Ash
Wednesday, and shortly after noon the 311 Flying
Fortresses bombed by radar,
aiming 771 tons at the city's railway stations and
marshaling yards.
8. The lack of defenses
What made the Dresden attack so extraordinarily
destructive was an unusual
combination of circumstances. There was virtually no
opposition; the city's
antiaircraft guns had been removed the previous
month and sent to the Russian front,
and though a unit of Me - 110 night fighters was
based only five miles away, the fuel
shortage was now so acute that the pilots were
forbidden to take off without
authorization from division headquarters. The
authorization came too late, and the
pilots had to sit in their planes on the runway and
watch Dresden burn.
9. The terrible toll
Dresden burned for a week. The worst fire came
within an hour after the British
attack, when thousands of separate blazes merged
into a howling fire storm of the type
created by the RAF at Hamburg in July of 1943. It
engulfed some 1,600 acres,
practically the whole of old Dresden, generating
winds of tornado force, incinerating
everything and everyone in its path, and sucking the
life out of those who had
attempted to seek refuge in the cellars of the city.
Initial estimates of the death toll,
ranging as high as 135,000, were later revised
downward to 35,000-less than the
number of people who had perished at Hamburg in
1943. But the earlier
estimates-and an unprecedented barrage of German
radio propaganda-served to
perpetuate Dresden's tragedy as a symbol of air
power gone amok.
Courtesy of:
Based on Time-Life Books Inc.
Comments:
CF:>>>>Arguments rage about the bombing of the city
of Dresden. One Austrian dear friend of mine, whose
father was a Nazi and a Veteran of both WW-I and
WW-II, and a man whom I met several times, and
talked with for hours. He showed me his Nazi ID
Card, he was proud to be a Nazi. A Naval Officer in
both wars, commanding a Battleship in the First
World War, and as head of planning for the placement
of mines in seas all over the world in WW-II. He was
86 years old the first time I met him, and he lived
to be into his 90s. He didn't believe anything like
the Holocaust ever happened, and would not go beyond
that statement in our discussions. His son, a
successful business and professional man, with three
Phds., has been our host on many occasions on our
visits to Europe. We stay in their large home in
Vienna. The wife lived with us, as a Foreign
Exchange Student during the years 1963-1964. She is
like our own daughter.
This man, who has entertained Kurt Waldheim, in his
home, *while Waldheim was President of Austria, I
consider to be a moderate to right-wing political
person. We e-mail back and forth frequently, and
will visit this family next year, for the 12th time.
They have also visited us here in the States, three
times. So, we have a good relationship.
My point here is; this fellow was a child during
WW-II. His father served Germany, as did his wife's
father.
In discussing Dresden he says to me: "It was wrong,
and the reason it was wrong is; it made the "good
people" angry with the Allies.
I asked, "who were the "good people?"
"The ones who were against the war." his response.
My personal feelings have been expressed many times
about Dresden. I regret the deaths of innocent
civilians, just as I regret the deaths of any other
innocent civilians during WW-II.
I do not accept any comparison, as many deniers tend
to do, of the tragedy of Dresden, to the Nazi
perpetrated Holocaust. It's simply not comparable.
The Germany High Command, knew they had lost the
war, by June 6th. 1944. They chose to continue to
fight on. That was a bad decision, one of many bad
decisions on the part of Nazi leaders.
Chuck Ferree
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35F46A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
> >Warfare of 1907.
>
> How so? (There was ample reason to believe that all major German cities were
> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>
> >Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
> >murdering bastard.
> >
>
> Pfui.
>
> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not the best
> use of manpower or material. Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
> Nazi war machine; nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
> Nazi morale, didn't do it enough. The bombs dropped on the Continent, and the
> crew and aircraft shot down while attempting to drop them, were not available
> on D-Day, where they definitely could have been used.
>
> But that is hindsight. (Airborne troops, also in hindsight, were not a good
> idea. Too many casualties in the drop itself, even when it was far enough
> behind enemy lines that they didn't take fire. And, of course, resupply was a
> serious problem. But that doesn't take anything away from the heroism of the
> troops who dropped in on D-Day, were even from the intelligence -- in the
> usual sense -- of the generals who commanded them. They did the best they
> could with what they had, and they didn't have the luxury of hindsight or
> even of lengthy decision-making.)
>
> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest of the
> world from the Nazi menace.
>
> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest of the
> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later -- are
> heroes.
>
> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> http:/www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver Stone
> (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
> Favorite wine: Silver Oak Cabernet Turn-ons: brie and BG42
> ------------------------------------------------------------
=============================================================
Phillips
It cannot be denied that the motive for the air campaign against Germany
was at least partly punitive. The sense at that time was that Germany
had -within the space of a mere 70 years- launched three wars against
the West. (1870, 1914, 1940). And so the sense was that it was high time
that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
==========================================================
ORAC
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
>> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
>> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest
of the
>> world from the Nazi menace.
>>
>> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest
of the
>> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
>> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
-- are
>> heroes.
>>
>> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
>
>It cannot be denied that the motive for the air campaign against Germany
>was at least partly punitive. The sense at that time was that Germany
>had -within the space of a mere 70 years- launched three wars against
>the West. (1870, 1914, 1940). And so the sense was that it was high time
>that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
albeit a much smaller motive. However, it's more likely that it was
punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
sometimes with only a few. In pursuing the Blitz against Britain, Germany
made the mistake of thinking that bombing alone would force Britain to sue
for peace. Day after day and night after night, London was bombed and
burned. However, mounting losses of aircraft and men finally forced
Goering largely to give up his saturation bombing campaign by mid-fall
1940. Germany was the first nation to make the mistake of placing too much
faith in the ability of a sustained bombing campaign to win a war, but it
was certainly not the last. (Later in the war, Hitler revived this
mistaken idea with a much less intense bombing campaign, first with V-1
rockets and then later with V-2 rockets, but by then the tide of the war
had shifted irreversibly.)
The Allies, when they acquired the ability to bomb German territory, made
exactly the same mistake as Hitler and Goering. Like Goering, many Allied
bomber commanders, especially "Bomber Harris" had an almost fanatical
faith in the ability of a sustained bombing campaign to shorten and even
win the war (although Churchill did not completely share this faith).
Whereas Harris believed the bombing of German cities was the quickest
means to end the war, the American commander, General Carl Spaatz believed
that precision daylight bombing of German industry would achieve the same
end, even though American bomber groups endured hideous losses of men and
aircraft during massive daylight bombing raids without fighter escort.
(Later, when fighters were developed with sufficient range to escort
bombers, American losses decreased.) Indeed, when Overlord was planned,
Spaats was upset and complained that it would draw off American bombing
strength from Germany for two months prior to the invasion and eliminate
his ability to carry out air operations of sufficient intensity to justify
his theory that "Germany could be knocked out by air power." Spaatz's
aides even boasted that they only needed 20-30 clear operational days to
finish the war on their own. Obviously, in hindsight this was hubris of
the highest order. Nor was the British campaign of night time bombings
much more effective in breaking the will of the German people.
The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
enemy. Winning a conventional war requires the messy business of sending
in ground troops and physically seizing territory. However, because WWII
was the first war where large scale bombings were used as a tactic,
neither side had yet learned that bombing alone would not win wars. It is
therefore not surprising that they used this tactic more than was perhaps
justified in a strictly military sense.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
W$
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> irrelevant to the justifiability of the honest (if,
> in retrospect, unsuccessful) decision to try to both hobble Nazi industry by
> daylight precision bombing, and reduce enemy morale and war efficiency by
> attacking the major industrial/population concentrations.
>
> Again: in retrospect, I think there were clearly better ways to spend
> resources, but the Allied command didn't have the advantage of retrospective
> contemplation.
>
Yes .... had they had the advantage of retrospective contemplation they would have
known that Germany was thoroughly beaten militarily .... but that Hitler had another
"Final Solution" in mind ... the annihilation of the German people down to the last
man, woman, and child. For the crime of not being "fit" to win the war ... and thus
being "unworthy" to survive.
Without that sanction Germany would have sued for peace long before .... but the
Allies ... in retrospect .... would not have believed Hitler favored genocide of his
own people, in lieu of defeat. But he did.
Such was the nature of the enemy.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W$>sy...@cybervex.com
[cybervex ~ riposte]
Cavalier$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W$
ORAC wrote:
> Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
> armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
> albeit a much smaller motive. However, it's more likely that it was
> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> sometimes with only a few. In pursuing the Blitz against Britain, Germany
> made the mistake of thinking that bombing alone would force Britain to sue
> for peace.
The "mistake" was that selective bombings of England's industrial capacity had been
so effective as to render the British war effort seriously compromised, yet Hitler
personnally directed that German forces be directed at London ... to "punish" them
into surrender. This change in procedure, gave England the time and resources to
rebuild their factories outside of London, with virtually no resistance imposed by
the Reich.
Cuddles
It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
Warfare of 1907. Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
murdering bastard.
Cuddles
Joel Rosenberg
>It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
>Warfare of 1907.
How so? (There was ample reason to believe that all major German cities were
involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
>murdering bastard.
>
Pfui.
In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not the best
use of manpower or material. Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
Nazi war machine; nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
Nazi morale, didn't do it enough. The bombs dropped on the Continent, and the
crew and aircraft shot down while attempting to drop them, were not available
on D-Day, where they definitely could have been used.
But that is hindsight. (Airborne troops, also in hindsight, were not a good
idea. Too many casualties in the drop itself, even when it was far enough
behind enemy lines that they didn't take fire. And, of course, resupply was a
serious problem. But that doesn't take anything away from the heroism of the
troops who dropped in on D-Day, were even from the intelligence -- in the
usual sense -- of the generals who commanded them. They did the best they
could with what they had, and they didn't have the luxury of hindsight or
even of lengthy decision-making.)
"Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
-- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest of the
world from the Nazi menace.
And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest of the
folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later -- are
heroes.
And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
Joel Rosenberg
>> >Warfare of 1907.
>>
>> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>>
>> >murdering bastard.
>> >
>>
>Phillips
>
>It cannot be denied that the motive for the air campaign against Germany
>was at least partly punitive. The sense at that time was that Germany
>had -within the space of a mere 70 years- launched three wars against
>the West.
Yes, just as it's "the sense" at this time that the Grand Canyon is rather
large, looked at from certain angles.
>(1870, 1914, 1940). And so the sense was that it was high time
>that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
>==========================================================
That's certainly true, but irrelevant to the justifiability of the honest (if,
in retrospect, unsuccessful) decision to try to both hobble Nazi industry by
daylight precision bombing, and reduce enemy morale and war efficiency by
attacking the major industrial/population concentrations.
Again: in retrospect, I think there were clearly better ways to spend
resources, but the Allied command didn't have the advantage of retrospective
contemplation.
Joel Rosenberg
Oh, there's no question that Hitler's military meddling on more than one
occasion caused Germany to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- his
support of Goering and other of his crony misfits springs instantly to mind,
as was his being taking him by the Patton maskirovka.
But you got to remember that, after all, Hitler was, in the final analysis, a
syphilitic maniac with delusions of godhood who brought a willing nation along
with him almost to the brink of world domination...
.. but whose end was written on Dec. 6, 1941, when President Roosevelt signed
the orders that created the Manhattan Project, at Albert Einstein's
suggestion, sending a bunch of largely Jewish scientists off to create the
miracle weapon that would have, if needed, blasted him to ions.
Fortunately for the German people, the nazi Empire did fall to the Allied
invasion before that became necessary.
Ed Kadach
By George Fowler
(from the Barnes Review)
In volume three of THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR 88, published by
the University of Chicago press, it was stated that "General Arnold
was disconcerted about the publicity" that the AP story had generated
and that "Eisenhower heard all about the issue, and AAF headquarters,
aware of the damaging impression the recent publicity had made, took
steps to prevent another break."
England's Fleet Street blackout did
not prevent members of Parliament from becoming privy to Dresden's
slaughter. Many MP, especially those who had fond memories of the
city, reacted with outrage. Churchill, the holocaust's ultimate
button-pusher, became the target of considerable friendly fire.
In
BOMBER HARRIS Seaward noted that 'The whole question of the Allied
bombing policy suddenly came under question." In March, Churchill
wrote the Chiefs of Staff: "Lit seems to me that the moment has come
when the question of bombing the German cities simply for the sake of
increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be
reviewed." Saward found it amazing that "Churchill, of all people"
would reach this conclusion in the wake of severe criticism. He
noted that the PM "had been the greatest proponent of destroying
Germany city by city . . ."
Few today realize that in early l945 the
U.S. carried out from England six robot missions of B-17s, each
loaded with 10 tons of explosives. The planes were "war weary" craft
that had been stripped of armor and armament. Pilots got the drone
bombers airborne and pointed toward their German targets, then bailed
out. None had been successful in hitting specific targets, and the
project was scrapped due to British objections. Air Chief Marshal
Sir Charles Portal had expressed fears that the Germans, with a great
number of planes but few surviving pilots, would be tempted to reply
in kind. As to the German V-1 and V-2 rocket bombs that fell on
England in l944, few dispute that they were aimed at strategic
targets but that there were a large number of civil casualties.
Following the war, involved American and British air commanders would
fudge and rationalize the years of day-night civilian slaughter. A
B-17 navigator, now a lawyer in Northern Virginia, recalls that in
raiding Munich their PMI (Point of Maximum Impact) target was the
large fountain in the center of the city's business district at high
noon, "in order that we could catch the most people out at
lunchtime."
But "Bomber" Harris remained unmoved by the slaughter,
devastation of cultural landmarks and public criticism. The
Cromwellian commander raged against any diversions of Bomber
Command's mission. In a March 29, l945 letter to Air Vice Marshal
Sir Norman Bottomly, Harris wrote: "The (public) feeling, such as
there is, over Dresden could easily be explained by a psychiatrist.
It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses."
And in
writing Bottomry, a man who knew all the grim details of the Dresden
reality, Harris prompted the question of who might better benefit
from the ministrations of a psychiatrist: "Actually Dresden was a
mass of munitions works, and intact government center, and a key
transportation point to the Least. It is now none of these."
Writing
of Harris after the war, the compilers of the official British
history of WWII wrote: "Sir Arthur Harris made a habit of seeing only
one side of a question, and then exaggerating it. He had a tendency
to confuse advice with interference, criticism with sabotage and
evidence with propaganda.
However, Harris was seen quite differently by America's two most
celebrated figures of that period. In a July 13, l945 letter that
went well beyond cordial recognition, Supreme Allied Commander Dwight
D. Eisenhower wrote Harris: "My gratitude to you is a small token for
the magnificent service which you have rendered, and my simple
expression of thanks sounds totally inadequate. Time and opportunity
prohibit the chance I should like to shake you and your men by the
hand, and thank each of you personally for all that you have done."
On October 17, 1944 Harris had been awarded America's Legion of Merit
with the degree of Chief Commander. The citation concluded: "He
performed his complex task with inspiring leadership and with
outstanding cooperation, skill and determination, reflecting great
credit upon the service he represents and upon the Armed forces of
the United Nations. (Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt."
And of the long
and terrible bombing offensive that emanated from Cherwell and
Churchill, and that cost 50,000 American and 55,000 British and
Commonwealth lives, Max Hastings observed: "It is almost beyond
belief that the German army continued to resist so effectively even
amidst the rubble of a nation. The Wehrmacht's dogged retreat, and
the continued output from the factories until the final weeks,
rendered the concept of moral bombing finally absurd."
As with
Cromwell in Ireland and Roberts and Kitchener in South Africa, Sir
Arthur Harris had broken their walls. But he had not broken their
courage.
-------------------
This was from
The Barnes Review
130 Third Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
1-714-548=5530
"...To Bring History into Accord With the Facts"
In the tradition of the Father of Historical Revisionism
Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes
Ed Kadach
By George Fowler
(from the Barnes Review)
A half century has passed since february 13-14, 1945. Overnight, one
of europe's great meccas of art and culture, a city that had become a
hospital center for german, american and british wounded, that housed
many thousand allied prisoners of war, and that had become a haven to
refugees fleeing the red army, was bombed into oblivion. But the
perpetrators of one of history's great outrages were to receive the
laurels of glorious victory rather than a place in the war crimes
dock.
Part 1 - PRELUDE TO HOLOCAUST
After nearly three years of unremitting Allied air offensives against
Germany's civilian population, plans for the destruction of the open
city of Dresden, incinerating at least 135,000 people, took shape on
March 30, l942. However the seeds of such inhuman hate had long
since found fertile soil at 10 Downing Street and within the White
House.
On the above date Prof. F.A. Lindemann, later, Lord Cherwell, the
Prime Minister's Science Advisor and a jewish refugee from Germany,
delivered to Winston Churchill a fateful report. In his book BOMBER
COMMAND Max Hastings stated that "Cherwell's Report provided the
final rationalization for the program Bomber Command was undertaking,
and it would henceforth be paper-clipped to the plans of the bomber
offensive."
Lindemann estimated that every 40 tons of bombs "dropped on built-up
areas" would "make 4,000 to 8,000 people homeless." This report to
the PM stated: "In l938 over 22 million Germans lived in 58 towns of
over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be
easy to find and hit." Hastings concluded that Lindemann "Hoped to
create a nation of refugees, and no doubt also a good many corpses
under the rubble, although he was too genteel to say so."
There were of course discussions and disagreements regarding
strategic and tactical approaches to the bombing of Germany. But
Lindermann's report is considered the basic text behind the wholesale
bombing of civilian targets. Prior to the report's dispatch to
Churchill, a February 143, l942 Air Ministry directive to Bomber
Command from Air Vice Marshal Sir Norman Bottomly contained the
following Valentine's Day message: "You are accordingly authorized to
employ your forces without restriction . . . (operations) should now
be focused on the moral of the enemy civil population and in
particular, of the industrial workers."
On February 22, while Churchill was staying at the White House, it
was decided that Air Marshal Arthur Harris would leave his post as
the head of the RAF delegation in Washington (an assignment he had
held in neutral America beginning June 12, l941) to head Bomber
Command. This fateful reassignment would team Harris with a PM of
kindred instincts in one of Western history's most costly and ghastly
undertakings.
The first chapters of World War II, from Germany's Sept. 3, l939
invasion of Poland to the May-June l940 clash in the West when France
capitulated and Britain was driven from the continent, saw a scarcity
of bombing by the belligerents. This was largely the period of
"Sitzkreig" and "Bore War"during which Germany's bombing of Warsaw
prior to Poland's surrender marked the only major incident: a
relatively moderate attack that proved costly to Germany on the
propaganda front.
Throughout the l939-40 months of frontal stalemate in the West,
Hitler didn't order the Luftwaffe to bomb Britain (while working
continually for a negotiated peace with London that would allow him
to concentrate on his plan for land acquisition in the East and the
destruction of Bolshevism's Soviet bastion). The Royal Air Force
confined its activities to the dropping of propaganda leaflets. The
bombing of the open city of Freiburg-imBreigeu on May 10, l940,
killed 22 children, 13 women, 11 men and 11 soldiers. Whether the
bombers were French, British or even German has never been determined
but the civilians killed and the property destroyed were real and
gave Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels grist to promise that the
Luftwaffe would answer the destruction "in a like manner."
Four days later the Germans bombed Rotterdam. From northern German
airfields some 100 Heinkel III bombers were poised to attack
remaining resistance zones in the city. However, surrender
negotiations with the Dutch government were in progress. The raid,
planned for 1500 hrs. (3 pm), was ordered postponed after takeoff on
a flight of about 100 minutes to target areas. The Dutch government
had been stalling during negotiating session. German terms were
finally agreed to five minutes before the time set for the attack.
But the recall could not be signaled to those bombers that had
crossed the Netherlands border. At that point they had reeled in
their trailing aerials allowing long range reception. A swift
fighter was dispatched to head off the bombers, and from a German
panzer position on the ground at Rotterdam, where the mission-scrub
signal had been received, signal flares were fired to ward off an
attack that began just as the flares went up. The signal was
received in time to disengage 40 of the Heinkels.
The city's main water supply system was hit, and considerable fire
ensued in one area (no incendiaries were dropped) due largely to hits
on a margarine plant from which streams of burning oil flowed. In
l9l2 the Rotterdam government released figures showing that 980
people had been killed in the raid. The considerable devastation in
the city gave Allied propagandists a field day, and Rotterdam became
the greatest war atrocity story since Japan's "Rape of Nanking" in
the l930s.
In his l963 book THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN David Irving noted that
"Ninety four tons of bombs had been dropped . . . By comparison,
close to 9,000 tons of high explosives and incendiaries were dropped
on the inland Ruhr port of Duisburg during the triple blow of 14th
October l944."
With Germany's bombing of Britain following France's surrender,
strategic targets were singled out and hit with a high degree of
accuracy. But on the night of August 24, l940 (the main London
targets being the vital East End dock-shipping-industrial areas), the
target was the oil storage depot at Thames Haven. A navigational
error led to the bombing of parts of the East End, the City and St.
Giles.
The bombing of central London drew the immediate retaliatory response
of the Royal Air Force. The following night it bombed Berlin, with
slight effect. This enraged Hitler, who issued a command that may
have cost Germany victory. He ordered that the Luftwaffe switch its
attacks to London and away from RAF installations and radar sites.
This allowed the severely depleted Fighter Command a short but much
needed period to regroup.
The Luftwaffe's incredibly costly (most particularly in terms of
seasoned pilots and crew) London "Blitz" is dated from September 7,
l940 to May 16, l94l. Luftwaffe figures show that throughout this
period 24,177 tons of bombs were dropped during 71 major attacks on
London and other areas of industrial concentration, such as Hull,
Liverpool and Manchester. The British calculated that, by the end of
l940, 13,399 Britons had been killed in raids.
The German raid ranking with Rotterdam in terms of propaganda value
was the bombing of Coventry in November, l940. In bombing this
industrial city Coventry's Cathedral was nearly demolished. Pictures
of its ruins filled America's newspapers and newsreel screens. In
his l975 book THE FIRST CASUALTY (the title evidently taken from U.S.
Sen. Hiram Johnson's 1917 observation that "The first casualty, when
war comes, is truth."). Philip Knoghtly noted that the LONDON TIMES
editorialized on the "butchery at Coventry . . . The wanton slaughter
by a people pretending to be civilized who, it would seem, kill
mostly for the joy of destroying." Of this Knightly wrote: "Coventry
was actually a legitimate military target, one of the keys to the
British war effort" containing such plants as the Standard Motor Co.,
the British Piston Ring Co., and Kaimler motor works and Alvis
aero-engine factory.
The British had known of Germany's intent to bomb Coventry due to an
early intercept of Germany's ENIGMA code system by way or its ULTRA
codebreaking device. But Churchill vetoed interception of the
Luftwaffe attack for fear that it would tip the Germans to the fact
that their main code had been broken. Thus Coventry entailed a
double deception on the part of the British. But this did not deter
Churchill from ordering "Operation Rachel." This was the codename
for the December 12, l940 Bomber Command attack on Mannheim. On the
PM's direct order it was to be a reprisal for the considerable damage
done to Coventry and the first occasion in the relatively brief
annals of air warfare that an entire city was to be the deliberate
target of attack.
Britain had began the war with a somewhat antiquated bomber capacity.
But by l942 and with America's full material support, Bomber Command
was a formidable force. In the spring of l942 Harris sold Churchill
the Chief of Air Staff Sir Charles Portal on a 1,000-plane raid.
Stretching all human and material resources, l,047 planes, largely
with inexperienced crews were gathered. When Churchill and Harris
discussed potential casualties, the PM said he was prepared for the
loss of 100 planes.
Hamburg, Germany's second largest city, was to be the target. But
weather conditions dictated a switch to the secondary target and
Germany's third largest city, Cologne. The raid was carried out May
30 and it was a success. The city along the Rhine burned deep red
well into the sky, the great Cathedral's twin spires (one of which
would subsequently be destroyed) clear silhouettes to the airmen
above. The raid had wrought instant devastation unequaled since
biblical lore. Over 12,000 structures had been totally or partially
destroyed, with 45,000 people left homeless. Remarkably, only 496
dead were counted. The water, power gas and telephone complexes were
in shambles and 36 factories were destroyed, 70 more badly damaged.
Bomber command was delighted at the loss of only 40 aircraft.
Max Hastings noted in BOMBER COMMAND that "It was a mere token of the
destruction Bomber Command would achieve in l942 and 1943 . . ." In
the latter months of l942 U.S. Army Air Corps B-17s and B-25
Liberators began limited daylight operations against targets in
France and Germany. The Air Corps' top brass under Gen. H.H. "Hap"
Arnold, in conjunction with Bomber Command's leaders were using for
an all-out campaign of U.S.-daylight/RAF-night operations. The
American airmen had an added incentive. They wanted the postwar
establishment of a separate armed service co-equal with the Army and
Navy. The bomber offensive was their prime opportunity so show what
they could do, and it would lead to many an unnecessary but
destructive mission.
The efforts of the Air Corps-Bomber command lobbying were fully
rewarded at the Roosevelt-Churchill Casablanca conference in January,
l943. A Casablanca directive read: "Your primary aim will be the
progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military,
industrial and economic system, and the undermining of the moral of
the German people to the point where their capacity for armed
resistance is fatally weakened . . . "
Following Casablanca, America's bomber presence escalated markedly,
with USAAF (U.S. Army Air Force) fields increasingly dotting the
fields of eastern England. The stage was fully set for one of
history's darkest dramas, and one that would place gold stars
signifying a family member killed in action in the front windows of
tens of thousands of American homes.
The physical punch to achieve what "Bomber" Harris had envisioned was
now in place. Max Hastings wrote: "Long before Casablanca, or even
before Cologne, Harris had conceived his campaign for the systematic
laying-waste of Germany's cities, and he never had the slightest
intention of being deflected from it."
In the summer of l943 Bomber Command was to unleash its most lethal
strike of the war save for Dresden, and it would provide the first
major instance of British and American public doubt and criticism.
Although Hamburg had "weathered" Harris's initial 1000-plane raid, it
would be visited in a manner that can only be recalled as a
determined atrocity. In BOMBER HARRIS author Dudly Saward states
that the obliteration of Hamburg, "which went by the ominous code
name of 'Gomorrah,' was planned to take place over a period of four
nights."
Before his crews took off on the first assault the night of July
24-25, Harris told them: "The Battle of Hamburg cannot be won in a
single night. It is estimated that 10,000 tons of bombs will have to
be dropped to complete the process of elimination. To achieve the
maximum effect of air bombardment this city should be subjected to
sustained attack. On the first attack a large number of incendiaries
are to be carried in order to saturate the fire service."
Few could misunderstand these words or the intent behind them. This
was not a surgical or even carpet bombing strike against military or
industrial targets. Clearly, this was the premeditated murder of a
city and its people. In the series of four Hamburg raids, July 24 to
August 3, Bomber Command dropped 8,621 tons of bombs on the city,
4,309 tons being incendiaries. Eighth Air Force B-17s dropped 771
tons of explosives during the third raid.
Initial deaths were estimated at 41,800, but many thousands more died
subsequently or were never counted due to incineration, burial
beneath rubble or having been blown to bits. The four-raid total may
have equaled Great Britain's official total losses for the war of
41,509, THE BOMBER COMMAND DIARIES, published in l985 by Penguin
Books, London, states that the August 2-3 raid largely failed due to
thunder-storms. Thus most of the destruction was wrought in three
raids.
In THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN Irving wrote that "When rescue teams
finally cleared their way into hermetically sealed bunkers and
shelters, after several weeks, the heat generated inside had been so
intense that nothing remained of their occupants: only a soft
undulating layer of gray ash was left in one bunker, from which the
number of victims could only be estimated as 'between 250 and
300'..."
Despite the highly restrictive censorship regulations applied to
Allied war correspondents (already deemed supportive of the Allied
cause as a condition of clearance) fairly large bits and pieces of
what the bomber offense was about leaked to some prominent civilian
figures. In England, among the most telling critics were the
country's two premier military historians, Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller
and Captain Basil Liddell Hart.
In August, l943 Fuller drafted an article (evidently not published)
the LONDON EVENING STANDARD in which he stated: "The worst
devastation of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Seljuks and Mongols pales
into insignificance when compared to the material and moral damage
now wrought . . ." Following the thousand-plane Cologne raid Hard
drafted a private "reflection" that observed: "It will be ironical if
the defenders of civilization depend for victory upon the most
barbaric, and unskilled, way of winning a war that the modern world
had seen . . . We are not counting for victory on success in the way
of degrading it to a new low level . . ."
As stated in THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II, plans were drawn up
in early June, l944 to define the post-D-Day invasion bomber
campaign. The recommended priorities to both Bomber Command and the
U.S. 8th and 15th Air Force (in Italy) were, in order of priority,
oil production, jet and V-weapons, ball bearing plants and tank
factories. As Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower left
both the American commanders (Gens. Spaatz and Doolittle) and Harris
free to develop independently their strategic bombing campaigns as
they saw fit. It was clearly an opportunity to curtail Harris's
incredible excesses. But Eisenhower, essentially a high political
functionary in uniform, based higher decisions on the wishers of the
President and the Prime Minister.
On the scorched road to Dresden there were many occurrences similar
to what happened at Hamburg. THE BOMBER COMMAND DIARIES, for the
city of Darmstadt on the night of September 11-12, l944, tell that
226 Lancasters and 14 Mosquitoes (light bombers, the four-engine
Lancaster being Bomber Command's equivalent of the B-17), produced an
outstandingly accurate and concentrated raid on this almost intact
city of 120,000 people. A fierce fire area was created in the center
and in the districts immediately south and east of the center.
Property damage in this area was almost complete. Casualties were
very heavy. The deaths of 8,433 people were actually reported to
police stations. This figure was made up of: German civilians--1,766
men, 2,743 women and 2,129 children, 936 service personnel, 492
foreign workers and 368 prisoners of war."
The United States Strategic Bombing survey, compiled after the war,
concluded that deaths in Darmstadt that night may have exceeded the
RAF figures (taken from initial German figures) by 5,000 because all
deaths were not reported by the 49,200 made homeless by the raid and
evacuated from the city. Today, the city of Darmstadt has final
figures of 12,300 dead and 70,000 homeless.
PART TWO: The Infernal Firestorm-- A Glimpse of Hell
Thus a long pattern of operational intent, in which everything on
German soil that stood, moved or breathed was considered a legitimate
recipient of the bomb bay payloads, had been established long before
it became Dresden's turn. To begin with, the city was not an
industrial center of even moderate importance. It had been bombed
once, some 20 USAAF planes hitting with considerable accuracy the
city's small industrial area as a secondary target at midday on
October 7, l944 during an attack on the Ruhland oil refinery. This
raid was at least consistent with both the publicly stated purpose
and propaganda regarding the bombing campaign, in that it was a
basically surgical strike against valid targets.
The essence of pre-holocaust Dresden was described in David Irving's
book: "Not endowed with any one great capital industry like those of
Essen and Hamburg, even though Dresden was of comparable size, the
city's economy had been sustained in peacetime by its theaters,
museums, cultural institutions and home industries." Irving noted
that "for the British prisoners of war . . . life could not easily be
bettered. The Dresdeners were familiar with the English from pre-war
days, when the city had been a cultural center, and many made friends
among the prisoners--a large section of which were from 1st Airborne
Division contingent captured at Arnhem." The factor of pre-war
English familiarity with Dresden, generations of students having
visited it on the Grand Tour, would play a major part in the raid's
aftermath.
Dresden's fate had been sealed at the February 4-11, l945
FDR-Churchill-Stalin conference at Yalta. Reports about the Dresden
decision center on Stalin's desire to see it savaged as a means of
enhancing the Red Army's offensive by jamming up German troop
movements. U.S. Chief of Staff George C. Marshall announced publicly
that Dresden had been attacked at Stalin's specific request, although
after the war the Soviets and East Germans repeatedly referred to the
raid as a "diabolical plan" of Churchill's "to kill as many people as
possible."
Roosevelt and Churchill were of course well aware of Dresden's
particulars, including the fact that it was a hospital, prisoner of
war and, now, refugee center.
The concession was allegedly made to soothe the increasingly arrogant
and intransigent Kremlin dictator. But given the fact that at Yalta
Stalin achieved control over Eastern Europe, in-effect control of
Mongolia, Japan's Kurile Islands, and occupation zone in Korea and a
guarantee of $20 billion in eventual German reparations, one might
have thought that the bear had been amply fed.
After Yalta and the war, Churchill of course went into his "deeply
suspicious of Stalin" act just as he had feigned surprise at FDR's
unconditional surrender announcement at Casablanca. However, just
before flying from Russia on February 14, at the very moment of
Dresden's awesome trauma, he lauded his hosts' "great leader." And
the ever theatrical PM, who certainly ranked with fellow dipsomaniac
thespians John Barrymore and Richard Burton, lauded "The redeemed
Crimea, cleansed by Russian valor from the foul taint of the Huns."
Dresden had once been a pivotal communications and rail center
important to the Wehrmacht. But as Irving notes, by the time it
received its fatal blow, "The city's strategic significance was
scarcely marginal . . . " it was home to 630,000 permanent residents,
its numbers swelled by German and Allied wounded, Allied POWs and
hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing areas in the path of the
Red Army's advance. The city's authorities were convinced that a non
strategic city with a large number of military hospitals, POW
compounds, etc., would not receive anything approaching the
annihilative smashing so many other cities and towns had undergone.
Therefore most of the air defense and flak batteries that would
otherwise be in Dresden were transferred to areas where it was
assumed they'd be needed.
In THE BOMBER COMMAND WAR DIARIES the basic facts of the February
13-14 Dresden raids were recounted: "796 Lancasters and 9 Mosquitoes
were dispatched in two separate raids and dropped 1,478 tons of high
explosives and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs . . . 311 American
B-17s dropped 771 tons of bombs on Dresden the next day, with the
railway yards as their aiming point. Part of the American Mustang
(P-51) fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads
around Dresden to increase the chaos. The Americans bombed Dresden
again on the 15th and on March 2 but it was generally accepted that
it was the RAF night raid which caused the most serious damage." Of
the American strafing Irving noted: "British prisoners who had been
released from their burning camps were among those to suffer the
discomfort of machine gun attacks . . . Wherever columns of tramping
people were marching in or out of the city they were pounced on by
the fighters, and machine-gunned or raked with cannon fire."
On February 12 the last pre-attack refugee train had pulled into
Dresden. People continued to flow into the city from the East, in
foot or packed into horse drawn carts. Dresden had not been declared
an open city, but few who would attempt to justify its devastation
could deny its in-effect status as such.
One RAF Flight Engineer recalled that the brightness of the fires
below allowed him to fill in his log sheet by the light that shot
skyward. A crewman of another plane wrote: "I confess to taking a
glance downward as the bombs fell, and I witnessed the shocking sight
of a city on fire from end to end. Dense smoke could be seen
drifting away from Dresden, leaving a brilliantly illuminated view of
the town. My immediate reaction was a stunned reflection on the
comparison between the holocaust below and the warnings of the
evangelists in Gospel meetings before the war."
David Irving noted that "In many cases during the night raids,
people, finding that dense suffocating fumes from above were rolling
down into the unventilated basements, broke down the wall breaches.
Thus the smoke had access to the next-door cellars as well." One
survivor wrote: "The detonations shook the cellar walls. The sound
of the explosives mixed with a new, strange sound, which seemed to
come closer and closer, the sound of a thundering waterfall; it was
the sound of the mighty tornado howling into the inner city."
Retired Major James "Knobby" Walsh was an Army Air Corps bombardier
in WWII and is a subscriber THE BARNES REVIEW. He forwarded the
following passage from Edward Jablonski's AIR WAR--WINGS OF FIRE
(Doubleday & Co.): "The horror and the terror on the ground was
incredible, destruction was extensive, and the loss of life was
frightful. The beautiful little city, its population swollen by an
influx of refugees from the east fleeing before the Russians bent on
revenge, pillage and rape, and its predominantly wooden buildings,
ideal for incendiaries, all but vanished in a howling whirlwind of
incineration. Although it is unlikely that the true toll will ever
be known, the number of people probably killed at Dresden was about
135,000 (as compared with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which
killed 71,379)."
In the l966 book ORDEAL BY FIRE author Roul Tunley described the
Dresden experience of an American woman from New Jersey, Anne Wahle,
who had gone to prewar Europe as the wife of an Austrian diplomat.
She had survived the Hamburg raids and she and her three children
would eventually walk and ride hundreds of miles from Dresden to
safety. She recalled: "I had never seen anything like it. Howling
gusts of hurricane force whipped flames in all directions. Nothing
seemed to be spared. I watched little trains of flame race along
garden paths and ignite a tree of even a stone ornament."
In THE FIRST CASUALTY Knightly wrote: "The flames ate everything
organic, everything that would burn. People died by the thousands:
cooked, incinerated or suffocated. Then American planes came the next
day to machine-gun survivors as they struggled to the banks of the
Elbe." Knightly added that "Precise casualty figures will never be
known. The German authorities stopped counting when the known dead
reached 25,000 and 35,000 were still missing. Some post-war sources
put the number of dead at from 100,000 to 130,000, which would
greatly exceed the number killed in the atom-bombing of Hiroshima . .
. Dresden was merely a staging center for a half million refugees
from Silesia. The (rail) yards were not even attacked. There were no
ammunition workshops and factories, only a small works making optical
lenses for gun sights."
PART THREE: Aftermath: Coverups and Lies
The horror extended well into the aftermath, with countless thousands
lacking a bare subsistence food ration in addition to adequate winter
shelter. Tens of thousands with various degrees of burns and other
injuries went unattended. Dresden had 19 major hospitals, all of
them damaged to some degree during the raids and three of them
totally wiped out. As the Allied air brass knew, Dresden was a
center for convalescing Wehrmacht personnel from all fronts as well
as for Allied wounded, a large number of them airmen.
Fully realizing
the extent of the destruction and the circumstances under which it
was meted out, London moved to cover its position even before the
follow-up American raid. At 9 am on February 14 the Air Ministry
released a full-length bulletin. Irving wrote: "In a statement
describing the target city in unusual detail, the Air Ministry
stressed the vital importance of Dresden to the enemy: As the center
of a railway network and as a great industrial town it had become of
the greatest value for controlling the German defenses against
Marshal Koniev's Armies."
Knightly pointed out that Ministry of
Defense records show that no war correspondents flew with the
bombers, and that there were no eyewitness accounts save for "a few
air crews interviewed on their return, and they were given various
concocted explanations as to why they were bombing the city--they
were attacking German army headquarters, destroying an arms dump,
knocking out an industrial area, or even 'wiping out a large poison
gas plant."
From THE FIRST CASUALTY: "The truth first came out in
Sweden. At 10:15 am on February 15 a Swedish news bulletin
transmitted in Danish to occupied Denmark said that the death toll in
Dresden was already between 20,000 and 35,000." Then newspapers in
neutral countries began printing stories of the raid. On February
17, the Associated Press reported throughout America: "Allied air
chiefs have made the long awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror
bombing of German population centers as a ruthless expedient of
hastening Hitler's doom."
Despite the incredible chronological
inaccuracy of the "long-awaited decision," the Dresden story,
basically was out. But British censors placed a solid clamp on the
true nature of Dresden. They fed the Fleet Street press the official
"major strategic target" line. Thus following the raid, readers of
the EVENING STANDARD read the lead story, under the headline "The
Blasting of Dresden" and accompanied by a front page picture of bombs
dropping on indistinguishable targets, without learning anything the
government wished withheld.
In America, however, millions registered
feelings of rage, disillusion and concern Marshall's statement that
the raid was staged at Stalin's request set off some
anti-administration sentiments in Congress. But overall, Roosevelt's
bitter enemies were wary of exposing themselves to accusations of
criticism during wartime, a factor that had severely curtailed the
Dewey-Rricker Republican ticket in 1944 when FDR won his fourth term.
PT.1
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>
>> Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
>> armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
>> albeit a much smaller motive. However, it's more likely that it was
>> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
>> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
>> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
>> sometimes with only a few. In pursuing the Blitz against Britain, Germany
>> made the mistake of thinking that bombing alone would force Britain to sue
>> for peace.
>
>The "mistake" was that selective bombings of England's industrial
capacity had been
>so effective as to render the British war effort seriously compromised,
yet Hitler
>personnally directed that German forces be directed at London ... to
"punish" them
>into surrender. This change in procedure, gave England the time and
resources to
>rebuild their factories outside of London, with virtually no resistance
imposed by
>the Reich.
This is also a good point. Hitler and Goering were so convinced that if
they leveled London Britain would surrender. I think that part of it was
also anger at Britain. Prior to the war, Hitler had hoped to forge an
Alliance with Britain against the Soviets, and often expressed his
admiration for the British people. He made several peace overtures and was
enraged when Britain joined France in signing a mutual defense pact with
Poland and declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.
In any case, the Battle of Britain is as good example as any as to why
bombing of cities alone will not win a war.
On the flip side, even the massive bombing of German cities had little
effect on Germany's war output, at least initially, because the Germans
simply dispersed their production. It was not until the last 18 months of
the war, when the Allies had enough planes to keep bombing these dispersed
plants, that German war production started to suffer markedly. Even as
late as the winter of 1944, Hitler was still capable of manufacturing
large numbers of tanks and guns, which he used to devastating effect in
the Battle of the Bulge. But it was too little and too late to save his
Reich.
--
THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
Chicago, IL |
Cuddles
>
> In article <35F487...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> >> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
> >> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
> >> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest
> of the
> >> world from the Nazi menace.
> >>
> >> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest
> of the
> >> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
> >> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
> -- are
> >> heroes.
> >>
> >> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
> >
> >was at least partly punitive. The sense at that time was that Germany
> >had -within the space of a mere 70 years- launched three wars against
> >that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
>
> armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
> albeit a much smaller motive.
Incorrect, sir. The objective was given in an Air Staff memo that it
cited in Harris's Despatch, para. 3. It was to cause '(i) destruction,
and (ii), the fear of death'. In other words it was terrorism.
> However, it's more likely that it was
> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> sometimes with only a few.
Really? So who were they punishing? The innocent civilians of Hamburg
and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
<snip>
Cuddles
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>> However, it's more likely that it was
>> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
>> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
>> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
>> sometimes with only a few.
>
>Really? So who were they punishing? The innocent civilians of Hamburg
>and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
>those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
>consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
Let's borrow a page from your own playbook, shall we, "Cuddles"?
I can see where this is going, just as you claimed to be able to see where
the whole crime and race discussion in another thread was going a few days
ago. (It really takes no great predictive ability on my part, because
you've gone through this over and over again ad nauseum.) You'll continue
pontificate about how the bombing of German cities was so evil that it
supposedly robs the Allies of their "moral superiority" (a dubious
assertion at best, given the sheer magnitude of Hitler's genocide). I and
others will point out that the Holocaust cannot be so glibly equated to
the casualties of bombing. The Holocaust was an intentional mass
extermination of helpless people for the simple reason of their race,
whether Jewish or Eastern European, in other words, genocide. The bombing
of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
trying to win the war. It's not as if these bombers didn't encounter lots
of resistance; thousands upon thousands of planes were shot down and their
pilots lost. Indeed for a time, bomber crews had appalling casualty rates.
How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims? You
or others will respond with revisionist arguments about how the Holocaust
really didn't happen and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing, thus tarring
the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS, and that
the Nazis intentionally killed the Jews and Eastern Europeans, by various
means, including shooting, hanging, and gassing. And on it will go.
So, do you want to go down that path?
You probably do, don't you?
You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
Holocaust.
Joel Rosenberg
Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "destruction"? Certainly,
lowering of the Nazi morale was an additional component, but should Bomber
Harris have been in favor of raising their morale?
Now, I think the American "Precision bombing" campaign was more geared toward
carefully-measured destruction of the enemy infrastructure than the British
nighttime bombing, but there's no question that the intention of both was to
interfere with the ability of the Nazi society to function.
Daniel Keren
[...]
# In THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN Irving wrote that "When rescue
# teams finally cleared their way into hermetically sealed bunkers
# and shelters, after several weeks, the heat generated inside had
# been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants: only a
# soft undulating layer of gray ash was left in one bunker, from
# which the number of victims could only be estimated as 'between
# 250 and 300'..."
I am curious to know: is there any "revisionist" out there who
really believes this?
-Danny Keren.
Richard G. Philllips
> > punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> > solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> > sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> > sometimes with only a few.
>
> Really? So who were they punishing?
Phillips
IN those days, we didn't draw fine distinctions. total war does that to
people. Remorse comes later -- if at all.
======================================================================
The innocent civilians of Hamburg
> and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
> those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
> consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
>
> <snip>
>
> Cuddles
Gord McFee
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
[deleted]
> > My personal feelings have been expressed many times
> > about Dresden. I regret the deaths of innocent
> > civilians, just as I regret the deaths of any other
> > innocent civilians during WW-II.
> > I do not accept any comparison, as many deniers tend
> > to do, of the tragedy of Dresden, to the Nazi
> > perpetrated Holocaust. It's simply not comparable.
> > The Germany High Command, knew they had lost the
> > war, by June 6th. 1944. They chose to continue to
> > fight on. That was a bad decision, one of many bad
> > decisions on the part of Nazi leaders.
> >
> > Chuck Ferree
>
> It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
> Warfare of 1907. Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
> murdering bastard.
It was nothing of the sort, and to say what you did proves only that you
are a bastard.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
W$
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
>
> Oh, there's no question that Hitler's military meddling on more than one
> occasion caused Germany to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- his
> support of Goering and other of his crony misfits springs instantly to mind,
> as was his being taking him by the Patton maskirovka.
>
> But you got to remember that, after all, Hitler was, in the final analysis, a
> syphilitic maniac with delusions of godhood who brought a willing nation along
> with him almost to the brink of world domination...
I don't agree that the Nazi phenomena can be explained by oversimplifying Hitler as
a "syphilitic maniac". Though certainly "manical" & "fanatical" apply. As to a
willing nation, the Nazi party at best garnered a little over 40% of the votes, and
that after a great deal of behind the scenes gangster tactics in the 30 days after
he was named chancellor. Futher, the gross use of propaganda on the German people
makes it clear that the true Nazi agenda of race agrandizement, coupled with the
anihilation or enslavement of other "races", and world domination by way of war was
carefully hidden until the liquidation of all opposition was virtually achieved. And
of course it was exactly the partial realization of those aims that was the swift
undoing of the Nazi movement.
> .. but whose end was written on Dec. 6, 1941, when President Roosevelt signed
> the orders that created the Manhattan Project, at Albert Einstein's
> suggestion, sending a bunch of largely Jewish scientists off to create the
> miracle weapon that would have, if needed, blasted him to ions.
>
Of course the Germans were already working on a similar project in 1940. However,
long before the first bomb was exploded in New Mexico the die was cast for German
defeat .... by the simple fact that Hitler had bit off much more than Germany could
chew ... especially while at the same time destroying the very industrial capacity
needed to continue as a byproduct of "racial cleansing".
> Fortunately for the German people, the nazi Empire did fall to the Allied
> invasion before that became necessary.
Yes ... but unfortunate that the original Allies had given the USSR equal seating in
deciding the "reconstruction" of Europe ... which of course continued with renewed
vigor the "idealistic" cleansing that was the hallmark of the Soviets, not to
mention the exporting of communism to their neighbors which precipitated the fall of
China, and a host of realignments elsewhere to the detriment of freedom.
W$
ORAC wrote:
> In article <35F4AAFF...@cybervex.com>, "W$" <sy...@cybervex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is also a good point. Hitler and Goering were so convinced that if
> they leveled London Britain would surrender. I think that part of it was
> also anger at Britain. Prior to the war, Hitler had hoped to forge an
> Alliance with Britain against the Soviets, and often expressed his
> admiration for the British people. He made several peace overtures and was
> enraged when Britain joined France in signing a mutual defense pact with
> Poland and declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.
I agree that had a great deal to do with his militarily stupid decision.
>
>
> In any case, the Battle of Britain is as good example as any as to why
> bombing of cities alone will not win a war.
True.
>
>
> On the flip side, even the massive bombing of German cities had little
> effect on Germany's war output, at least initially, because the Germans
> simply dispersed their production.
True .... but the German army was also spread very thin, and despite numerous
warnings, Hitler never had any appreciation of the industrial capacity he was up
against on the part of the Americans. (A huge mistake on the part of Japan also.)
By 1943 the US was turning out as much armament, planes, and ships every six
months as the combined forces of Germany and Japan had had at their highest
strengths. There was simply no way the Axis could keep up.
> It was not until the last 18 months of
> the war, when the Allies had enough planes to keep bombing these dispersed
> plants, that German war production started to suffer markedly. Even as
> late as the winter of 1944, Hitler was still capable of manufacturing
> large numbers of tanks and guns, which he used to devastating effect in
> the Battle of the Bulge. But it was too little and too late to save his
> Reich.
Quite true.
Chuck Ferree
ZOG wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:24:06 GMT, ORAC <ORA...@aol.com> wrote:
> >You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
>
> There were no bombings of Dresden or Hamburg. Revisionist "scholarship"
> clearly tells us that there is not a shred of physical evidence, that all
> of the so-called "witnesses" are either unreliable or lying, and that
> these stories are simply ary*n lies being purveyed in an attempt to drum
> up support for their particular brand of filth and depravity.
CF:>>>>>damned! there goes one of my Air Medals. ;-) no biggie, I got six more
to go.
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Bob Alpert * balpert "at" netaxs.com * Author of the Jewish Conspiracy FAQ |
> | http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html * "ary*ns are a waste of skin" |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> *** Say "ZOG" on subject line to send e-mail! [spamgard(tm)]***
Chuck Ferree
Cuddles wrote:
> ORAC wrote:
> >
> > In article <35F487...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > >> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
> > >> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
> > >> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest
> > of the
> > >> world from the Nazi menace.
> > >>
> > >> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest
> > of the
> > >> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
> > >> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
> > -- are
> > >> heroes.
> > >>
> > >> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
CF:>>>>Yeah, cuddles, *heroes, get tha picture!
> > >
> > >It cannot be denied that the motive for the air campaign against Germany
> > >was at least partly punitive. The sense at that time was that Germany
> > >had -within the space of a mere 70 years- launched three wars against
> > >the West. (1870, 1914, 1940). And so the sense was that it was high time
> > >that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
> >
> > Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
> > armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
> > albeit a much smaller motive.
>
> Incorrect, sir. The objective was given in an Air Staff memo that it
> cited in Harris's Despatch, para. 3. It was to cause '(i) destruction,
> and (ii), the fear of death'. In other words it was terrorism.
CF:>>>Harris....Schmarris, he didn't run the entire Air Campaign. One Brit, who wrote
one memo. We put many more bombers into the air than England did. The RAF and the
RCAF, the cream of both countrie's Fighter Pilots, along with some Americans in the
Eagle Squadron, and some Austrailians, and some Polish pilots and some French pilots,
they did the toughest kind of fighting in the Battle for Britian. Most of these great
guys died for their countries, but they never were afraid, they went out there every
day and every night, and proceeded to kick the Luftwaffe's ass. Goering got chicken
and convinced Hitler they better try something else. Too late, Nazis.....the die was
cast, and your asses belong to us.
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> > However, it's more likely that it was
> > punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> > solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> > sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> > sometimes with only a few.
>
> Really? So who were they punishing? The innocent civilians of Hamburg
> and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
> those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
> consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
CF:>>>>>>Is there any doubt? Of course *we are so much more morally superior, then
and now than the Nazis ever were or ever will be. Cheeeezzzzz! Did we win or what?
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Cuddles
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
[Snip!]
>> The bombing
>> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
>> trying to win the war.
>
>And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
>save the world.
You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your post
seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
to make a serious response.
[Remainder snipped!]
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
Cuddles
> >> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> >> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> >> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> >> sometimes with only a few.
> >
> >Really? So who were they punishing? The innocent civilians of Hamburg
> >and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
> >those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
> >consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
>
Aw! For a moment I actually thought that you were going to answer the
question, Mr G!
> I can see where this is going, just as you claimed to be able to see where
> the whole crime and race discussion in another thread was going a few days
> ago.
Yup. And I got it right! :)-
> (It really takes no great predictive ability on my part, because
> you've gone through this over and over again ad nauseum.) You'll continue
> pontificate about how the bombing of German cities was so evil that it
> supposedly robs the Allies of their "moral superiority" (a dubious
> assertion at best, given the sheer magnitude of Hitler's genocide).
Magnitude? Hang on a minute, Mr G. It looks as if you haven't heard the
news. The 'magnitude' argument went out in the 1980s. In fact, to be
more exact, it went out when Robert Conquest and others pointed out that
YOUR pals, the Russians, murdered so many of their own people that
Hitler, even were he the monster you make him out to be, looks quite
tame in comparison . . . Then we have the awkward question of Mr Mao's
Cultural Revolution, and the activities of a certain Mr P. Pot in
Cambodia . . . Nowadays you are supposed to keep very quiet about the
MAGNITUDE of your 'Holocaust'. Apparently, judging from the postings of
Nizkor in this newsgroup, UNIQUENESS is the thing you're supposed to get
worked up about now (although that argument has me totally befuddled
because I have yet to encounter any historical event that is not unique
in SOME respect!).
> I and
> others will point out that the Holocaust cannot be so glibly equated to
> the casualties of bombing. The Holocaust was an intentional mass
> extermination of helpless people for the simple reason of their race,
> whether Jewish or Eastern European, in other words, genocide.
And the carpet-bombing of Germany was an intentional mass extermination
of helpless people -- 400 000 of them Mr Gorski -- for the simple reason
of scaring the shit out of them, in other words, terrorism.
> The bombing
> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> trying to win the war.
And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
save the world.
> It's not as if these bombers didn't encounter lots
> of resistance; thousands upon thousands of planes were shot down and their
> pilots lost. Indeed for a time, bomber crews had appalling casualty rates.
As Chuck pointed out in this very thread, most of the defences around
Dresden had been moved. Those civilians were sitting targets. They were
slaughtered, blown to pieces, massacred, in direct contravention of the
Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907. So why was Mr Harris not
charged as a war criminal, Mr Gorski? Why was he not hanged like a pig?
Answer me that!
And you people then have the audacity to lecture US about OUR supposed
inhumanity!
> How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims?
Oh but your wonderful Russian allies certainly had their revenge when
they stormed into Germany, taking it out on the women, didn't they? Your
victims were not the SS, although you slaughtered them wherever you
found them irrespective of their personal innocence or guilt. Your
victims were the defenceless women and the little children of Germany
and Japan.
> You
> or others will respond with revisionist arguments about how the Holocaust
> really didn't happen
No, but we will point out that it is not proven. We will also point out
that even if it had happened it probably wouldn't have happened if the
British had entered into an alliance with Mr Hitler against Russia,
which would have enabled Mr Churchill et al. to exercise a moderating
influence upon Mr Hitler. This would have had the additional spin-off
that it would have spared the world the horrors of Stalin's late years,
of Mao, of Pol Pot and of the spread of communism throughout the world.
It would, in every sense, have been the optimal solution to the
conflict.
> and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
> of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing,
Read Bram Oppenheim's 'The Chosen People'. He's Jewish and anti-Nazi.
You'll like him. But you'll learn about the last days of the war.
> thus tarring
> the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
> in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS,
The problem is that you never say why it's BS.
> and that
> the Nazis intentionally killed the Jews and Eastern Europeans, by various
> means, including shooting, hanging, and gassing. And on it will go.
>
> So, do you want to go down that path?
Not really. It's more the domain of the revisionist historian. Not
entirely my field.
> You probably do, don't you?
Well, you're persuading me . . .
> You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
> a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
> Holocaust.
Why do you use the words 'minimize' and 'deny'? It seems the classic
Nizkor approach of misrepresenting what is actually being said rather
than dealing with the arguments being put forward.
The actual argument is this. The 'Holocaust', in the sense of the
deliberate mass murder of six million (or 12 million, or 20 million)
Jews, gypsies, etc., as a matter of Nazi policy, has not been proven. It
has not been shown to be true. Elements of it may have been shown to be
true, but not the whole story. Similarly, it has not been shown to be
false, although elements of it may have been disproven. Arguments to the
'Holocaust' tend to rely on 'evidence' captured by the Allies, including
inter alia the Soviets who are not the most reliable of historians,
which was subsequently used for such nefarious purposes as the staging
of the laughable and criminal Nuremburg show trials -- trials at which,
inter alia, all restrictions on admissibility of evidence commonly
associated with criminal trials were dispensed with save that the
judges, appointed by the former adversaries of the accused, consider
that it have probative value.
The objective, I think, is not to minimize the horror of what happened.
It is to point out that the men who made those horrors happen are the
spiritual fathers of the men and women who rule the world today. We may
have blood on our hands, Mr Gorski, but so do your kind. A lot of blood.
You are in no position to lecture us on virtue.
Cuddles
Mark Van Alstine
Rosenberg) wrote:
> In article <35F46A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
> >Warfare of 1907.
>
> How so? (There was ample reason to believe that all major German cities were
> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>
>
> >Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
> >murdering bastard.
>
> Pfui.
Double pfui. Harris should have been _decorated_.
> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
the best
> use of manpower or material.
Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
destruction of the German oil industry.
> Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
> Nazi war machine;
But the part it _did_ shut down- the German oil industy -was supremely
critical to the Nazi war machine.
> nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
> Nazi morale, didn't do it enough.
Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
> The bombs dropped on the Continent, and the crew and aircraft shot down while
> attempting to drop them, were not available on D-Day, where they definitely
> could have been used.
Yet on D-Day the Luftwaffe, due to the combined Allied bomber offensive,
was a mere ghost of itself compared to the previous year when it savaged
the USAAF. The Luftwaffe literally conceeded the skies over Normandy to
the Allies -an enourmous boon to the Allies. As to Allied bombmers not
being available? Ever hear of Operation Cobra?
[snip]
> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest
of the
> world from the Nazi menace.
Which is why they, Harris included, should all be thanked for their efforts.
> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest
of the
> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
-- are
> heroes.
Yes. All true- and often unsung -heroes. May we never forget their sacrifices.
> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
Yup. Ol' Cuddles and his testy bouts of verbal diarrhea are reminiscent of
a goat in a pepper patch, doncha think?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
>In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
>Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>> In article <35F46A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >Warfare of 1907.
>>
>> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>>
>>
>> >murdering bastard.
>>
>
>Double pfui. Harris should have been _decorated_.
>
>> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
>> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
>the best
>> use of manpower or material.
>
>Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
>important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
>destruction of the German oil industry.
>
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think the resources would
have been much more effective in support of (including preparation for) D-Day,
and would have ensured the success of it, even without Hitler's help in
foisting his idee fixe about Calais on the General Staff. (An idee fixe that,
granted, Allied intelligence went to a great deal of trouble to help along.)
D-Day was a close call, and if the Nazis had deployed their forces more
effectively, it could have failed. It's only in retrospect that it seems
inevitable, but it wasn't.
A much lower level of activity, it seems to me, would have forced the
Luftwaffe up to fight -- and thereby get creamed, in a replay in reverse, with
a twist, of the Battle of Britain. Your point about the oil industry is
persuasive, particularly given later events, but, again, I think that German
infrastructure could have been better damaged after D-Day, from French
airfields, and without having to make the bombers fly over so much enemy-held
territory without fighter cover.
>> Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
>> Nazi war machine;
>
>But the part it _did_ shut down- the German oil industy -was supremely
>critical to the Nazi war machine.
>
>> nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
>> Nazi morale, didn't do it enough.
>
>Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
>of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
>keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
Well, yes; and the fighting along the Eastern Front tied up Nazi divisions,
keeping them away from the West. Hitler's notion of fighting a two-front war
was a crazy one from the start -- he had put Germany up against no less than
three industrial powers of roughly its size or greater.
>
>> The bombs dropped on the Continent, and the crew and aircraft shot down while
>
>> attempting to drop them, were not available on D-Day, where they definitely
>> could have been used.
>
>Yet on D-Day the Luftwaffe, due to the combined Allied bomber offensive,
>was a mere ghost of itself compared to the previous year when it savaged
>the USAAF. The Luftwaffe literally conceeded the skies over Normandy to
>the Allies -an enourmous boon to the Allies.
Absolutely. But -- as demonstrated at Omaha beach -- the Allies just didn't
have as much stuff in the air as they should/could/would have. It was a
certainty that many bombs wouldn't fall on their targets -- that's why
overkill is such a necessary part of such a campaign.
>As to Allied bombmers not
>being available? Ever hear of Operation Cobra?
>
Yes, I have.
>[snip]
>
>> "Bomber" Harris and the rest of the Allied command were working under
>> difficult conditions, with sometimes insufficient and unreliable intelligence
>
>> -- but they did the best they could, and successfully defended the rest
>of the
>> world from the Nazi menace.
>
>Which is why they, Harris included, should all be thanked for their efforts.
Absolutely. His statue was too long in being put up. But it was.
>
>> And they, and Chuck -- and Jimmy Stewart and Harry Stubbs, and the rest
>of the
>> folks who flew and rode in bombing and fighter missions, as well as those who
>
>> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
>-- are
>> heroes.
>
>Yes. All true- and often unsung -heroes. May we never forget their sacrifices.
Absolutely.
I was sitting in a bar at a La Guardia-area hotel with Harry Stubbs/Hal
Clement and some fans about a dozen years ago. We were both attending a
convention there, and we'd both come in through a storm on different flights
on a couple of commuter airlines.
"Weren't you scared?" one of the fans asked him.
I kind of guessed what was coming, knowing about Col. Stubbs' dozens of
missions over France, but it was fun, anyway:
"Not really." He smiled gently and shook his head. "Nobody was shooting at
me, after all," he said.
>
>> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
>
>Yup. Ol' Cuddles and his testy bouts of verbal diarrhea are reminiscent of
>a goat in a pepper patch, doncha think?
>
>Mark
>
<grin>
Mark Van Alstine
[snip]
> It cannot be denied that the motive for the air campaign against Germany
> was at least partly punitive.
Perhaps, Dickie, you could substantiate this claim of yours? What
historical evidence do you have that the Allied air campaign against
Germany was "at least partly punitive"?
> The sense at that time was that Germany had -within the space of a mere 70
> years- launched three wars against the West. (1870, 1914, 1940).
The RAF's mission, according to Churchill, for example, was "to pulverize
the entire industry and scientific structure on which the war effort and
economic life of the enemy depend, while holding him at arm's length from
our island...." This doesn't sound like some punitive mission to punish
Germany for "1870, 1914, [and] 1940" but rather a mission to "provide the
means of victory" in a desperate war against Nazi Germany. (Cf. Richards,
_The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
> And so the sense was that it was high time
> that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
Again, according to Richards, in September 1940, Churchill (and the Air
Staff) believed, "only bombing could seriously injure Germany." (Cf.
Richards, _The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
BTW, Dickie, after you have shown (if you can, which I doubt) that the
RAF's "air campaign against Germany was at least partly punitive", you
then need to _also_ show that the USAAF's air campaign against Germany
was not only "partly punitive" but motivated your "three wars against the
West" as well.
Are you up to the task, Dickie? Or will you go limp with impotence again?
Mark Van Alstine
(ORAC) wrote:
[snip]
> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
> enemy....
Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
the spirit of the enemy with air power.
> Winning a conventional war requires the messy business of sending
> in ground troops and physically seizing territory....
Yup.
[snip]
Mark Van Alstine
> ORAC wrote:
[snip]
> > Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
> > armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
> > albeit a much smaller motive.
>
> Incorrect, sir. The objective was given in an Air Staff memo that it
> cited in Harris's Despatch, para. 3. It was to cause '(i) destruction,
> and (ii), the fear of death'.
Under Pierse, in the second half of 1941, transportaation was the primary,
with "'morale' (i.e. industrial areas)" as the secondary, targeting
priority of Bomber Command. Under Harris, in the beginning of 1942, after
the shockwaves of the Butt Report had reverberated through Downing Street,
Air Ministry, and Bomber Command, the targeting priorites were changed.
"In cumbersome but clear enough terms the new directive instructed the Air
Officer Commanding-in-Chief: 'The primary object of your operations should
now be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population, and in
particular th industrial workers.'" (Cf. Richard, _The Hardest Victory_,
pp.86-87,96-98,112.)
> In other words it was terrorism.
No, it was total war. One that Nazi Germay started -and the Allies would
finish.
> > However, it's more likely that it was
> > punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> > solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> > sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> > sometimes with only a few.
>
> Really? So who were they punishing?
According to Richard:
<begin quote>
Though critics in recent years have tended to regard 'destroying morale'
as a euphamism for 'killing', it was no part of this policy to
deliberately slaughter civilians. Heavy civilian casulties would
inevitably be involved, but the intention was to make it difficult or
impossible for civilians, many of whom were an essential part of the war
machine, to remain at their industrial or administrative jobs. It was
hoped to break their will to do so by destroying their houses and all the
comforts and necessities of a civilized urban life. If the civilians fled
to the countryside, or the authorities managed to ecavuate them from major
towns- as British mothers and children had been evacuated in the early
days of the war -so much the better: the industrial desert could be
created with less loss of life.
As a practical policy at this stage of the war the attacking industrial
centres and housing had one obvious merit: Bomber Command could hit urban
areas with much less difficulty than individual factories. To make it
effective, however, turned out to be a much harder and longer task than
the Goivernment and Air Staff then thought. This was not simply because
Bomber Command was limited in size and techniques, but because German
morale was not in the least fragile, or impaired, as British Intelligence
sources were reporting. Fed on conquests and the fruits of conquest, the
Germans had hardly begun to feel the pinch of war. Lord Trenchard had
given his opinion that in any 'bombing contest' the German people would
cave in long before the British -but this was only Lord Trenchard's
opinion. IN fact, the Germans then, as at other times, were brave,
patriotic and disciplined people. They were not at all likely to panic and
succumb quickly. Moreover, they had an additional spur to continue working
despite the bombing of their cities: the Gestapo would regard them
unfavourably if they did not. 'The Germans,' Harris was to observe later,
'are not allowed the luxury of morale.'
<end quote>
Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, p.86.
> The innocent civilians of Hamburg and Dresden and all the other towns that
> were bombed in this way? All those innocent children and babies? 400 000
> of them?
<begin quote>
One night in December 1940, shortly after he had become Deputy Chief of
the Air Staff, Harris had called Portal up to the roof of the Air Ministry
in King Charles Street, Westminster, to watch the 'Blitz'- 'the old city
in flames -with St. Paul's standing out in the midst of an ocean of
fire...an incredible sight'. The two men gazed silently at the burning
capital. Then Harris spoke: 'Well...they are sowing the wind.'
It was the only time, he wrote later, that he felt vengeful. Vengeful or
not, he would do his best to make sure the whirlwind followed.
<end quote>
Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, pp.110-111.
> And you people consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
Yes.
Mark Van Alstine
Rosenberg) wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
> >Rosenberg) wrote:
[snip]
> >> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
> >> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
> >the best
> >> use of manpower or material.
> >
> >Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
> >important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
> >destruction of the German oil industry.
> >
>
> We're going to have to agree to disagree here.
Then you're not only disagreeing with me, but many a military historian.
There is little doubt that The Allied bombing campaigns caused the
destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near total destruction of the German
oil industry, which crippled the Nazi war machine. (One can add to this
the crippling of the German transportation network as well.)
> I think the resources would have been much more effective in support of
> (including preparation for) D-Day, and would have ensured the success of it,
> even without Hitler's help in foisting his idee fixe about Calais on the
> General Staff. (An idee fixe that, granted, Allied intelligence went to a
> great deal of trouble to help along.)
First off, without the Allied strategic bombing campaign there would have
been no such air assets available in the numbers required for Operation
Cobra, which made the Allied breakout from Normandy possible. Second,
Operations Point Blank and Argument gave the Allies _air supremacy_ over
Normandy on D-Day, making the beachhead- and later harbors -immune to
German air interdiction.
Moreover, as Operation Cobra has shown, sustained air operations in
support of D-Day was not an either/or option with regard to the Allied
strategic bombing canpaign. The generation of bomber assets simply came
down to the decision to make the (ever growing) required assets available.
Third, you do not seem to have taken into account the Transportation Plan
(i.e. "Zuckerman's Folly") -the combined Bomber Command/Eighth Air Force
attacks on German railways prior to, and in support of, Overloard.
> D-Day was a close call, and if the Nazis had deployed their forces more
> effectively, it could have failed. It's only in retrospect that it seems
> inevitable, but it wasn't.
Well, I generally don't play "what if" games. I leave that to Harry
Turtledove. I deal strictly in history. The simple fact is that by D-Day
Allied airpower had neutered the Luftwaffe, raised havoc in the German
heartland, _and_ disrupted the Wehrmacht's ability to supply and reinforce
Normandy.
> A much lower level of activity, it seems to me, would have forced the
> Luftwaffe up to fight -- and thereby get creamed, in a replay in
reverse, with
> a twist, of the Battle of Britain.
Nope. Though the Luftwaffe's back was broken in Big Week, it was a battle
of attrition that lasted throughout Operation Argument -i.e. from Febraury
to April 1944. Towards the end the Luftwaffe's fighters had be hunted down
and destroyed by USAAF fighters because they _didn't_ come up and defend
Germany against the Eighth Air Force's bombers.
> Your point about the oil industry is
> persuasive, particularly given later events, but, again, I think that German
> infrastructure could have been better damaged after D-Day, from French
> airfields, and without having to make the bombers fly over so much enemy-held
> territory without fighter cover.
First off, the USAAF, from 1944 on,* _didn't_ have "to make the bombers
fly over so much enemy-held territory without fighter cover." Ever here of
the P-51 Mustang? You know, the airplane that won the air war in Europe?
};->
*The P-51B was actully introduced in the ETO on September 17, 1943.The
354th FG flew the first P-51 mission to Germany: escorting 710 bombers on
the December 13, 1943 raid on Kiel (980 miles). (Cf. Boyne, _Clash of
Wings_, p.335.)
> >> Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
> >> Nazi war machine;
> >
> >But the part it _did_ shut down- the German oil industy -was supremely
> >critical to the Nazi war machine.
> >
> >> nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
> >> Nazi morale, didn't do it enough.
More to the point, the RAF helped cripple the Nazi war machine.
> >Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
> >of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
> >keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
>
> Well, yes; and the fighting along the Eastern Front tied up Nazi divisions,
> keeping them away from the West. Hitler's notion of fighting a two-front war
> was a crazy one from the start -- he had put Germany up against no less than
> three industrial powers of roughly its size or greater.
Oops. };->
> >> The bombs dropped on the Continent, and the crew and aircraft shot down
> >> while attempting to drop them, were not available on D-Day, where they
> >> definitely could have been used.
> >
> >Yet on D-Day the Luftwaffe, due to the combined Allied bomber offensive,
> >was a mere ghost of itself compared to the previous year when it savaged
> >the USAAF. The Luftwaffe literally conceeded the skies over Normandy to
> >the Allies -an enourmous boon to the Allies.
>
> Absolutely. But -- as demonstrated at Omaha beach -- the Allies just didn't
> have as much stuff in the air as they should/could/would have. It was a
> certainty that many bombs wouldn't fall on their targets -- that's why
> overkill is such a necessary part of such a campaign.
One can shell and bomb the crap out of a beachhead but that doesn't mean
a dug-in enemy can be suppressed. The problem was that naval bombardment,
as with high-level bombing, isn't a panacea. Even with tactical
fighter-bombers the ability of taking out hardened targets with dumb bombs
(especially itty-bitty 500 lb ones) or (unguided) rockets was overated.
That was a lesson driven home on Iwo Jima and Okinawa in the Pacific where
overwhelming force _was_ used.
Arguably more important- and effective in the long run -was that airpower
pinned down the Wehrmacht and prevented reinforcements from arriving
before the beachhead was secured. Then, when the Germans _did_ finally
counterattack, they were cut to pieces out in the open by tactical
airpower. The rest, as they say, is history.
> >As to Allied bombmers not
> >being available? Ever hear of Operation Cobra?
>
> Yes, I have.
Then you know air assets _were_ available. They were a available for Cobra
and they were available for the Transportation Plan. IOW, heavies _were_
used in support of Overlord and the subsequent July breakout. (Over 1,000
heavies plus almost 400 medium bomber were used for Operation Cobra. In
fact, von Rundstadt himself credited Cobra to the success of the U.S.
breakout.)
[snip]
> >> waded in on Omaha and Utah Beach, and elsewhere, or followed them later
> >-- are heroes.
> >
> >Yes. All true- and often unsung -heroes. May we never forget their
> >sacrifices.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> I was sitting in a bar at a La Guardia-area hotel with Harry Stubbs/Hal
> Clement and some fans about a dozen years ago. We were both attending a
> convention there, and we'd both come in through a storm on different flights
> on a couple of commuter airlines.
>
> "Weren't you scared?" one of the fans asked him.
>
> I kind of guessed what was coming, knowing about Col. Stubbs' dozens of
> missions over France, but it was fun, anyway:
>
> "Not really." He smiled gently and shook his head. "Nobody was shooting at
> me, after all," he said.
Typical fighter-jock: Mr. Big Brass Balls. };->
> >> And if you don't like that, "Cuddles", that's just fine.
> >
> >Yup. Ol' Cuddles and his testy bouts of verbal diarrhea are reminiscent of
> >a goat in a pepper patch, doncha think?
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
> <grin>
Let's see what "Lord Baa Baa" bleats next. };->
John Morris
+0100, Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>ORAC wrote:
>> In article <35F561...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>> >ORAC wrote:
>> >> However, it's more likely that it was
>> >> punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
>> >> solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
>> >> sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
>> >> sometimes with only a few.
>> >Really? So who were they punishing? The innocent civilians of Hamburg
>> >and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
>> >those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
>> >consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
Maybe your next Hitler will not start a total war. Maybe your next
Hitler will not be so willing to sacrifice his entire nation to his
egomania.
>> Let's borrow a page from your own playbook, shall we, "Cuddles"?
>Aw! For a moment I actually thought that you were going to answer the
>question, Mr G!
>> I can see where this is going, just as you claimed to be able to see where
>> the whole crime and race discussion in another thread was going a few days
>> ago.
>Yup. And I got it right! :)-
>> (It really takes no great predictive ability on my part, because
>> you've gone through this over and over again ad nauseum.) You'll continue
>> pontificate about how the bombing of German cities was so evil that it
>> supposedly robs the Allies of their "moral superiority" (a dubious
>> assertion at best, given the sheer magnitude of Hitler's genocide).
>Magnitude? Hang on a minute, Mr G. It looks as if you haven't heard the
>news. The 'magnitude' argument went out in the 1980s. In fact, to be
>more exact, it went out when Robert Conquest and others pointed out that
>YOUR pals, the Russians,
The Cuddles Rules of Debate: divide everybody up into two teams. No
matter how often one's opponents protest that they are not Communists,
smear them by association anyway.
> murdered so many of their own people that
>Hitler, even were he the monster you make him out to be, looks quite
>tame in comparison . . .
You don't give Hitler enough credit. He only had twelve years,--and
only used five of them for mass murder--while your other totalitarian
soul mates had decades.
> Then we have the awkward question of Mr Mao's
>Cultural Revolution, and the activities of a certain Mr P. Pot in
>Cambodia . . .
Awkward? The question is only awkward to those stupid enough to buy
into your false dichotomy.
Apparently, you are stupid enough to think that your opponents will
buy into it.
>Nowadays you are supposed to keep very quiet about the
>MAGNITUDE of your 'Holocaust'. Apparently, judging from the postings of
>Nizkor in this newsgroup, UNIQUENESS is the thing you're supposed to get
>worked up about now (although that argument has me totally befuddled
>because I have yet to encounter any historical event that is not unique
>in SOME respect!).
Your befuddlement is hardly surprising.
>> I and
>> others will point out that the Holocaust cannot be so glibly equated to
>> the casualties of bombing. The Holocaust was an intentional mass
>> extermination of helpless people for the simple reason of their race,
>> whether Jewish or Eastern European, in other words, genocide.
>And the carpet-bombing of Germany was an intentional mass extermination
>of helpless people -- 400 000 of them Mr Gorski -- for the simple reason
>of scaring the shit out of them, in other words, terrorism.
>> The bombing
>> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
>> trying to win the war.
>And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
>save the world.
ROTFL!
You're not arguing history. You never were. You were ever and always
attempting to proselytize for Nazism.
You have become laughable.
>> It's not as if these bombers didn't encounter lots
>> of resistance; thousands upon thousands of planes were shot down and their
>> pilots lost. Indeed for a time, bomber crews had appalling casualty rates.
>As Chuck pointed out in this very thread, most of the defences around
>Dresden had been moved.
And the British and Americans knew that how exactly?
> Those civilians were sitting targets. They were
>slaughtered, blown to pieces, massacred, in direct contravention of the
>Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907.
Oh yeah. The Hague Convention for which you have so much trouble
citing the relevant section.
>So why was Mr Harris not
>charged as a war criminal, Mr Gorski? Why was he not hanged like a pig?
>Answer me that!
>And you people then have the audacity to lecture US about OUR supposed
>inhumanity!
Hitler vas a better dancer! Hitler vas a better lover! Churchill
couldn't even say, "Nazi." Alvays, "Nahzees! Nahzees!"
>> How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims?
>Oh but your wonderful Russian allies certainly had their revenge when
>they stormed into Germany, taking it out on the women, didn't they?
Hey, stupid, the war ended fifty-three years ago. They weren't our
Allies.
But since you identify so much with Nazis, don't forget that they were
*your* Allies until Hitler's treacherous attack on them. So much for
Nazis respecting their treaty obligations.
> Your
>victims were not the SS, although you slaughtered them wherever you
>found them irrespective of their personal innocence or guilt. Your
>victims were the defenceless women and the little children of Germany
>and Japan.
Keep going, bonehead. You'll win the war yet, David.
>> You
>> or others will respond with revisionist arguments about how the Holocaust
>> really didn't happen
>No, but we will point out that it is not proven. We will also point out
>that even if it had happened it probably wouldn't have happened if the
>British had entered into an alliance with Mr Hitler against Russia,
>which would have enabled Mr Churchill et al. to exercise a moderating
>influence upon Mr Hitler. This would have had the additional spin-off
>that it would have spared the world the horrors of Stalin's late years,
>of Mao, of Pol Pot and of the spread of communism throughout the world.
>It would, in every sense, have been the optimal solution to the
>conflict.
And this entire passage differs from Nazi propaganda how?
I thought you could do better than parrot Nazi slogans, but that is
what you are reduced to.
>> and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
>> of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing,
>Read Bram Oppenheim's 'The Chosen People'. He's Jewish and anti-Nazi.
>You'll like him. But you'll learn about the last days of the war.
>> thus tarring
>> the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
>> in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS,
>The problem is that you never say why it's BS.
Because your beloved mass murderers set up the concentration camps;
your beloved mass murderers put people in them and worked them to
death and starvation.
That's the trouble with you Nazis. You can't take any responsibility.
You start wars, and blame it on others. You kill millions, and you
blame it on others. Your hair falls out, and it's the Jews' fault.
>> and that
>> the Nazis intentionally killed the Jews and Eastern Europeans, by various
>> means, including shooting, hanging, and gassing. And on it will go.
>> So, do you want to go down that path?
>Not really. It's more the domain of the revisionist historian. Not
>entirely my field.
HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!
What a joke!
The profession of ignorance through which you evade discussing your
claims that the Holocaust is "not proven."
>> You probably do, don't you?
>Well, you're persuading me . . .
>> You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
>> a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
>> Holocaust.
>Why do you use the words 'minimize' and 'deny'? It seems the classic
>Nizkor approach of misrepresenting what is actually being said rather
>than dealing with the arguments being put forward.
>The actual argument is this. The 'Holocaust', in the sense of the
>deliberate mass murder of six million (or 12 million, or 20 million)
>Jews, gypsies, etc., as a matter of Nazi policy, has not been proven.
But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
> It
>has not been shown to be true. Elements of it may have been shown to be
>true, but not the whole story.
But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
> Similarly, it has not been shown to be
>false, although elements of it may have been disproven.
But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
> Arguments to the
>'Holocaust' tend to rely on 'evidence' captured by the Allies,
Arguments of cuddly lying Nazis rely on sneer quotes because, "It's
more the domain of the revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
>including
>inter alia the Soviets who are not the most reliable of historians,
>which was subsequently used for such nefarious purposes as the staging
>of the laughable and criminal Nuremburg show trials -- trials at which,
>inter alia, all restrictions on admissibility of evidence commonly
>associated with criminal trials were dispensed with save that the
>judges, appointed by the former adversaries of the accused, consider
>that it have probative value.
That's pretty funny coming from somebody who sets his face against
studying the actual trial record.
And that is not what the Rule of Procedure says. It is just what
cuddly Nazis want it to say.
>The objective, I think,
is to whitewash your sick, sick brand totalitarianism
> is not to minimize the horror of what happened.
and to minimize the horror so that Nazism can survive as more than an
ideology for pathetic losers.
>It is to point out that the men who made those horrors happen are the
>spiritual fathers of the men and women who rule the world today.
The men who made the horrors are dead, and their ideology is moribund.
>We may
>have blood on our hands, Mr Gorski, but so do your kind. A lot of blood.
>You are in no position to lecture us on virtue.
_Ad hominem tu quoque_, or you were just as bad as we were.
Go way, Nazi. You have become pathetic.
I have to give you credit, though. You outlasted any other previous
Nazi for pretending you were really interested in debate.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
ORAC
mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>In article <35F487...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> And so the sense was that it was high time
>> that they be made to experience war on their own territory.
>
>Again, according to Richards, in September 1940, Churchill (and the Air
>Staff) believed, "only bombing could seriously injure Germany." (Cf.
>Richards, _The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
There's also the little observation that, before D-Day and especially from
1940-43, bombing was pretty much ALL that Britain could do to hurt
Germany's war machine directly. Its only other option would be to fight
Germany in North Africa and elsewhere and leave Germany's industrial
capacity in Germany itself completely unmolested. Not a very good strategy
to win the war.
Cuddles
>
> >> The bombing
> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> >> trying to win the war.
> >
> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
> >save the world.
>
> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
> to make a serious response.
Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
.
Cuddles
Cuddles
> matter how often one's opponents protest that they are not Communists,
> smear them by association anyway.
Says Mr John 'Streicher was a leading German government official'
Morris. But read on for a REALLY good example of smearing by association
. . .
> > murdered so many of their own people that
> >Hitler, even were he the monster you make him out to be, looks quite
> >tame in comparison . . .
>
> You don't give Hitler enough credit. He only had twelve years,--and
> only used five of them for mass murder--while your other totalitarian
> soul mates had decades.
Hitler was losing a war. Your allies the Russians butchered their own
people even when they were not at war.
> > Then we have the awkward question of Mr Mao's
> >Cultural Revolution, and the activities of a certain Mr P. Pot in
> >Cambodia . . .
>
> Awkward? The question is only awkward to those stupid enough to buy
> into your false dichotomy.
>
> Apparently, you are stupid enough to think that your opponents will
> buy into it.
>
> >Nowadays you are supposed to keep very quiet about the
> >MAGNITUDE of your 'Holocaust'. Apparently, judging from the postings of
> >Nizkor in this newsgroup, UNIQUENESS is the thing you're supposed to get
> >worked up about now (although that argument has me totally befuddled
> >because I have yet to encounter any historical event that is not unique
> >in SOME respect!).
>
> Your befuddlement is hardly surprising.
Given that Mr McFee, the leading exponent of the uniqueness argument in
this newsgroup, has decided not to develop his argument you are quite
correct on this point.
> >> I and
> >> others will point out that the Holocaust cannot be so glibly equated to
> >> the casualties of bombing. The Holocaust was an intentional mass
> >> extermination of helpless people for the simple reason of their race,
> >> whether Jewish or Eastern European, in other words, genocide.
>
> >And the carpet-bombing of Germany was an intentional mass extermination
> >of helpless people -- 400 000 of them Mr Gorski -- for the simple reason
> >of scaring the shit out of them, in other words, terrorism.
>
> >> The bombing
> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> >> trying to win the war.
>
> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
> >save the world.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> You're not arguing history. You never were. You were ever and always
> attempting to proselytize for Nazism.
>From the fact that you find it necessary to lie (the whopper about
Streicher being a leading German government official) and smear (the
'you are a Nazi' line) one can only deduce that your interest in
'arguing history' is not exactly overwhelming.
> You have become laughable.
You have become tedious.
> >> It's not as if these bombers didn't encounter lots
> >> of resistance; thousands upon thousands of planes were shot down and their
> >> pilots lost. Indeed for a time, bomber crews had appalling casualty rates.
>
> >As Chuck pointed out in this very thread, most of the defences around
> >Dresden had been moved.
>
> And the British and Americans knew that how exactly?
You mean they bombed Dresden without taking account of how well or
poorly it was defended? Wow! Read Harris's 'Despatch' for the full
story.
> > Those civilians were sitting targets. They were
> >slaughtered, blown to pieces, massacred, in direct contravention of the
> >Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907.
>
> Oh yeah. The Hague Convention for which you have so much trouble
> citing the relevant section.
I have cited it before. I can cite it again if you dispute it exists? Do
you dispute that it exists?
> >So why was Mr Harris not
> >charged as a war criminal, Mr Gorski? Why was he not hanged like a pig?
> >Answer me that!
No answer?
> >And you people then have the audacity to lecture US about OUR supposed
> >inhumanity!
>
> Hitler vas a better dancer! Hitler vas a better lover! Churchill
> couldn't even say, "Nazi." Alvays, "Nahzees! Nahzees!"
Mein Gott! John iss really Chuck in disguise! Fiendish!
> >> How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims?
>
> >Oh but your wonderful Russian allies certainly had their revenge when
> >they stormed into Germany, taking it out on the women, didn't they?
>
> Hey, stupid, the war ended fifty-three years ago. They weren't our
> Allies.
The Russians weren't your Allies? Really? And you are a historian? Who
were your Allies then? Little green men from Mars?
> But since you identify so much with Nazis, don't forget that they were
> *your* Allies until Hitler's treacherous attack on them. So much for
> Nazis respecting their treaty obligations.
And what treaty obligations did YOUR side respect when they launched an
air attack on an almost undefended Dresden?
> > Your
> >victims were not the SS, although you slaughtered them wherever you
> >found them irrespective of their personal innocence or guilt. Your
> >victims were the defenceless women and the little children of Germany
> >and Japan.
>
> Keep going, bonehead. You'll win the war yet, David.
Do you dispute what I say? Or do you merely not care?
> >> You
> >> or others will respond with revisionist arguments about how the Holocaust
> >> really didn't happen
>
> >No, but we will point out that it is not proven. We will also point out
> >that even if it had happened it probably wouldn't have happened if the
> >British had entered into an alliance with Mr Hitler against Russia,
> >which would have enabled Mr Churchill et al. to exercise a moderating
> >influence upon Mr Hitler. This would have had the additional spin-off
> >that it would have spared the world the horrors of Stalin's late years,
> >of Mao, of Pol Pot and of the spread of communism throughout the world.
> >It would, in every sense, have been the optimal solution to the
> >conflict.
>
> And this entire passage differs from Nazi propaganda how?
Do you disagree with what I say? If so, why?
> I thought you could do better than parrot Nazi slogans, but that is
> what you are reduced to.
And this is the bit where, having accused me of smearing you by
association, you display that in addition to being a liar, John ('the
Russians weren't our Allies') Morris, you are also a hypocrite.
> >> and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
> >> of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing,
>
> >Read Bram Oppenheim's 'The Chosen People'. He's Jewish and anti-Nazi.
> >You'll like him. But you'll learn about the last days of the war.
>
> >> thus tarring
> >> the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
> >> in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS,
>
> >The problem is that you never say why it's BS.
>
> Because your beloved mass murderers set up the concentration camps;
> your beloved mass murderers put people in them and worked them to
> death and starvation.
If so, why didn't Churchill prevent it by entering into an alliance with
Hitler against Stalin? This would have made such behaviour politically
too expensive.
> That's the trouble with you Nazis.
And now you smear and lie all in one sentence. The trouble with you
people is that you have such little faith in your own cause that you
resort to lies and smears at the drop of a hat.
I have told you the reservations I have about National Socialism. I have
told you very clearly where I agree with them and where I have problems
with what they said and did. You are not, here, arguing out of
ignorance. You are simply being dishonest. The same dishonesty that
prompted you to claim that Streicher was a senior member of the German
government. The same dishonesty that in this post prompts you to claim
that the Russians were not the allies of the British.
> You can't take any responsibility.
> You start wars, and blame it on others. You kill millions, and you
> blame it on others. Your hair falls out, and it's the Jews' fault.
>
> >> and that
> >> the Nazis intentionally killed the Jews and Eastern Europeans, by various
> >> means, including shooting, hanging, and gassing. And on it will go.
>
> >> So, do you want to go down that path?
>
> >Not really. It's more the domain of the revisionist historian. Not
> >entirely my field.
>
> HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> What a joke!
>
> The profession of ignorance through which you evade discussing your
> claims that the Holocaust is "not proven."
I have argued this at great length. Your only response boils down to
you'd rather talk about something else.
> >> You probably do, don't you?
>
> >Well, you're persuading me . . .
>
> >> You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
> >> a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
> >> Holocaust.
>
> >Why do you use the words 'minimize' and 'deny'? It seems the classic
> >Nizkor approach of misrepresenting what is actually being said rather
> >than dealing with the arguments being put forward.
>
> >The actual argument is this. The 'Holocaust', in the sense of the
> >deliberate mass murder of six million (or 12 million, or 20 million)
> >Jews, gypsies, etc., as a matter of Nazi policy, has not been proven.
>
> But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
> revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
False. I've seen your arguments. I've seen the holes in them.
> > It
> >has not been shown to be true. Elements of it may have been shown to be
> >true, but not the whole story.
>
> But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
> revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
False. Again, I've seen your arguments. And the holes.
<snip repetitions of the same point>
> >including
> >inter alia the Soviets who are not the most reliable of historians,
> >which was subsequently used for such nefarious purposes as the staging
> >of the laughable and criminal Nuremburg show trials -- trials at which,
> >inter alia, all restrictions on admissibility of evidence commonly
> >associated with criminal trials were dispensed with save that the
> >judges, appointed by the former adversaries of the accused, consider
> >that it have probative value.
>
> That's pretty funny coming from somebody who sets his face against
> studying the actual trial record.
>
> And that is not what the Rule of Procedure says. It is just what
> cuddly Nazis want it to say.
It's what the Charter says.
> >The objective, I think,
>
> is to whitewash your sick, sick brand totalitarianism
>
> > is not to minimize the horror of what happened.
>
> and to minimize the horror so that Nazism can survive as more than an
> ideology for pathetic losers.
>
> >It is to point out that the men who made those horrors happen are the
> >spiritual fathers of the men and women who rule the world today.
>
> The men who made the horrors are dead, and their ideology is moribund.
>
> >We may
> >have blood on our hands, Mr Gorski, but so do your kind. A lot of blood.
> >You are in no position to lecture us on virtue.
>
> _Ad hominem tu quoque_, or you were just as bad as we were.
No. You were bad. It has not been proven that the Nazis were in quite
the same league.
> Go way, Nazi. You have become pathetic.
>
> I have to give you credit, though. You outlasted any other previous
> Nazi for pretending you were really interested in debate.
Mr Morris you could have been an effective debater had you not been so
influenced by the Nizkor thug element. As it is, we may safely assume
that your brand of smears, distortions and downright lies will convince
nobody except the converted.
Cuddles
Mike Curtis
I think John summed it up when he said you aren't worth the energy any
more. Debate isn't what you want. But we knew that already.
>> The Cuddles Rules of Debate: divide everybody up into two teams. No
>> matter how often one's opponents protest that they are not Communists,
>> smear them by association anyway.
>
>Says Mr John 'Streicher was a leading German government official'
>Morris. But read on for a REALLY good example of smearing by association
>. . .
Was Streicher a government official? Yes, he was. Was he a _leading_
government official? I'm not sure if I'd call him "leading." He did
have leadership over Franconia(?). [I have no books here so sorry for
my errors.] Was he influential? It seems he had influence. Terms like
"leading" need to be discussed and analyzed. I don't remember John
saying that he was "leading" but then I don't read every post in this
newsgroup.
>> > murdered so many of their own people that
>> >Hitler, even were he the monster you make him out to be, looks quite
>> >tame in comparison . . .
>>
>> You don't give Hitler enough credit. He only had twelve years,--and
>> only used five of them for mass murder--while your other totalitarian
>> soul mates had decades.
>Hitler was losing a war. Your allies the Russians butchered their own
>people even when they were not at war.
You are British, right? The same claim can be made about your
relatives 53 years ago. You seem to be having trouble debating with
historians so you start associating people with what you think looks
bad. It's called deionizing and it doesn't work except with the most
ignorant of people.
>> > Then we have the awkward question of Mr Mao's
>> >Cultural Revolution, and the activities of a certain Mr P. Pot in
>> >Cambodia . . .
>>
>> Awkward? The question is only awkward to those stupid enough to buy
>> into your false dichotomy.
>>
>> Apparently, you are stupid enough to think that your opponents will
>> buy into it.
Yes, John. His people will buy into it because they are, well,
ignorant.
[have to snip a part of this rant.]
>> >> How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims?
>>
>> >Oh but your wonderful Russian allies certainly had their revenge when
>> >they stormed into Germany, taking it out on the women, didn't they?
>>
>> Hey, stupid, the war ended fifty-three years ago. They weren't our
>> Allies.
>
>The Russians weren't your Allies? Really? And you are a historian? Who
>were your Allies then? Little green men from Mars?
Which part of "Hey, stupid, the war ended fifty-three years ago" do
you not understand? Tied with "They weren't our Allies" means to me
that John is saying that they aren't *his* allies. They weren't our
allies for very long after the war. Cuddles, you are not as clever as
you think you are.
[snipped tiring tedious Dresden clap-trap]
>> I thought you could do better than parrot Nazi slogans, but that is
>> what you are reduced to.
>
>And this is the bit where, having accused me of smearing you by
>association, you display that in addition to being a liar, John ('the
>Russians weren't our Allies') Morris, you are also a hypocrite.
Cuddles, you don't read very well. I suspect you do it on purpose.
>> >> and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
>> >> of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing,
>>
>> >Read Bram Oppenheim's 'The Chosen People'. He's Jewish and anti-Nazi.
>> >You'll like him. But you'll learn about the last days of the war.
>>
>> >> thus tarring
>> >> the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
>> >> in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS,
>>
>> >The problem is that you never say why it's BS.
>>
>> Because your beloved mass murderers set up the concentration camps;
>> your beloved mass murderers put people in them and worked them to
>> death and starvation.
>
>If so, why didn't Churchill prevent it by entering into an alliance with
>Hitler against Stalin? This would have made such behaviour politically
>too expensive.
After the war your Nazi pals became friends with the Russians and the
KGB. So what about that little tid-bit?
>> That's the trouble with you Nazis.
>
>And now you smear and lie all in one sentence. The trouble with you
>people is that you have such little faith in your own cause that you
>resort to lies and smears at the drop of a hat.
If it talks like a Nazi, writes like a Nazi, defends Nazis
exclusively, then it must be a Nazi.
>I have told you the reservations I have about National Socialism. I have
>told you very clearly where I agree with them and where I have problems
>with what they said and did. You are not, here, arguing out of
>ignorance. You are simply being dishonest. The same dishonesty that
>prompted you to claim that Streicher was a senior member of the German
>government. The same dishonesty that in this post prompts you to claim
>that the Russians were not the allies of the British.
53 years ago they were allies. but the history after the war and how
relationships broke down seem to not matter to you.
[snip]
>> What a joke!
>>
>> The profession of ignorance through which you evade discussing your
>> claims that the Holocaust is "not proven."
>
>I have argued this at great length. Your only response boils down to
>you'd rather talk about something else.
You haven't argued with anything but personal opinions and repetition
of those opinions. That's about it. When you are called on your
opinions and asked to consider historical facts that are in conflict
with your opinions you start trashing your opponent. John's right. You
aren't here to debate or learn anything. your here to defend the Nazis
and propagandize.
>> >> You probably do, don't you?
>>
>> >Well, you're persuading me . . .
>>
>> >> You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
>> >> a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
>> >> Holocaust.
>>
>> >Why do you use the words 'minimize' and 'deny'? It seems the classic
>> >Nizkor approach of misrepresenting what is actually being said rather
>> >than dealing with the arguments being put forward.
>>
>> >The actual argument is this. The 'Holocaust', in the sense of the
>> >deliberate mass murder of six million (or 12 million, or 20 million)
>> >Jews, gypsies, etc., as a matter of Nazi policy, has not been proven.
>>
>> But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
>> revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
>
>False. I've seen your arguments. I've seen the holes in them.
Yet you fail to point them out or make a convincing argument.
<snip repetitions of the same point>
>> The men who made the horrors are dead, and their ideology is moribund.
>>
>> >We may
>> >have blood on our hands, Mr Gorski, but so do your kind. A lot of blood.
>> >You are in no position to lecture us on virtue.
>>
>> _Ad hominem tu quoque_, or you were just as bad as we were.
>
>No. You were bad. It has not been proven that the Nazis were in quite
>the same league.
LOL! LOL!
>> Go way, Nazi. You have become pathetic.
>>
>> I have to give you credit, though. You outlasted any other previous
>> Nazi for pretending you were really interested in debate.
>
>Mr Morris you could have been an effective debater had you not been so
>influenced by the Nizkor thug element. As it is, we may safely assume
>that your brand of smears, distortions and downright lies will convince
>nobody except the converted.
LOL!
Mike Curtis
Cuddles
violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
quote the relevant passage.
I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
First, note:
"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
is not unlimited."
Then note:
"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at
discretion;"
[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
Third Reich]
" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering; "
[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
[relevant to Dresden]
" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
commencement of the war."
[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
prohibited."
[relevant to Dresden]
"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
do all in his power to warn the authorities."
[relevant to Dresden]
"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
must be respected."
[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
upon the population on account of the acts of
individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
responsible."
[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
Cuddles
Mike Curtis
>Mr Morris, you queried my contention that the bombing of Dresden
>violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
>War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
>quote the relevant passage.
>
>I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
>Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
>
>First, note:
>
>"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
>is not unlimited."
>
>Then note:
>
>"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
>Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
>
>[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
>
> c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
>no longer means of defence, has surrendered at
> discretion;"
>[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
>and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
>Third Reich]
LOL! How creative of you, Cuddles? So, I guess this should follow in
your mind that when a criminal surrenders we should try him for his
capital crime that would result in a death sentence because he
surrendered!
When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
will be all up hill.
>" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
>unnecessary suffering; "
>[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
Who is to judge if the suffering is unnecessary?
While are the bombings of London and Coventry excluded from your
analysis?
>" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
>or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
>[relevant to Dresden]
The claims have been addressed that those actions were felt necessary
to end the war.
>" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
>the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
>belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
>party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
>country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
>commencement of the war."
>[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
It is also relevant to the Nazis and there occupations of various
countries for this is exactly a part they violated. Nuremberg would
take this against the Nazis.
>"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
>villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
>prohibited."
>[relevant to Dresden]
Yet Dresden was defended.
>"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
>commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
>do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>[relevant to Dresden]
They knew what was coming. I think Hitler should have warned before he
popped his V-2 rockets over don't you? Whose being hypocritical here,
Cuddles?
>"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
>property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
>must be respected."
>[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
I suspect all this was respected. If it wasn't then you need to make a
case.
>"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
>upon the population on account of the acts of
>individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
>responsible."
>[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
Make a case, cuddles. For once in your time on this newsgroup make a
case.
>In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
>case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
Yawn.
Mike Curtis
Joel Rosenberg
>In article <6t51et$4nt$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
>Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
>mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>> >In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
>> >Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
>> >> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
>> >the best
>> >> use of manpower or material.
>> >
>> >Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
>> >important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
>> >destruction of the German oil industry.
>> >
>>
>> We're going to have to agree to disagree here.
>
>Then you're not only disagreeing with me, but many a military historian.
That's okay; I don't mind.
>There is little doubt that The Allied bombing campaigns caused the
>destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near total destruction of the German
>oil industry, which crippled the Nazi war machine. (One can add to this
>the crippling of the German transportation network as well.)
That's not in dispute. The question is whether or not the resources could
have been used more effectively.
>
>> I think the resources would have been much more effective in support of
>> (including preparation for) D-Day, and would have ensured the success of it,
>> even without Hitler's help in foisting his idee fixe about Calais on the
>> General Staff. (An idee fixe that, granted, Allied intelligence went to a
>> great deal of trouble to help along.)
>
>First off, without the Allied strategic bombing campaign there would have
>been no such air assets available in the numbers required for Operation
>Cobra, which made the Allied breakout from Normandy possible.
Eh?
>Second,
>Operations Point Blank and Argument gave the Allies _air supremacy_ over
>Normandy on D-Day, making the beachhead- and later harbors -immune to
>German air interdiction.
Yes, they did.
>Moreover, as Operation Cobra has shown, sustained air operations in
>support of D-Day was not an either/or option with regard to the Allied
>strategic bombing canpaign. The generation of bomber assets simply came
>down to the decision to make the (ever growing) required assets available.
>Third, you do not seem to have taken into account the Transportation Plan
>(i.e. "Zuckerman's Folly") -the combined Bomber Command/Eighth Air Force
>attacks on German railways prior to, and in support of, Overloard.
Yes, there were preparatory and supporting bombings -- and more at the Pas de
Calais, IIRC, than around the beachheads in Normandy.
>
>> D-Day was a close call, and if the Nazis had deployed their forces more
>> effectively, it could have failed. It's only in retrospect that it seems
>> inevitable, but it wasn't.
>
>Well, I generally don't play "what if" games. I leave that to Harry
>Turtledove. I deal strictly in history. The simple fact is that by D-Day
>Allied airpower had neutered the Luftwaffe, raised havoc in the German
>heartland, _and_ disrupted the Wehrmacht's ability to supply and reinforce
>Normandy.
Well, I think you're missing an important point by not playing what if games.
If, after all the resources that had been spent, Hitler hadn't hobbled the
General Staff, the landings could easily have failed, then perhaps those
resources could have, as I claim, have better been spent elsewise.
Again: I'm not knocking the heroism or professionalism or integrity of those
who made the decisions or flew the missions -- I'm just saying that, in
retrospect, other choices would likely have been wiser.
>
>> A much lower level of activity, it seems to me, would have forced the
>> Luftwaffe up to fight -- and thereby get creamed, in a replay in
>reverse, with
>> a twist, of the Battle of Britain.
>
>Nope. Though the Luftwaffe's back was broken in Big Week, it was a battle
>of attrition that lasted throughout Operation Argument -i.e. from Febraury
>to April 1944. Towards the end the Luftwaffe's fighters had be hunted down
>and destroyed by USAAF fighters because they _didn't_ come up and defend
>Germany against the Eighth Air Force's bombers.
>
Toward the end, yes.
>> Your point about the oil industry is
>> persuasive, particularly given later events, but, again, I think that German
>> infrastructure could have been better damaged after D-Day, from French
>> airfields, and without having to make the bombers fly over so much enemy-held
>
>> territory without fighter cover.
>
>First off, the USAAF, from 1944 on,* _didn't_ have "to make the bombers
>fly over so much enemy-held territory without fighter cover." Ever here of
>the P-51 Mustang? You know, the airplane that won the air war in Europe?
>};->
I didn't make myself clear -- I was talking about the lack of fighter cover
before D-Day. German air defenses took a huge toll of bombers and crews, and
while the bombers were easily replaceable, the crews weren't.
>
>*The P-51B was actully introduced in the ETO on September 17, 1943.The
>354th FG flew the first P-51 mission to Germany: escorting 710 bombers on
>the December 13, 1943 raid on Kiel (980 miles). (Cf. Boyne, _Clash of
>Wings_, p.335.)
And working, IIRC, at the outer limit of their range, and much less
effectively than they could have if they didn't have to nurse their fuel
consumption so heavily.
[snip]
>> Absolutely. But -- as demonstrated at Omaha beach -- the Allies just didn't
>> have as much stuff in the air as they should/could/would have. It was a
>> certainty that many bombs wouldn't fall on their targets -- that's why
>> overkill is such a necessary part of such a campaign.
>
>One can shell and bomb the crap out of a beachhead but that doesn't mean
>a dug-in enemy can be suppressed. The problem was that naval bombardment,
>as with high-level bombing, isn't a panacea.
Nothing is. But I don't think it's really a matter of contention that the
landing forces could have used more air support and that even
itty-bitty-leetle-five-hundred-pound bombs can, if dropped on top of the most
hardened site, at least temporarily give the occupants other things to think
about than machine-gunning troops on the beach.
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35F5CF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >ORAC wrote:
>>
>> >> The bombing
>> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
>> >> trying to win the war.
>> >
>> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
>> >save the world.
>>
>> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your post
>> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
>> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
>> to make a serious response.
>
>Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
>other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies and
Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you slipped
up and let your true colors show...
National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save the
world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations conquered
and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
hands of the Nazis...
Nele Abels-Ludwig
[...]
> Was Streicher a government official? Yes, he was. Was he a _leading_
> government official? I'm not sure if I'd call him "leading." He did
> have leadership over Franconia(?). [I have no books here so sorry for
> my errors.]
He was Gauleiter of Franken.
> Was he influential? It seems he had influence.
Most certainly he had, at least at local level in Franken. On the
level of the Reich, well I don't really think so..
> Terms like
> "leading" need to be discussed and analyzed. I don't remember John
> saying that he was "leading" but then I don't read every post in this
> newsgroup.
At least Streicher was one of the big names, and he was well known
too. He was the editor of the Sürmer, after all.
Nele
--
"Was Bombenpapp einmal verband, kriegt Menschenhand nicht auseinand'"
--- Entenhausener Werbeslogan
Mike Curtis
>On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Mike Curtis wrote:
>[...]
>> Was Streicher a government official? Yes, he was. Was he a _leading_
>> government official? I'm not sure if I'd call him "leading." He did
>> have leadership over Franconia(?). [I have no books here so sorry for
>> my errors.]
>
>He was Gauleiter of Franken.
I had him mixed up with the Marx Brothers. I just kill me sometimes.
:-)
>> Was he influential? It seems he had influence.
>
>Most certainly he had, at least at local level in Franken. On the
>level of the Reich, well I don't really think so..
Hence, my point.
>> Terms like
>> "leading" need to be discussed and analyzed. I don't remember John
>> saying that he was "leading" but then I don't read every post in this
>> newsgroup.
>
>At least Streicher was one of the big names, and he was well known
>too. He was the editor of the Sürmer, after all.
People with big names aren't always in leadership positions.
But they can be influential nevertheless.
Mike Curtis
Tim Starr
Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
>In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
>(ORAC) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
>> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
>> enemy....
>
>Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
>the spirit of the enemy with air power.
Nonsense. Since when was the spirit of Saddam Hussein or his Republican
Guard broken by anything in Desert Storm?
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
>> >Warfare of 1907.
>>
>> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>>
>>
>> >Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
>> >murdering bastard.
>>
>> Pfui.
>
>Double pfui. Harris should have been _decorated_.
>
>> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
>the best
>> use of manpower or material.
>
>Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
>important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
>destruction of the German oil industry.
Which of those two victories did the firebombing of Dresden contribute to?
>> Precision bombing didn't shut down enough of the
>> Nazi war machine;
>
>But the part it _did_ shut down- the German oil industy -was supremely
>critical to the Nazi war machine.
How did the firebombing of Dresden contribute to that?
>>nighttime bombing, while it certainly adversely affected
>>Nazi morale, didn't do it enough.
>
>Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
>of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
>keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
Good rationale for deliberately targeting civilians: it forces the enemy to
allocate military resources for their defense, thus preventing them from
allocating those resources elsewhere.
Dresden, unfortunately, wasn't even defended, so not even this rationalization
for mass-murder can be applied to the firebombing of Dresden.
Cuddles
>
> In article <35F685...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35F5CF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The bombing
> >> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> >> >> trying to win the war.
> >> >
> >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
> >> >save the world.
> >>
> >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
> >> to make a serious response.
> >
> >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
> >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
>
> I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
> Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies and
> Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you slipped
> up and let your true colors show...
>
> National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save the
> world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations conquered
> and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
> hands of the Nazis...
Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show? Do you disagree with
me on this point? Why?
Cuddles
Joel Rosenberg
>In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
>Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
>>In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
>>Rosenberg) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <35F46A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>> >It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
>>> >Warfare of 1907.
>>>
>>> How so? (There was ample reason to believe that all major German cities were
>
>>> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>>>
>>>
>>> >Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
>>> >murdering bastard.
>>>
>>> Pfui.
>>
>>Double pfui. Harris should have been _decorated_.
>>
>>> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
>>> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
>>the best
>>> use of manpower or material.
>>
>>Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
>>important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
>>destruction of the German oil industry.
>
>Which of those two victories did the firebombing of Dresden contribute to?
The first, certainly; the second, indirectly, as well, by preventing the Nazis
from concentrating their defenses around oil-industry targets. The problem
with daylight precision bombing was that it permitted that sort of
concentration of Nazi defenses.
OTOH, it's likely that many bombs that were dropped didn't directly contribute
to either victory. C'est la vie, eh?
ORAC
mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
>(ORAC) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
>> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
>> enemy....
>
>Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
>the spirit of the enemy with air power.
How so? Substantial ground troops were still required to retake Kuwait.
Chuck Ferree
Cuddles wrote:
> ORAC wrote:
> >
> > In article <35F685...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > >ORAC wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <35F5CF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >ORAC wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> The bombing
> > >> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> > >> >> trying to win the war.
> > >> >
> > >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
> > >> >save the world.
> > >>
> > >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your post
> > >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> > >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
> > >> to make a serious response.
> > >
> > >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
> > >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
> >
> > I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
> > Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies and
> > Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> > imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you slipped
> > up and let your true colors show...
> >
> > National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save the
> > world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations conquered
> > and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
> > hands of the Nazis...
>
> Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
> explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
> were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show? Do you disagree with
> me on this point? Why?
CF:>>>>>Mr. Gorski will supply his own answer if he so desires. Mine goes like this:
The "observation that the Nazis *thought they were saving the world let's 'my true
colors' show?" Is a statement that can't mean much more than "I (cuddles) believe
the Nazis thought they were saving the world..." cuddles does think like this, and
has as much as said, in fact he has said that the wrong side won the war. So first
answer this, cuddles: from exactly what, do you suppose the Nazis thought they were
saving the world?
Having been a participant in that particular war, and having studied just about
every aspect of that particular war, the causes, the effects, the events which lead
Hitler and his gang of thugs to plan and start WW-II, which included the
annihilation of *all people of the Jewish Faith, Japan's role in that particular war
as an ally of the Nazis, so far, I have run across *nothing which indicates that the
Nazis gave any thought of saving the world from anything. Some feared the
communists, but they didn't attack Poland and all the other countries they raped and
occupied to protect them from communism. No, cuddles, Hitler wanted to rule Europe,
because he was a fruitcake. He wanted all Jews dead, because he hated Jews all his
life. There was no altruistic motive on Germany's part to save anybody except their
own asses, and they figured that out early on, when some of Hitler's *best officers
tried to kill him. Pity they failed.
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> Cuddles
John Morris
+0100, Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>Mr Morris, you queried my contention that the bombing of Dresden
>violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
>War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
>quote the relevant passage.
>I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
>Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
I would also like it if you did so, but simply asserting that you have
made a _prima facie_ case does not make it so.
>First, note:
>"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
>is not unlimited."
>Then note:
>"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
>Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
>[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
> c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
>no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;"
>[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
>and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
>Third Reich]
The section applies to the summary execution of prisoners of war. The
Nuremberg defendants were not summarily executed but tried for crimes
which their government had agreed were crimes prior to the
commencement of hostilities.
>" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
>unnecessary suffering; "
>[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
>" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
>or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
>[relevant to Dresden]
Same as e. You must demonstrate that the destruction of property was
unnecessary to he prosecution of the war.
>" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
>the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
>belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
>party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
>country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
>commencement of the war."
>[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
Will you now talk about the actual trials and specify which rights the
Nuremberg defendants were denied?
Simply stating that rights and actions have been abolished or
suspended does not make it so, and I note that the defendants were
-arrested;
-advised of their rights;
-allowed the counsel of their choice;
-allowed to answer their accusers;
-allowed to testify in their own defence;
-allowed to examine all evidence entered against them;
-allowed to rebut evidence entered against them;
-allowed to enter their own evidence and exhibits;
-allowed the cross-examination of witnesses;
-allowed to call rebuttal witnesses;
-allowed the extraordinary right to make statements to the
court without prosecution rebuttal or cross-examination
-allowed the right to appeal judgments and sentences.
I note that some of the defendants' counsel exercised the right of
appeal above the objections of their clients, and the appeals were not
heard by the justices who rendered the judgments and sentences.
>"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
>villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
>prohibited."
>[relevant to Dresden]
Dresden was defended.
>"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
>commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
>do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>[relevant to Dresden]
The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
bombarded.
>"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
>property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
>must be respected."
>[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
The section is irrelevant to Nuremberg in that the "lives of persons"
were respected until legal convictions had been obtained.
The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany at
the time of the bombardment.
>"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
>upon the population on account of the acts of
>individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
>responsible."
>[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany or
Japan at the time of the bombardment.
The Nuremberg defendants were tried as the individuals responsible for
crimes committed by the government
>In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
>case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
Given that I have raised valid objections to each and every one of
your citations, you do *not* have a _prima facie_ case.
John Morris
+0100, Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The Cuddles Rules of Debate: divide everybody up into two teams. No
>> matter how often one's opponents protest that they are not Communists,
>> smear them by association anyway.
>Says Mr John 'Streicher was a leading German government official'
>Morris.
Streicher was an exception to the rule. He was, nevertheless, part of
the Nazi government and integral to promoting the official policy of
race hatred.
> But read on for a REALLY good example of smearing by association
>. . .
Do you really think it is a good idea to draw attention to your smears
after you have previously stated them?
>> > murdered so many of their own people that
>> >Hitler, even were he the monster you make him out to be, looks quite
>> >tame in comparison . . .
>> You don't give Hitler enough credit. He only had twelve years,--and
>> only used five of them for mass murder--while your other totalitarian
>> soul mates had decades.
>Hitler was losing a war. Your allies the Russians butchered their own
>people even when they were not at war.
When Hitler took it upon himself to order the mass murder of civilian
populations, he was not losing a war.
Where do you get such silly ideas.
>> > Then we have the awkward question of Mr Mao's
>> >Cultural Revolution, and the activities of a certain Mr P. Pot in
>> >Cambodia . . .
>> Awkward? The question is only awkward to those stupid enough to buy
>> into your false dichotomy.
<irony>
No answer?
</irony>
>> Apparently, you are stupid enough to think that your opponents will
>> buy into it.
<irony>
No answer?
</irony>
It wasn't a lie. It was true that most of the defendants were major
government officials. Streicher, as a minor government official, was
the exception.
I should have learned long before now that cheap propagandists like
you are apt to seize on minor points of carelessness and declare them
lies.
>> You have become laughable.
>You have become tedious.
No one is forcing you to respond to me.
>> >> It's not as if these bombers didn't encounter lots
>> >> of resistance; thousands upon thousands of planes were shot down and their
>> >> pilots lost. Indeed for a time, bomber crews had appalling casualty rates.
>> >As Chuck pointed out in this very thread, most of the defences around
>> >Dresden had been moved.
>> And the British and Americans knew that how exactly?
>You mean they bombed Dresden without taking account of how well or
>poorly it was defended? Wow! Read Harris's 'Despatch' for the full
>story.
The point is rather that, as you point out, Dresden was poorly
defended, not that it was undefended.
Since when is there an obligation to attack an enemy at his strongest
defences.
>> > Those civilians were sitting targets. They were
>> >slaughtered, blown to pieces, massacred, in direct contravention of the
>> >Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907.
>> Oh yeah. The Hague Convention for which you have so much trouble
>> citing the relevant section.
>I have cited it before. I can cite it again if you dispute it exists? Do
>you dispute that it exists?
No. I have already seen your laughable "prima facie" case and
responded to it. Several of the sections you cite are completely
irrelevant.
>> >So why was Mr Harris not
>> >charged as a war criminal, Mr Gorski? Why was he not hanged like a pig?
>> >Answer me that!
>No answer?
You are not interested in the answer.
>> >And you people then have the audacity to lecture US about OUR supposed
>> >inhumanity!
>> Hitler vas a better dancer! Hitler vas a better lover! Churchill
>> couldn't even say, "Nazi." Alvays, "Nahzees! Nahzees!"
>Mein Gott! John iss really Chuck in disguise! Fiendish!
I take it you missed the allusion to another famous rant.
>> >> How many German SS lost their lives at the hands of Holocaust victims?
>> >Oh but your wonderful Russian allies certainly had their revenge when
>> >they stormed into Germany, taking it out on the women, didn't they?
>> Hey, stupid, the war ended fifty-three years ago. They weren't our
>> Allies.
>The Russians weren't your Allies? Really? And you are a historian? Who
>were your Allies then? Little green men from Mars?
I didn't have any Allies. I wasn't even born when the war ended.
>> But since you identify so much with Nazis, don't forget that they were
>> *your* Allies until Hitler's treacherous attack on them. So much for
>> Nazis respecting their treaty obligations.
>And what treaty obligations did YOUR side respect when they launched an
>air attack on an almost undefended Dresden?
*Almost* undefended. Your words.
>> > Your
>> >victims were not the SS, although you slaughtered them wherever you
>> >found them irrespective of their personal innocence or guilt. Your
>> >victims were the defenceless women and the little children of Germany
>> >and Japan.
>> Keep going, bonehead. You'll win the war yet, David.
>Do you dispute what I say? Or do you merely not care?
Yes, I dispute what you say. I do not accept your false dichotomy that
people who were not alive during the war are responsible for what
occurred during the war.
You set up that dichotomy not in order to discuss history but to
proselytize for your sick, moribund ideology.
>> >> You
>> >> or others will respond with revisionist arguments about how the Holocaust
>> >> really didn't happen
>> >No, but we will point out that it is not proven. We will also point out
>> >that even if it had happened it probably wouldn't have happened if the
>> >British had entered into an alliance with Mr Hitler against Russia,
>> >which would have enabled Mr Churchill et al. to exercise a moderating
>> >influence upon Mr Hitler. This would have had the additional spin-off
>> >that it would have spared the world the horrors of Stalin's late years,
>> >of Mao, of Pol Pot and of the spread of communism throughout the world.
>> >It would, in every sense, have been the optimal solution to the
>> >conflict.
>> And this entire passage differs from Nazi propaganda how?
>Do you disagree with what I say? If so, why?
I don't play "what-if" games. You want to play "what-if" history, post
to soc.history.what-if.
You want to discuss history, say something about what happened in
history rather than what you wish happened.
>> I thought you could do better than parrot Nazi slogans, but that is
>> what you are reduced to.
>And this is the bit where, having accused me of smearing you by
>association, you display that in addition to being a liar, John ('the
>Russians weren't our Allies') Morris, you are also a hypocrite.
Where is the smear? You are self-identified as a nationalist, a
racist, and an apologist for the Nazi cause. Moreover, you routinely
refer to the Nazis as your side in the war.
I cannot smear you by calling you what you have called yourself, but
you do smear me by intimating that I am a Communist or allied with
Communists.
As to you habitual accusations that I am a liar and hypocrite, why
should I care to answer the _ad hominem_ attacks of a propagandist
such as yourself. You never prove these accusations; you just toss
them about like so much confetti at a wedding.
>> >> and how all those people in the camps supposedly died
>> >> of starvation and disease *because* of the Allied bombing,
>> >Read Bram Oppenheim's 'The Chosen People'. He's Jewish and anti-Nazi.
>> >You'll like him. But you'll learn about the last days of the war.
>> >> thus tarring
>> >> the Allies with all the deaths from both the bombings of German cities AND
>> >> in the concentration camps. We'll respond by arguing that's BS,
>> >The problem is that you never say why it's BS.
>> Because your beloved mass murderers set up the concentration camps;
>> your beloved mass murderers put people in them and worked them to
>> death and starvation.
>If so, why didn't Churchill prevent it by entering into an alliance with
>Hitler against Stalin? This would have made such behaviour politically
>too expensive.
What-if.
Britain was at war with Germany for two years before Germany attacked
the Soviet Union.
>> That's the trouble with you Nazis.
>And now you smear and lie all in one sentence. The trouble with you
>people is that you have such little faith in your own cause that you
>resort to lies and smears at the drop of a hat.
The trouble with you is that you are a propagandist with no interest
in debating the issues honestly.
I am under no obligation to argue with people who enter the debate
dishonestly.
>I have told you the reservations I have about National Socialism. I have
>told you very clearly where I agree with them and where I have problems
>with what they said and did. You are not, here, arguing out of
>ignorance. You are simply being dishonest. The same dishonesty that
>prompted you to claim that Streicher was a senior member of the German
>government. The same dishonesty that in this post prompts you to claim
>that the Russians were not the allies of the British.
>> You can't take any responsibility.
>> You start wars, and blame it on others. You kill millions, and you
>> blame it on others. Your hair falls out, and it's the Jews' fault.
<irony>
No answer?
<irony>
>> >> and that
>> >> the Nazis intentionally killed the Jews and Eastern Europeans, by various
>> >> means, including shooting, hanging, and gassing. And on it will go.
>> >> So, do you want to go down that path?
>> >Not really. It's more the domain of the revisionist historian. Not
>> >entirely my field.
>> HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>> What a joke!
>> The profession of ignorance through which you evade discussing your
>> claims that the Holocaust is "not proven."
>I have argued this at great length. Your only response boils down to
>you'd rather talk about something else.
LOL! Yeah, Fool, I want to talk about the history you would rather
make ignorant pronouncements about.
>> >> You probably do, don't you?
>> >Well, you're persuading me . . .
>> >> You know, your obsession with the Dresden and Hamburg bombings would carry
>> >> a lot more weight if you didn't so eagerly seek to minimize or deny the
>> >> Holocaust.
>> >Why do you use the words 'minimize' and 'deny'? It seems the classic
>> >Nizkor approach of misrepresenting what is actually being said rather
>> >than dealing with the arguments being put forward.
>> >The actual argument is this. The 'Holocaust', in the sense of the
>> >deliberate mass murder of six million (or 12 million, or 20 million)
>> >Jews, gypsies, etc., as a matter of Nazi policy, has not been proven.
>> But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
>> revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
>False. I've seen your arguments. I've seen the holes in them.
LOL!
You can't see the holes in an argument you are self-professedly too
ignorant to participate in: "It's more the domain of the revisionist
historian. Not entirely my field."
>> > It
>> >has not been shown to be true. Elements of it may have been shown to be
>> >true, but not the whole story.
>> But you can't say that because "It's more the domain of the
>> revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
>False. Again, I've seen your arguments. And the holes.
The holes are in your head. You can't see the holes in an argument you
are self-professedly too ignorant to participate in: "It's more the
domain of the revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
><snip repetitions of the same point>
Thank goodness for small mercies.
>> >including
>> >inter alia the Soviets who are not the most reliable of historians,
>> >which was subsequently used for such nefarious purposes as the staging
>> >of the laughable and criminal Nuremburg show trials -- trials at which,
>> >inter alia, all restrictions on admissibility of evidence commonly
>> >associated with criminal trials were dispensed with save that the
>> >judges, appointed by the former adversaries of the accused, consider
>> >that it have probative value.
>> That's pretty funny coming from somebody who sets his face against
>> studying the actual trial record.
>> And that is not what the Rule of Procedure says. It is just what
>> cuddly Nazis want it to say.
>It's what the Charter says.
The trial followed the Rules of Procedure for its procedures. Your
abstract speculations on a trial about which you are professedly
ignorant are irrelevant and tendentious.
>> >The objective, I think,
>> is to whitewash your sick, sick brand totalitarianism
>> > is not to minimize the horror of what happened.
>> and to minimize the horror so that Nazism can survive as more than an
>> ideology for pathetic losers.
No answer?
>> >It is to point out that the men who made those horrors happen are the
>> >spiritual fathers of the men and women who rule the world today.
>> The men who made the horrors are dead, and their ideology is moribund.
No answer?
>> >We may
>> >have blood on our hands, Mr Gorski, but so do your kind. A lot of blood.
>> >You are in no position to lecture us on virtue.
>> _Ad hominem tu quoque_, or you were just as bad as we were.
>No. You were bad. It has not been proven that the Nazis were in quite
>the same league.
And when challenged, you will evade, "It's more the domain of the
revisionist historian. Not entirely my field."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: you don't know; therefore, it is not
proven.
>> Go way, Nazi. You have become pathetic.
>> I have to give you credit, though. You outlasted any other previous
>> Nazi for pretending you were really interested in debate.
>Mr Morris you could have been an effective debater had you not been so
>influenced by the Nizkor thug element.
We have already agreed that I am not nice to fools.
Did you have a point that you wished to make?
> As it is, we may safely assume
>that your brand of smears, distortions and downright lies will convince
>nobody except the converted.
The habitual cry of Cuddles the lying propagandist.
Listen, Lackwit, your have already demonstrated more than amply your
unwillingness to be convinced.
Reply when you are willing to stop lying about me and when you are
ready to debate the issues honestly.
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35F685...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >ORAC wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <35F5CF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
>> >> >save the world.
>> >>
>> >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your post
>> >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
>> >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
>> >> to make a serious response.
>> >
>> >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
>> >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
>>
>> I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
>> Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies and
>> Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
>> imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you slipped
>> up and let your true colors show...
>>
>> National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save the
>> world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations conquered
>> and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
>> hands of the Nazis...
>
>Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
>explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
>were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show?
Well, your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?
But perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. I'm only human, and
Usenet often hides the subtle shadings of meaning that people intend when
the post, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Perhaps, despite your
many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not have National Socialist
sympathies. If so, it's really quite simple for you to prove me wrong. All
you have to do is to answer these two questions:
1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National Socialism?
2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of National
Socialism.
Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and you've
proven me wrong.
I'm sure you can do that little thing just to prove my assertion wrong,
can't you? (Of course, just remember that if you decide to do so
insincerely just to make me look bad it'll certainly come back to haunt
you later when you post something that contradicts your answers to these
questions...)
>Do you disagree with me on this point? Why?
For the most part, yes, I do disagree. The primary purpose of Germany's
war was not primarily to "save the world" but to secure Lebensraum for
Germany in the East, as described in MEIN KAMPF. Later, when it became
clear that Germany was losing the war that it had started, the only thing
the Nazis were trying to save was their hides.
Cuddles
>
> Cuddles wrote:
>
> > ORAC wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35F685...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > >ORAC wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article <35F5CF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >> The bombing
> > > >> >> of German industry and cities were combat actions done with the intent of
> > > >> >> trying to win the war.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of trying to
> > > >> >save the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your post
> > > >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> > > >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time attempting
> > > >> to make a serious response.
> > > >
> > > >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
> > > >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do . .
> > >
> > > I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
> > > Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies and
> > > Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> > > imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you slipped
> > > up and let your true colors show...
> > >
> > > National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save the
> > > world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations conquered
> > > and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
> > > hands of the Nazis...
> >
> > Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
> > explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
> > me on this point? Why?
>
I somehow doubt it, Chuckles old fruit. Mr Gorski is the hit-and-run
debater par excellence, I fear.
> Mine goes like this:
> The "observation that the Nazis *thought they were saving the world let's 'my true
> colors' show?" Is a statement that can't mean much more than "I (cuddles) believe
> the Nazis thought they were saving the world..."
Correct. That is what I meant. And that is all that I meant. But I do
not doubt that there are some who would have liked me to have meant
something else and will therefore claim that I did, in fact, mean
something else.
> cuddles does think like this, and
> has as much as said,
Correct again, although I think you're getting a bit befuddled here . .
. let us continue . . .
> in fact he has said that the wrong side won the war.
Yup, I'm still with you. That is the view I hold.
> So first
> answer this, cuddles: from exactly what, do you suppose the Nazis thought they were > saving the world?
> Having been a participant in that particular war, and having studied just about
> every aspect of that particular war, the causes, the effects, the events which lead
> Hitler and his gang of thugs to plan and start WW-II, which included the
> annihilation of *all people of the Jewish Faith, Japan's role in that particular war
> as an ally of the Nazis, so far, I have run across *nothing which indicates that the
> Nazis gave any thought of saving the world from anything.
Try this:
Dr Goebbels, in his speech entitled 'Don't be too Fair':
<begin quote>
The English destroyed a whole valuable ancient culture in India, and
never even thought about studying its history and values. They are
English, after all. They think that the world was created for the
English, while we think that we Germans were created to serve the world.
<end quote>
Dr Goebbels again, in his speech on communism in 1935:
<begin quote>
Indeed perhaps, outside of his work in Germany, the greatest service
which our Führer has rendered the world is that here in Germany he has
set up a barrier against world Bolshevism against which the waves of
this vile Asiatic-Jewish flood break in vain. He has taught us not only
to recognise Bolshevism as the world's greatest enemy but also to meet
it face to face and crush it. Instead of this teaching he has supplied a
new and better and nobler ideal for the liberation of a whole nation. In
the Sign of this Idea we have fought our battles and brought our banners
to victory. This ideal has enabled us to free Germany from the menace of
Bolshevism and banish it once and for all from the German nation. Today
we know how to cope with these insidious forces.
The nation has been rendered immune against the poison of the red
anarchy. It has repudiated the false and hollow catch-words of the
communistic world propaganda. Seriously and industriously and with
patience and discipline it has given itself to the solution of problems
which arise out of its own destiny. History will one day give due credit
to the Führer for having saved Germany from the most acute and deadly
peril by overthrowing Bolshevism and thereby saving the whole
civilisation of the West from the abyss that yawned before it.'
<end quote>
> Some feared the
> communists, but they didn't attack Poland and all the other countries they raped and
> occupied to protect them from communism.
On the contrary. Whereas comments about people's motives are generally
speculations unless they wrote or said something relevant, I suggest
that may be precisely why Hitler attacked it. To save it from communism
and the forces behind communism.
> No, cuddles, Hitler wanted to rule Europe,
> because he was a fruitcake.
Now are you going to provide detailed evidence that Mr Hitler wanted to
rule Europe because he was a fruitcake? Or must we just take it on trust
from you? Were the 90% of the German people who voted in the referendum
to give him his powers also fruitcakes?
> He wanted all Jews dead, because he hated Jews all his
> life.
Is this speculation or do you have any evidence for this view?
> There was no altruistic motive on Germany's part to save anybody except their
> own asses,
In which case it seems rather surprising that they did not pursue a
conciliatory course with their neighbours from the start.
> and they figured that out early on, when some of Hitler's *best > officers
> tried to kill him. Pity they failed.
>
> Chuck Ferree
Well, Chuck, if the Axis forces had won the war, one of the many
benefits that the rest of the world would have enjoyed would have been
the sight of the likes of you, murderer of innocent civilians, dangling
from the scaffold.
Have a nice day.
Cuddles
ORAC
>Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
>> CF:>>>>>Mr. Gorski will supply his own answer if he so desires.
>
>I somehow doubt it, Chuckles old fruit. Mr Gorski is the hit-and-run
>debater par excellence, I fear.
Sorry to disappoint you, old bean, but in the spirit of trying desperately
not to be *too* much of a "hit-and-run" debater as you so pungently put
it, I'll hazard jumping back in. :-)
[Snip]
>> Some feared the
>> communists, but they didn't attack Poland and all the other countries
they raped and
>> occupied to protect them from communism.
>
>On the contrary. Whereas comments about people's motives are generally
>speculations unless they wrote or said something relevant, I suggest
>that may be precisely why Hitler attacked it. To save it from communism
>and the forces behind communism.
If you're so privy to Hitler's motivation in attacking Poland, then I'm
sure you can answer this question: If Hitler was trying to "save" Poland
from the Bolsheviks, why did he make an agreement with Stalin before his
invasion to divide Poland up, leading to a Soviet invasion of Poland from
the East not long after Hitler had invaded Poland and a partitioning of
Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? The end result was that
a large portion of eastern Poland was under Soviet control. Making a
pre-invasion agreement with the Soviets to partition Poland hardly sounds
like the action of someone trying to "save" Poland from Soviet domination,
wouldn't you say?
I find it amusing that you assert that "comments about people's motives
are generally speculations unless the wrote or said something relevant"
and then immediatly make such comments about Hitler's motivations for
invading Poland. You have some relevant comments by Hitler to back up your
contention, I assume?
You've also heard of "Lebensraum," I suppose? That was Hitler's real
reason for invading Poland. But don't take my word for it. Read it from
Hitler's own pen in MEIN KAMPF.
>> No, cuddles, Hitler wanted to rule Europe,
>> because he was a fruitcake.
>
>Now are you going to provide detailed evidence that Mr Hitler wanted to
>rule Europe because he was a fruitcake? Or must we just take it on trust
>from you? Were the 90% of the German people who voted in the referendum
>to give him his powers also fruitcakes?
No, they were just desperate because of the horrible economic conditions
of the times and were taken in by Hitler's promises of a better Germany.
>> He wanted all Jews dead, because he hated Jews all his
>> life.
>
>Is this speculation or do you have any evidence for this view?
ROTFLMAO!
You really *haven't* read MEIN KAMPF, have you? Let's not forget lots of
Hitler speeches denouncing the Jew as the the supposed root of all of
Germany's problems.
>> and they figured that out early on, when some of Hitler's *best > officers
>> tried to kill him. Pity they failed.
>
>Well, Chuck, if the Axis forces had won the war, one of the many
>benefits that the rest of the world would have enjoyed would have been
>the sight of the likes of you, murderer of innocent civilians, dangling
>from the scaffold.
But they didn't win, did they, Cuddles? You seem rather unhappy about
that, too. Why is that?
Cuddles
>
> Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Mr Morris, you queried my contention that the bombing of Dresden
> >violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
> >War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
> >quote the relevant passage.
> >
> >I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
> >Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
> >
> >
> >"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
> >is not unlimited."
> >
> >Then note:
> >
> >"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
> >Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
> >
> >[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
> >
> > c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
> >no longer means of defence, has surrendered at
> > discretion;"
> >[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
> >and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
> >Third Reich]
>
Why? Mr Morris said I couldn't cite this document. I've cited it. Mr
Morris was incorrect. What's your problem with that?
> So, I guess this should follow in
> your mind that when a criminal surrenders we should try him for his
> capital crime that would result in a death sentence because he
> surrendered!
Nope because the Hague convention applies to war.
> When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
> will be all up hill.
Why would judges say that to someone who works in a bookshop, Mike?
> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
> >unnecessary suffering; "
> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>
> Who is to judge if the suffering is unnecessary?
First good point you've made for ages. Who is to judge any of this
stuff?
> While are the bombings of London and Coventry excluded from your
> analysis?
Well, Boog contends that Coventry was an attack on a military target,
whereas Dresden was clearly aimed at the civilian population. Don't know
enough about London to comment. You might have a point.
> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> The claims have been addressed that those actions were felt necessary
> to end the war.
Nope, their aims were to cause '(i) destruction, and (ii), the fear of
death'. Any wartime atrocity can be justified by saying that it was
'felt necessary to end the war'.
> >" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
> >the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
> >belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
> >party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
> >country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
> >commencement of the war."
> >[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
>
> It is also relevant to the Nazis and there occupations of various
> countries for this is exactly a part they violated. Nuremberg would
> take this against the Nazis.
So would the fact, if correct, that it was applicable to the Nazis make
it inapplicable to the Allies? Why?
> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
> >prohibited."
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> Yet Dresden was defended.
Not well -- see Chuck's original post in this thread. The defences were
rapidly overwhelmed. At that point the continued bombing of civilian
targets contravened this clause. Please note also that even an attack on
an undefended dwelling or building contravenes this clause.
> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> They knew what was coming.
How? You want to discuss detailed history. Please quote me some sources
for this, Mr Historian . . .
I think Hitler should have warned before he
> popped his V-2 rockets over don't you?
Absolutely.
> Whose being hypocritical here,
> Cuddles?
On this point, nobody.
> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
> >must be respected."
> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>
> I suspect all this was respected. If it wasn't then you need to make a
> case.
How was the lives of persons and private property respected at Dresden?
What respect was shown for the lives of the men murdered at Nuremburg?
> >"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
> >upon the population on account of the acts of
> >individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
> >responsible."
> >[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
>
> Make a case, cuddles. For once in your time on this newsgroup make a
> case.
Oh dear. You seem to have slipped back into the old groove again. I make
a case and instead of responding to it you merely parrot 'make a case'.
> >In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
> >case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
>
> Yawn.
Indeed.
> Mike Curtis
>
Cuddles
Cuddles
>
> In <35F6A2...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 09 Sep 1998 16:44:44
> +0100, Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Mr Morris, you queried my contention that the bombing of Dresden
> >violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
> >War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
> >quote the relevant passage.
>
> >I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
> >Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
>
> I would also like it if you did so, but simply asserting that you have
> made a _prima facie_ case does not make it so.
Then read on:
> >First, note:
>
> >"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
> >is not unlimited."
>
> >Then note:
>
> >"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
> >Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
>
> >[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
>
> > c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
> >no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;"
> >[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
> >and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
> >Third Reich]
>
> The section applies to the summary execution of prisoners of war.
I don't see the words 'summary execution'. The Germans surrendered. You
rounded up their leaders, and some who were not their leaders, and then,
after a farce of a trial, murdered those whom you disliked.
> The
> Nuremberg defendants were not summarily executed but tried for crimes
> which their government had agreed were crimes prior to the
> commencement of hostilities.
False. You have admitted that the basis for these trials was entirely ex
post facto. The crimes for which they were 'tried' did not exist as such
at the time they were allegedly committed.
> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
> >unnecessary suffering; "
> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>
> It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
> case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
> the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
Morris?
> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> Same as e. You must demonstrate that the destruction of property was
> unnecessary to he prosecution of the war.
No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
negative of that sort.
> >" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
> >the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
> >belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
> >party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
> >country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
> >commencement of the war."
> >[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
>
> So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
> admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
> know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
> and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
> the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
No. In British criminal trials it is not for the Bench to rule on the
admissibility of evidence. There is a very onerous piece of statute law,
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or 'PACE' at it's known, that lays
down what is admissible and what is not. The Bench can rule on what is
admissible only with reference to this Act. In other words the judge
interprets this statute. At Nuremburg, the Charter is quite explicit
that there are no limits on what may be admitted as evidence save that
the judge consider it of probative value.
Let me give you a simple example. A newspaper report would normally be
inadmissible as evidence here (I say 'normally' because one can envisage
exceptional circumstances where it would -- for example, if it were
found on the scene of a murder with the murderer's blood all over it).
The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal. At
Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible. The STATUTORY
protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
> Will you now talk about the actual trials and specify which rights the
> Nuremberg defendants were denied?
How's this for a start:
1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
2. Right of fair indictment.
3. Right to be tried for crimes that existed when they were allegedly
committed.
4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
5. Right of appeal.
6. Right to be judged by a jury of their fellow countrymen.
> Simply stating that rights and actions have been abolished or
> suspended does not make it so, and I note that the defendants were
>
> -arrested;
Arbitrarily.
> -advised of their rights;
Which were severely curtailed.
> -allowed the counsel of their choice;
But not an impartial forum in which to be judged.
> -allowed to answer their accusers;
But not to appeal against their judgment.
> -allowed to testify in their own defence;
But not to challenge the admissibility of evidence against them that
would not be allowed, say, in a British criminal court.
> -allowed to examine all evidence entered against them;
But not to challenge its admissibility.
> -allowed to rebut evidence entered against them;
But not to challenge its admissibility.
> -allowed to enter their own evidence and exhibits;
But not allowed to have it assessed by a jury of their fellow countrymen
or judges other than those appointed by their former adversaries.
> -allowed the cross-examination of witnesses;
But not to challenge the admissibility of their contributions.
> -allowed to call rebuttal witnesses;
Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted at best.
> -allowed the extraordinary right to make statements to the
> court without prosecution rebuttal or cross-examination
What's extraordinary about this. I have done the self same thing, both
in Britain and in South Africa.
> -allowed the right to appeal judgments and sentences.
See the Charter. It says no right of appeal.
> I note that some of the defendants' counsel exercised the right of
> appeal above the objections of their clients,
Which in itself sounds dodgy and has Stalinist undertones. If I hire
counsel to represent me and counsel acts contrary to my instructions, I
have every right to take them to the cleaners.
> and the appeals were not
> heard by the justices who rendered the judgments and sentences.
Charter says no right of appeal.
> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
> >prohibited."
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> Dresden was defended.
The defenses were very sparse and were quickly overwhelemed. The
continued bombardment of the city beyond that point infringe this
article. Note, however, that even attacks on undefended dwellings or
buildings is prohibited.
> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
> bombarded.
But not WHICH cities and WHEN, of course.
> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
> >must be respected."
> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>
> The section is irrelevant to Nuremberg in that the "lives of persons"
> were respected until legal convictions had been obtained.
No. The defendants were murdered after a grotesque mock trial.
> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany at
> the time of the bombardment.
Don't know. I'll have to look it up again. That certainly wouldn't get
you off the hook with Nuremburg, however. I'd say that during a
bombardment, when ground defences have been overwhelmed, you have a
situation exactly parallel to that which pertains when a land assault
has been successful and enemy defences have been overwhelmed. The
territory is effectively at the mercy of the attackers.
> >"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
> >upon the population on account of the acts of
> >individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
> >responsible."
> >[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
>
> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany or
> Japan at the time of the bombardment.
See above.
> The Nuremberg defendants were tried as the individuals responsible for
> crimes committed by the government
Precisely my point.
> >In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
> >case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
>
> Given that I have raised valid objections to each and every one of
> your citations, you do *not* have a _prima facie_ case.
Given that I have provided answers to your objections, except on one
point where I need to consult the source document again, I think I most
certainly *do* have a prima facie case, sir.
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Cuddles
Gord McFee
01:18:05 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
[deleted]
> It wasn't a lie. It was true that most of the defendants were major
> government officials. Streicher, as a minor government official, was
> the exception.
>
> I should have learned long before now that cheap propagandists like
> you are apt to seize on minor points of carelessness and declare them
> lies.
I would take exception with Streicher being a "minor government
official". He was a Gauleiter until 1940, and that position reported
directly to Hitler. In addition, he enjoyed Hitler's special favour for
years (he was one of his oldest comrades), and even after being
cashiered in 1940 for accusing Goering of having artificially
inseminated his wife, he was allowed to continue to publish _Der
Stürmer_ until the end of the war, on Hitler's personal intervention.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Mike Curtis
My comment is to your legal creativity, Cuddles and not John Morris
nor is it a comment on your citing this thing. LOL!
>> So, I guess this should follow in
>> your mind that when a criminal surrenders we should try him for his
>> capital crime that would result in a death sentence because he
>> surrendered!
>
>Nope because the Hague convention applies to war.
What's the difference between the two points, Cuddles. You are
speaking about fairness yet you aren't willing to be consistent.
>> When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
>> will be all up hill.
>
>Why would judges say that to someone who works in a bookshop, Mike?
Because I don't work in a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!
>> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
>> >unnecessary suffering; "
>> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>>
>> Who is to judge if the suffering is unnecessary?
>
>First good point you've made for ages. Who is to judge any of this
>stuff?
Reasonable men, Cuddles. But then reasonable consider ALL information.
This is something you consistently fail to do. That is something you
are consistent about.
>> While are the bombings of London and Coventry excluded from your
>> analysis?
>
>Well, Boog contends that Coventry was an attack on a military target,
>whereas Dresden was clearly aimed at the civilian population. Don't know
>enough about London to comment. You might have a point.
Okay, you argue from ignorance.
>> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
>> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>>
>> The claims have been addressed that those actions were felt necessary
>> to end the war.
>
>Nope, their aims were to cause '(i) destruction, and (ii), the fear of
>death'. Any wartime atrocity can be justified by saying that it was
>'felt necessary to end the war'.
No. This isn't true. The Holocaust wasn't necessary to end the war,
Cuddles.
>> >" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
>> >the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
>> >belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
>> >party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
>> >country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
>> >commencement of the war."
>> >[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
>>
>> It is also relevant to the Nazis and there occupations of various
>> countries for this is exactly a part they violated. Nuremberg would
>> take this against the Nazis.
>
>So would the fact, if correct, that it was applicable to the Nazis make
>it inapplicable to the Allies? Why?
Because the Allies didn't do this.
>> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
>> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
>> >prohibited."
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>>
>> Yet Dresden was defended.
>Not well
So what. It was defended. Next point?
> -- see Chuck's original post in this thread. The defences were
>rapidly overwhelmed. At that point the continued bombing of civilian
>targets contravened this clause. Please note also that even an attack on
>an undefended dwelling or building contravenes this clause.
>
>> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
>> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
>> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>>
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>>
>> They knew what was coming.
>
>How? You want to discuss detailed history. Please quote me some sources
>for this, Mr Historian . . .
I thought I worked in a bookshop? Just call me Mr. Curtis.
I will not do your work for you, Cuddles. This is all your assertion.
> I think Hitler should have warned before he
>> popped his V-2 rockets over don't you?
>
>Absolutely.
Well?
>> Whose being hypocritical here,
>> Cuddles?
>
>On this point, nobody.
>> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
>> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
>> >must be respected."
>> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>>
>> I suspect all this was respected. If it wasn't then you need to make a
>> case.
>
>How was the lives of persons and private property respected at Dresden?
Tell how they were not.
>What respect was shown for the lives of the men murdered at Nuremburg?
Full trial and they got to present their side of the case and question
witnesses. That's more respect than German courts gave to anyone.
>> >"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
>> >upon the population on account of the acts of
>> >individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
>> >responsible."
>> >[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
>>
>> Make a case, cuddles. For once in your time on this newsgroup make a
>> case.
>
>Oh dear. You seem to have slipped back into the old groove again. I make
>a case and instead of responding to it you merely parrot 'make a case'.
Make a case.
Mike Curtis
Chuck Ferree
Cuddles wrote:
CF:>>>well, he's got your number, pal, as has anybody who pays attention.
>
>
> > Mine goes like this:
> > The "observation that the Nazis *thought they were saving the world let's 'my true
> > colors' show?" Is a statement that can't mean much more than "I (cuddles) believe
> > the Nazis thought they were saving the world..."
>
> Correct. That is what I meant. And that is all that I meant. But I do
> not doubt that there are some who would have liked me to have meant
> something else and will therefore claim that I did, in fact, mean
> something else.
>
> > cuddles does think like this, and
> > has as much as said,
>
> Correct again, although I think you're getting a bit befuddled here . .
> . let us continue . . .
>
> > in fact he has said that the wrong side won the war.
>
> Yup, I'm still with you. That is the view I hold.
>
> > So first
> > answer this, cuddles: from exactly what, do you suppose the Nazis thought they were > saving the world?
> > Having been a participant in that particular war, and having studied just about
> > every aspect of that particular war, the causes, the effects, the events which lead
> > Hitler and his gang of thugs to plan and start WW-II, which included the
> > annihilation of *all people of the Jewish Faith, Japan's role in that particular war
> > as an ally of the Nazis, so far, I have run across *nothing which indicates that the
> > Nazis gave any thought of saving the world from anything.
>
> Try this:
>
> Dr Goebbels, in his speech entitled 'Don't be too Fair':
CF:>Goebbels was Propaganda Minister for the Nazis, anything this man said was for propaganda purposes,
nothing was true, nothing was sincere, he just lied and ranted. Had the Germans fooled, and evidently you
too.
Goebbels lies and deceit deleted...once is too much!
> Dr Goebbels again, in his speech on communism in 1935:
>
> > No, cuddles, Hitler wanted to rule Europe,
> > because he was a fruitcake.
>
> Now are you going to provide detailed evidence that Mr Hitler wanted to
> rule Europe because he was a fruitcake?
CF:>>Been done many times....using his own words.
> Or must we just take it on trust
> from you? Were the 90% of the German people who voted in the referendum
> to give him his powers also fruitcakes?
CF:>>>>>Sure seems like that to a rational person. They didn't have a clue how wrong they were did they?
>
>
> > He wanted all Jews dead, because he hated Jews all his
> > life.
>
> Is this speculation or do you have any evidence for this view?
CF:>>>You need more evidence? Pay attention to the program.
>
>
> > There was no altruistic motive on Germany's part to save anybody except their
> > own asses,
>
> In which case it seems rather surprising that they did not pursue a
> conciliatory course with their neighbours from the start.
CF:>>Not surprising at all. First the motives, then the statement of goals, then the action. They lied some
but did what they said they intended to do.
>
>
> > and they figured that out early on, when some of Hitler's *best > officers
> > tried to kill him. Pity they failed.
> >
> > Chuck Ferree
>
> Well, Chuck, if the Axis forces had won the war, one of the many
> benefits that the rest of the world would have enjoyed would have been
> the sight of the likes of you, murderer of innocent civilians, dangling
> from the scaffold.
CF:>>>>>That might give you comfort to imagine me swinging from a rope, but that wouldn't have happened at
all. I committed no war crimes. No Luftwaffe pilots were tried for anything they did, which was the exact
same thing I did, only better.
>
>
> Have a nice day.
Up yours!
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> Cuddles
David White
> >and Dresden and all the other towns that were bombed in this way? All
> >those innocent children and babies? 400 000 of them? And you people
> >consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
When your not trying to take over the world it's pretty easy to look at
someone who is and imagine yourself the moral superior.
David White
ORAC
>Cuddles wrote:
>
>> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>> > He wanted all Jews dead, because he hated Jews all his
>> > life.
>>
>> Is this speculation or do you have any evidence for this view?
>
>CF:>>>You need more evidence? Pay attention to the program.
Apparently Cuddles needs to go back and reread MEIN KAMPF, with particular
attention to what Hitler said about Jews. That ought to be proof enough
that Hitler hated the Jews at least as early as his incarceration for the
Beer Hall Putsch. If that's not enough, he can go and reread a few of
Hitler's speeches.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
Mark Van Alstine
Rosenberg) wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-090...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >In article <6t51et$4nt$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
> >Rosenberg) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
> >mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >> >In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
> >> >Rosenberg) wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing,
and the
> >> >> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
> >> >the best
> >> >> use of manpower or material.
> >> >
> >> >Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
> >> >important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
> >> >destruction of the German oil industry.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We're going to have to agree to disagree here.
> >
> >Then you're not only disagreeing with me, but many a military historian.
>
> That's okay; I don't mind.
I thought you would say something like that. };->
> >There is little doubt that The Allied bombing campaigns caused the
> >destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near total destruction of the German
> >oil industry, which crippled the Nazi war machine. (One can add to this
> >the crippling of the German transportation network as well.)
>
> That's not in dispute. The question is whether or not the resources could
> have been used more effectively.
But I would argue that the destruction of the Lutfwaffe, the German oil
industry et al. _was_ the most effective use of bomber assets. I certainly
played a significant role in winning the war.
> >> I think the resources would have been much more effective in support of
> >> (including preparation for) D-Day, and would have ensured the success
of it,
> >> even without Hitler's help in foisting his idee fixe about Calais on the
> >> General Staff. (An idee fixe that, granted, Allied intelligence went to a
> >> great deal of trouble to help along.)
> >
> >First off, without the Allied strategic bombing campaign there would have
> >been no such air assets available in the numbers required for Operation
> >Cobra, which made the Allied breakout from Normandy possible.
>
> Eh?
OK. I'll play a "what-if" for you: If strategic bombing would not have
been a policy made years prior to D-Day, there would have been little need
for strategic bombers. No bombers, no "Zuckerman's Folly" or Operation
Cobra. "Zuckerman's Folly" no paralysis of the German transport net on
D-Day and the Germans resupply and reinforce the beachead, pushing the
Allies back into the Channel. But even supposing the Allies held on: No
Operation Cobra, no breakout from Normandy. The Allies stay bottled up
with no strategic depth, get hammered by German fighters (and bombers)
that don't have to defend Germany, and no deep harbors to resupply
through. The Germans reinforce and and the fighting drags on for months,
allowing Donitz to redeploy his U-boats for wolpack raids intot he
Channel, sinking 200,000 tons of shipping and several capital ships.
Overloard fails, ending in a super-Dneiper or Gallipoli II and another
Dunkirk-like withdrawl.
So much for "what-if." Pfui.
> >Second,
> >Operations Point Blank and Argument gave the Allies _air supremacy_ over
> >Normandy on D-Day, making the beachhead- and later harbors -immune to
> >German air interdiction.
>
> Yes, they did.
>
> >Moreover, as Operation Cobra has shown, sustained air operations in
> >support of D-Day was not an either/or option with regard to the Allied
> >strategic bombing canpaign. The generation of bomber assets simply came
> >down to the decision to make the (ever growing) required assets available.
> >Third, you do not seem to have taken into account the Transportation Plan
> >(i.e. "Zuckerman's Folly") -the combined Bomber Command/Eighth Air Force
> >attacks on German railways prior to, and in support of, Overloard.
>
> Yes, there were preparatory and supporting bombings -- and more at the Pas de
> Calais, IIRC, than around the beachheads in Normandy.
>
> >
> >> D-Day was a close call, and if the Nazis had deployed their forces more
> >> effectively, it could have failed. It's only in retrospect that it seems
> >> inevitable, but it wasn't.
> >
> >Well, I generally don't play "what if" games. I leave that to Harry
> >Turtledove. I deal strictly in history. The simple fact is that by D-Day
> >Allied airpower had neutered the Luftwaffe, raised havoc in the German
> >heartland, _and_ disrupted the Wehrmacht's ability to supply and reinforce
> >Normandy.
>
> Well, I think you're missing an important point by not playing what if games.
Why? It's just playing the armchair general. I'm more interested in
understanding what happened and why it happened than "alternate history."
> If, after all the resources that had been spent, Hitler hadn't hobbled the
> General Staff, the landings could easily have failed, then perhaps those
> resources could have, as I claim, have better been spent elsewise.
But "what if" those resources _were_ best spent the way they were?
> Again: I'm not knocking the heroism or professionalism or integrity of those
> who made the decisions or flew the missions -- I'm just saying that, in
> retrospect,
Understood.
> > ...other choices would likely have been wiser.
And just as likely, perhaps not. "Best is the enemy of good enough." The
salient fact is simply this: D-Day _didn't_ fail and stategic bombing
_did_ cripple Germany's war machine. The choices were "good enough." They
won the war, which is all that counts in the end.
> >> A much lower level of activity, it seems to me, would have forced the
> >> Luftwaffe up to fight -- and thereby get creamed, in a replay in
> >reverse, with
> >> a twist, of the Battle of Britain.
> >
> >Nope. Though the Luftwaffe's back was broken in Big Week, it was a battle
> >of attrition that lasted throughout Operation Argument -i.e. from Febraury
> >to April 1944. Towards the end the Luftwaffe's fighters had be hunted down
> >and destroyed by USAAF fighters because they _didn't_ come up and defend
> >Germany against the Eighth Air Force's bombers.
> >
>
> Toward the end, yes.
After three months of brutal and bitter fighting in which the Luftwaffe-
because of strategic bombing -tried (and failed) to defend Germany against
Allied bombers and fighters. Afterwards the Luftwaffe lay prostrate and
could not defend either Germany _or_ support the Wehrmacht in France.
This, IMHO, was a decisive factor not only in the success of Overloard,
but the liberation of France as well.
IOW, it was resources well spent.
> >> Your point about the oil industry is
> >> persuasive, particularly given later events, but, again, I think that
> >> German infrastructure could have been better damaged after D-Day, from
> >> French airfields, and without having to make the bombers fly over so
> >> much enemy-held
> >
> >> territory without fighter cover.
> >
> >First off, the USAAF, from 1944 on,* _didn't_ have "to make the bombers
> >fly over so much enemy-held territory without fighter cover." Ever here of
> >the P-51 Mustang? You know, the airplane that won the air war in Europe?
> >};->
>
> I didn't make myself clear -- I was talking about the lack of fighter cover
> before D-Day. German air defenses took a huge toll of bombers and crews, and
> while the bombers were easily replaceable, the crews weren't.
Are you suggesting that there was a shortage of of operational
aircraft/crews circa June 1944?
> >*The P-51B was actully introduced in the ETO on September 17, 1943.The
> >354th FG flew the first P-51 mission to Germany: escorting 710 bombers on
> >the December 13, 1943 raid on Kiel (980 miles). (Cf. Boyne, _Clash of
> >Wings_, p.335.)
>
> And working, IIRC, at the outer limit of their range, and much less
> effectively than they could have if they didn't have to nurse their fuel
> consumption so heavily.
Flying from Britain the P-51D had, as I recall, about 30 minutes loiter
time over Berlin.
> >> Absolutely. But -- as demonstrated at Omaha beach -- the Allies just
> >> didn't have as much stuff in the air as they should/could/would have. It
> >> was a certainty that many bombs wouldn't fall on their targets -- that's
> >> why overkill is such a necessary part of such a campaign.
> >
> >One can shell and bomb the crap out of a beachhead but that doesn't mean
> >a dug-in enemy can be suppressed. The problem was that naval bombardment,
> >as with high-level bombing, isn't a panacea.
>
> Nothing is. But I don't think it's really a matter of contention that the
> landing forces could have used more air support...
Sure they could. What tactical commander in his right mind would turn down
extra air support? But "could have used more" is not the same as "there
weren't any more". You really need to demonstrate that it is, ya know....
> ...and that even itty-bitty-leetle-five-hundred-pound bombs can, if
dropped on > top of the most hardened site, at least temporarily give the
occupants other
> things to think about than machine-gunning troops on the beach.
Undoubtably. Like: "Where in the hell is _our_ air force!"
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Van Alstine
> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
> Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
> >of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
> >keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
>
> Good rationale for deliberately targeting civilians: it forces the enemy to
> allocate military resources for their defense, thus preventing them from
> allocating those resources elsewhere.
>
> Dresden, unfortunately, wasn't even defended,
So? All the better for the Allied aircrews.
> ...so not even this rationalization for mass-murder can be applied to the
> firebombing of Dresden.
You mean _your_ canard. Nobody has suggested that Dresden was
specifically bombed for that reason. That you suggest otherwise is telling
either to your lack of reading comprehension or scruples. Or both.
Mark Van Alstine
ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
> mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> >In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
> >(ORAC) wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
> >> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
> >> enemy....
> >
> >Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
> >the spirit of the enemy with air power.
>
> How so?
Most of the Iraqi regulars that weren't killed in air attacks before the
ground war began, or didn't go AWOL, gave up with little or no resistance.
> Substantial ground troops were still required to retake Kuwait.
Yup. Coalition forces suffered minor losses while infliincting enourmous
losses on the Iraqis. That's the whole point of overwhelming firepower.
John Morris
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>In <35f71c6c...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, on Thu, 10 Sep 1998
>01:18:05 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
>[deleted]
>> It wasn't a lie. It was true that most of the defendants were major
>> government officials. Streicher, as a minor government official, was
>> the exception.
>> I should have learned long before now that cheap propagandists like
>> you are apt to seize on minor points of carelessness and declare them
>> lies.
>I would take exception with Streicher being a "minor government
>official". He was a Gauleiter until 1940, and that position reported
>directly to Hitler. In addition, he enjoyed Hitler's special favour for
>years (he was one of his oldest comrades), and even after being
>cashiered in 1940 for accusing Goering of having artificially
>inseminated his wife, he was allowed to continue to publish _Der
>Stürmer_ until the end of the war, on Hitler's personal intervention.
Which paper was the gutter journalism side of Goebbels's more
restrained, though equally hateful, campaign against the Jews.
I was thinking more of defining "major" government figures as people
at the cabinet level, or figures like Kaltenbrunner who was the
highest surviving member of Himmler's ministry.
But Fritzsche wasn't at that level. Of course, he wasn't convicted.
Schacht and Papen *were* at that level, and they weren't convicted
either.
Anyway, I am certainly not going to argue with a correction which
strengthens my point. ;-)
John Morris
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>Then read on:
You keep begging the question. You have not yet proved it was a farce
of a trial, and you have not proved it because of your tendentious
refusal to examine the trial itself.
You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
conducted.
You seem to have the bizarre idea that being a POW makes one immune to
being prosecuted for crimes.
Lastly, *I* didn't round up anybody, nor did I murder anybody. Whether
I would have liked any of the defendants is irrelevant. Collective,
heritable guilt is your Nazi fantasy, though I notice that it is a one
way street.
>> The
>> Nuremberg defendants were not summarily executed but tried for crimes
>> which their government had agreed were crimes prior to the
>> commencement of hostilities.
>False. You have admitted that the basis for these trials was entirely ex
>post facto. The crimes for which they were 'tried' did not exist as such
>at the time they were allegedly committed.
You are a liar, Brian. I conceded no such thing.
What I said, and what I still say, is that the punishments, not the
offenses, were _ex post facto_ but also that there is a judicial basis
in common law for applying punishments where statute law is silent.
Now that I have gone back to refresh my memory on the common law basis
of the punishments, I have found that the argument did not involve
Anglo-American common law only but also international common law. The
common analogy to the Nuremberg trials is the international common law
on piracy at sea where international judicial punishment was mutually
respected before there were any international conventions on the law
of the sea.
What you seem incapable of grasping is that common law has the ability
to set judicial precedents.
>> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
>> >unnecessary suffering; "
>> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>> It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
>> case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
>> the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
>Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
>terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
>high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
>Morris?
It is not for me to say. You claim that it was unnecessary, then the
burden of proof falls to you to prove your claim.
You might wish to start by showing that the bombs were dropped on
areas where there were no legitimate military targets.
>> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
>> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> Same as e. You must demonstrate that the destruction of property was
>> unnecessary to he prosecution of the war.
>No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
>house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
>can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
>a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
>negative of that sort.
Quit making lame excuses for failing to prove your own historical
claims.
The Allies were fighting a war against an enemy willing to sacrifice
his entire nation to his own egomania. You're just pissed off because
they fought to win against your friends.
>> >" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
>> >the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
>> >belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
>> >party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
>> >country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
>> >commencement of the war."
>> >[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
>> So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
>> admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
>> know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
>> and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
>> the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
>No. In British criminal trials it is not for the Bench to rule on the
>admissibility of evidence. There is a very onerous piece of statute law,
>the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or 'PACE' at it's known, that lays
>down what is admissible and what is not. The Bench can rule on what is
>admissible only with reference to this Act. In other words the judge
>interprets this statute. At Nuremburg, the Charter is quite explicit
>that there are no limits on what may be admitted as evidence save that
>the judge consider it of probative value.
Oh, I see. When I cite British legal tradition, it is invalid, but
when you cite it, it is a perfectly good standard of evidence. Make up
your mind which way you want it, and get back to me.
Perhaps you would like to tell us what the Rules of Procedure say,
since they governed the conduct of the trial far more than did the
Charter. Perhaps you could even bring yourself to point out where bad
evidence figured into the judgments, since you seem to think there was
such a burden on the judges to treat the defence fairly in ruling
evidence admissible.
No? You'd rather spin out a fantasy trial based on your tendentious
reading of the Charter?
Maybe you could even bring yourself to list what else the Charter
says. Probably not, so here it is:
IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS
Article 16.
In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following
procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail
the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of
all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a
language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at
reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will
have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made
against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be
conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant
understands.
(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before
the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.
(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his
Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense,
and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.
>Let me give you a simple example. A newspaper report would normally be
>inadmissible as evidence here (I say 'normally' because one can envisage
>exceptional circumstances where it would -- for example, if it were
>found on the scene of a murder with the murderer's blood all over it).
Maybe you'd like to prove that you are not completely demented. Or, if
you would rather have that as a positive proposition, maybe you would
like to demonstrate that you have sufficient mental acuity to carry on
an intelligent conversation.
Sigh. If the newspaper were covered in blood, it would be submitted as
a newspaper covered in blood irrespective of the contents of any
article it contained. It would be a wholly different class of
artifact.
Have you looked up category errors yet? You should. You are an awfully
sloppy thinker.
>The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
Then who the hell rules on it, Lackwit?
>If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal.
If he did allow in bad evidence, then he ruled on its admissibility.
>At
>Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
>appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
>something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible.
Places quite a burden on the impartiality of the judges, then. Would
you care to point out where bad evidence was not recognized as such
and figured into their judgments?
Thought not.
>The STATUTORY
>protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
>would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
Then I guess you would have to say that they had only a judicial
protection from bad evidence.
>> Will you now talk about the actual trials and specify which rights the
>> Nuremberg defendants were denied?
>How's this for a start:
>1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
The only way you could determine whether the judges were impartial is
by looking at their rulings and their conduct.
But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
your fantasy of the trial.
>2. Right of fair indictment.
Moot. You can't tell if the indictment was fair until after the trial.
Unfortunately, you haven't even got to the beginning of the trial.
In addition, "16 (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars
specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the
Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment,
translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to
the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial."
>3. Right to be tried for crimes that existed when they were allegedly
>committed.
You still haven't named a crime which was not a crime before the Nazis
violated the Kellog-Briand Pact and invaded Poland.
>4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
The only way you could determine whether the judges were arbitrary in
sentencing is by looking at their judgments.
But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
your fantasy of the trial.
>5. Right of appeal.
They had the right of appeal against both judgments and sentences.
Appeals against both were filed.
>6. Right to be judged by a jury of their fellow countrymen.
ROTFLMAO! Germans had jury trials?
>> Simply stating that rights and actions have been abolished or
>> suspended does not make it so, and I note that the defendants were
>> -arrested;
>Arbitrarily.
Prove it.
>> -advised of their rights;
>Which were severely curtailed.
Prove it.
>> -allowed the counsel of their choice;
>But not an impartial forum in which to be judged.
Prove it by looking at the trial and not you fantasy of the trial.
>> -allowed to answer their accusers;
>But not to appeal against their judgment.
Wrong. Appeals were filed against judgments and sentences.
But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
>> -allowed to testify in their own defence;
>But not to challenge the admissibility of evidence against them that
>would not be allowed, say, in a British criminal court.
They did challenge the admissibility of evidence, and they won rulings
from the judges.
But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
In addition, "16 (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a
Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to
the charges made against him."
>> -allowed to examine all evidence entered against them;
>But not to challenge its admissibility.
A repetitive, unresponsive answer. The defence successfully challenged
the admission of evidence.
>> -allowed to rebut evidence entered against them;
>But not to challenge its admissibility.
A repetitive, unresponsive answer.
>> -allowed to enter their own evidence and exhibits;
>But not allowed to have it assessed by a jury of their fellow countrymen
>or judges other than those appointed by their former adversaries.
Oh, is it at this point that you start to have a vague recollection
that Germany didn't have jury trials?
Whoever the judges were appointed by, you have yet to prove their
partiality.
>> -allowed the cross-examination of witnesses;
>But not to challenge the admissibility of their contributions.
The argumentive equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and
shouting.
>> -allowed to call rebuttal witnesses;
>Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted at best.
No, it is a common judicial procedure and one of the procedures which
guarantees the rights of the accused.
>> -allowed the extraordinary right to make statements to the
>> court without prosecution rebuttal or cross-examination
>What's extraordinary about this. I have done the self same thing, both
>in Britain and in South Africa.
I guess you didn't say anything the prosecutors wanted to examine or
rebut.
>> -allowed the right to appeal judgments and sentences.
>See the Charter. It says no right of appeal.
See the trial for the first time. Appeals of judgments and sentences
were allowed and heard.
>> I note that some of the defendants' counsel exercised the right of
>> appeal above the objections of their clients,
>Which in itself sounds dodgy and has Stalinist undertones. If I hire
>counsel to represent me and counsel acts contrary to my instructions, I
>have every right to take them to the cleaners.
I rather think it a sign of the extraordinary effort to make the
trials as fair as possible that appeals of the guilt of the defendants
were heard even when the defendants were content to accept their
guilt.
Basically, your sucky argument boils down to saying that if the
defendants were content to accept their guilt, then the court should
have been content not to hear appeals.
>> and the appeals were not
>> heard by the justices who rendered the judgments and sentences.
>Charter says no right of appeal.
So what? You know, this is my point in a nutshell. You are so
determined to spin out a fantasy of the trial based on your reading of
the Charter that you even bring yourself to examine the trial itself.
Several defendants appealed. Live with it.
>> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
>> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
>> >prohibited."
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> Dresden was defended.
>The defenses were very sparse and were quickly overwhelemed. The
>continued bombardment of the city beyond that point infringe this
>article. Note, however, that even attacks on undefended dwellings or
>buildings is prohibited.
>
>> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
>> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
>> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
>> bombarded.
>But not WHICH cities and WHEN, of course.
>> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
>> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
>> >must be respected."
>> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>> The section is irrelevant to Nuremberg in that the "lives of persons"
>> were respected until legal convictions had been obtained.
>No. The defendants were murdered after a grotesque mock trial.
Tendentious question begging. Prove it by looking at the trial for the
first time.
>> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
>> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany at
>> the time of the bombardment.
>Don't know. I'll have to look it up again. That certainly wouldn't get
>you off the hook with Nuremburg, however. I'd say that during a
>bombardment, when ground defences have been overwhelmed, you have a
>situation exactly parallel to that which pertains when a land assault
>has been successful and enemy defences have been overwhelmed. The
>territory is effectively at the mercy of the attackers.
The Allies would only have had authority over territory which had been
captured or if Germany had surrendered.
Would you care to list the cities which were bombed after Allied
ground forces had taken them or which were bombed after Germany
surrendered?
>> >"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
>> >upon the population on account of the acts of
>> >individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
>> >responsible."
>> >[relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
>> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
>> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany or
>> Japan at the time of the bombardment.
>See above.
Why? You didn't say anything worth repeating.
>> The Nuremberg defendants were tried as the individuals responsible for
>> crimes committed by the government
>Precisely my point.
By the government which they represented.
Is that your point? That they were tried as the representative
officials of their own government? That they were the people who set
policy and made the decisions in their government? How on earth do you
try the crimes of a government without trying the leaders who made the
decisions?
>> >In the light of this I am sure you will see that there is a prima facie
>> >case for regarding the Allied leaders as war criminals.
>> Given that I have raised valid objections to each and every one of
>> your citations, you do *not* have a _prima facie_ case.
>Given that I have provided answers to your objections, except on one
>point where I need to consult the source document again, I think I most
>certainly *do* have a prima facie case, sir.
You don't know what _prima facie_ means, do you?
Joel Rosenberg
>In article <ORACII-0909...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>,
>ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
>> mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
>> >(ORAC) wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
>> >> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
>> >> enemy....
>> >
>> >Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
>> >the spirit of the enemy with air power.
>>
>> How so?
>
>Most of the Iraqi regulars that weren't killed in air attacks before the
>ground war began, or didn't go AWOL, gave up with little or no resistance.
>
>
>> Substantial ground troops were still required to retake Kuwait.
>
>Yup. Coalition forces suffered minor losses while infliincting enourmous
>losses on the Iraqis. That's the whole point of overwhelming firepower.
>
>Mark
>
Bad example. Iraqi line troops were never much of a muchness.
------------------------------------------------------------
http:/www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver Stone
(see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite pizza: Pepe's White Clam Turn-ons: chianti and liner locks
------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Ferree
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-110...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>, mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >In article <ORACII-0909...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>,
> >ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
> >> mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
> >> >(ORAC) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that bombing
> >> >> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
> >> >> enemy....
CF:>>>Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that bombing alone wins a war, but don't tell me it doesn't break the spirit of the
enemy. Vietnam wasn't a conventional war. Neither was Korea. We were limited as to what targets we could hit. Had we been permitted
to fly beyond the 29th Parallel, and bombed the shit out of all of North Korea, things would have been different. The other thing
to consider, when China entered that "Police Action" they didn't pay any heavy price for their involvement. So our Air Force was
limited to Mickey Mouse bombing raids. In WW-II, the spirit of the "enemy" wasn't broken by air power alone, but had the leadership
been realistic, they would have thrown in the towel before the end of 1944. Most battlefield commanders wanted to quit long before
they could, they knew it was hopeless, but being nutso, Hitler, killed some his best Military men, by the thousands, the moral of
the rest was all shot to hell, but I have to hand it to the German troops who hung in there, they made us pay dearly.
> >> >
> >> >Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
> >> >the spirit of the enemy with air power.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> >Most of the Iraqi regulars that weren't killed in air attacks before the
> >ground war began, or didn't go AWOL, gave up with little or no resistance.
> >
> >
> >> Substantial ground troops were still required to retake Kuwait.
> >
> >Yup. Coalition forces suffered minor losses while infliincting enourmous
> >losses on the Iraqis. That's the whole point of overwhelming firepower.
CF:>>>Kuwait, was a piece of cake to take, the Iraqis jammed up all escape routes back to Iraq, it was what we called a "turkey
shoot!" Some American pilots complained about continuing the slaughter. We should have set all of Irag's oil wells on fire, like
they did in Kuwait, and we could have, except we wanted the oil.
Chuck Ferree
Cuddles
Nice to see you putting up an argument, Mr G! And it's a tough one too.
Please read on.
> your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
> and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?
Philosophy -- no. I don't think National Socialism has a coherent
philosophy. That's one reason why various attempts to revive it tend to
result in numerous factions forming. I do have a lot more time for the
approach of the early Fascisti. I like their pragmatism: they don't ask
'how can I make my people serve my ideology', but rather 'which ideology
shall we apply here, now, in this particular instance, to serve my
people'. For me, politics is not a battle between 'Right' and 'Left' but
between idealogues and pragmatists. That's why I don't share the doom
and gloom of many nationalists. I see a movement towards a far more
pragmatic approach in politics nowadays -- a 'fascistization' of
politics. The gulf that separates, say, Tony Blair from Oswald Mosley is
not as great, in my view, as the gulf that separates Tony Blair from,
say, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the dogmatist at the far 'Left' of his
Labour Party. But this has nothing to do with National Socialism.
As to whether I sympathize with the goals of National Socialism, the
honest answer is that I sympathize with some of them. Just as I
sympathize with some of the goals of libertarianism and even some of
communism. I'm a true eclectic. If a man talks sense, and if the sense
that he talks can serve my country, then he is worth listening to
whatever labels he applies to himself. Again, I'm following in the
tradition of the likes of Mr Mussolini and, to a lesser extent, Sir
Oswald Mosley (neither of whom were, at first, particularly
anti-Semitic, I should add). Both were prepared to follow the
traditional political routes only insofar as they served the nation.
When they ceased to do so, they adopted a more opportunistic, pragmatic
approach, albeit at considerable personal cost.
> But perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. I'm only human, and
> Usenet often hides the subtle shadings of meaning that people intend when
> the post, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Perhaps, despite your
> many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not have National Socialist
> sympathies. If so, it's really quite simple for you to prove me wrong. All
> you have to do is to answer these two questions:
>
> 1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National Socialism?
Philosophy -- no. Goals -- some.
> 2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of National
> Socialism.
Philosophy -- sometimes. Goals -- some.
> Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and you've
> proven me wrong.
Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from the above
that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me show you why. Let's
consider where I think the Nazis were right and where I think they were
wrong.
So where do I agree with them?
First, Dr Goebbels made very clear, in 1935, the absolute opposition of
the German National Socialists to communism. This position was
reiterated by Mr Hitler. It seems quite plain to me that communism has
caused immense suffering throughout the world this century. Estimates of
the numbers slaughtered in its name exceed 200 million. It has enslaved
vast swathes of territory; it has destroyed whole national cultures; it
has caused misery exceeding anything known to mankind. With the
lamentable exception of the Molotov--Ribbentrop pact, which I hope was a
ruse, the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts.
And in so doing they have my complete support.
Second, the National Socialists were nationalists. At the end of the
day, nationalism, in the sense that I'd use it, is not an abstract
theory or set of propositions or ideology. It is love of one's people
and homeland, and a desire to serve, preserve and enhance them. Nothing
more and nothing less. It is a sentiment, like love of one's wife. It
cannot be justified or refuted, although, irritatingly, people keep
trying to justify it -- and I dare say you've shot a few of them down in
flames in this very newsgroup! It does not entail hatred of other
nations, any more than your love of your wife or children or pet hamster
entails hatred of other wives of children or hamsters. It is more a case
of: 'this is MINE -- this is what I love and shall defend'. Maybe I'm
just an old-fashioned Romantic, Mr G, but I sincerely love my homeland
and people, for all their faults, and would like to serve them as best I
can, not out of a wish for personal gain or to further any ideology, but
in the true spirit of public service. I recognize in the National
Socialists a similar spirit. How can I condemn in them a feeling that is
so strong in myself?
Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?
So where do I disagree with them.
First, as I indicated above, there is a lack of clarity as to intent and
purpose. Most National Socialist publications that I have seen nowadays
lack any clear direction. They seem to consist merely of the confused
mutterings of their publishers, which range from the odd, to the
mystical, to the completely daft.
Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership. You have
only to witness the undignified way in which the so-called leaders of
the movement today conduct themselves in this newsgroup to see this.
That they should indulge in public squabbling in the face of the enemy
is unforgivable and shows that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such
quarrels between brothers would have been settled in private, if
necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet.
Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement may, at
times, have participated in unjustified acts of brutality. This in no
way detracts from the fact that their enemies clearly did likewise, and
I do not lose sight of the fact that there was a war on, that 'war is
war' and 'these things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
disorganization, panic and resentment at times. Nevertheless, such
behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where it can be proven to have
occurred, it must be condemned unreservedly.
Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the past, have
taken their use of the race concept to extremes. I don't regard the Jews
as a 'race' but as a cultural group, although one that clearly tends to
attract adherents disproportionately from one particular 'race'. I can
see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my
own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I
am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to
be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic. I
tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think of several with whom I
formed good relationships, in three cases even friendships. This is not
to say that 'race' cannot be used as a relevant factor in political
decisions. Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children
are of 'mixed' race, it is imperative that race SHOULD be used in
political decisions if our culture and way of life is to survive even
one century into the new millennium. But the concept must be used
SENSIBLY.
Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the fuhrer principle
and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr Adolf Hitler. I regret that I
would swear loyalty to no one other than myself. Mr Hitler was not
infallible. The fact that he managed to lose the most important war of
all time is clear evidence of this.
So, you see, Mr G, I think that there is good and bad in it. As with
most political movements. The trick, methinks, is to preserve and
enhance the good while doing away with the bad. In other words,
pragmatism should rule.
> I'm sure you can do that little thing just to prove my assertion wrong,
> can't you? (Of course, just remember that if you decide to do so
> insincerely just to make me look bad it'll certainly come back to haunt
> you later when you post something that contradicts your answers to these
> questions...)
Well, I know there's always a temptation to label things. I think labels
usually tend to oversimplify and hence distort. It depends what you want
to do. If you want to smear me, then I suppose applying the 'Nazi' label
is as good as any. If you want to accurately classify me for some
obscure purpose, the 'Nazi' label would not fit particularly well.
> >Do you disagree with me on this point? Why?
>
> For the most part, yes, I do disagree. The primary purpose of Germany's
> war was not primarily to "save the world" but to secure Lebensraum for
> Germany in the East, as described in MEIN KAMPF. Later, when it became
> clear that Germany was losing the war that it had started, the only thing
> the Nazis were trying to save was their hides.
I think they were trying to save the world from Bolshevism, from what
they saw as Jewish influence, and from a variety of other 'degenerate'
forces. Certainly they wanted to secure Lebensraum and I think they
wanted to rectify what they saw as unjust conditions imposed upon them
by brute force at the end of the First World War. If you can let me know
precisely what it is you disagree with in this I'll fish around and try
to find some documented backup for it.
Cuddles
Gord McFee
07:54:52 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
> In <3600112b...@news3.ibm.net>, on Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:41:26 GMT,
> gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >In <35f71c6c...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, on Thu, 10 Sep 1998
> >01:18:05 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
>
> >[deleted]
>
> >> It wasn't a lie. It was true that most of the defendants were major
> >> government officials. Streicher, as a minor government official, was
> >> the exception.
>
> >> I should have learned long before now that cheap propagandists like
> >> you are apt to seize on minor points of carelessness and declare them
> >> lies.
>
> >I would take exception with Streicher being a "minor government
> >official". He was a Gauleiter until 1940, and that position reported
> >directly to Hitler. In addition, he enjoyed Hitler's special favour for
> >years (he was one of his oldest comrades), and even after being
> >cashiered in 1940 for accusing Goering of having artificially
> >inseminated his wife, he was allowed to continue to publish _Der
> >Stürmer_ until the end of the war, on Hitler's personal intervention.
>
> Which paper was the gutter journalism side of Goebbels's more
> restrained, though equally hateful, campaign against the Jews.
Yes, and, perhaps more importantly, reflected the perverted, almost
pornographic view Hitler had of them too.
> I was thinking more of defining "major" government figures as people
> at the cabinet level, or figures like Kaltenbrunner who was the
> highest surviving member of Himmler's ministry.
I understand. I was talking about reporting relationships.
> But Fritzsche wasn't at that level. Of course, he wasn't convicted.
> Schacht and Papen *were* at that level, and they weren't convicted
> either.
>
> Anyway, I am certainly not going to argue with a correction which
> strengthens my point. ;-)
Hehehe.
Mark Van Alstine
[Lord Baa Baa's irrelevant drivel snipped]
> "Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
> villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
> prohibited."
> [relevant to Dresden]
As to the claim that Dresden was undefended it should be noted that over
Dresden, on 2/14/45, USAAF combat losses were: 5 bombers shot down; 54
bombers damaged but repairable; 3 damaged bombers declared "salvage." (1
kill was claimed.) (Cf. Freeman, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_, p.439.)
Now, considering that 54 out of 311 attacking bombers were damaged (17
percent), it can hardly be argued that Dresden was undefended. The ratio
of damaged aircraft over Dresden was about half that damaged over Berlin
on February 3, 1945. This doesn't sound like Dresden was "undefended" to
me!
Moreover, according to the Hague Convention, factories producing war
materials, lines of communication, and "transportation used for military
purposes" were legitimate military targets:
Hague Rules of Aerial Warfare
[32 A.J.I.L. (Supp.) 12 (1938), signed 2/19/23, at The Hague; not in force]
<begin quote>
Article 24. (1) Aeriel bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a
military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or
injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.
(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the
following objectives: military forces; military works; military
establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known
centers engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively
military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for
military purposes.
[...]
<end quote>
Source: Reisman ans Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, p.83.
According to Boyne, for example, Dresden was indeed a legitimate military
objective:
<begin quote>
With remorseless efficiency, Bomber Command launched 855 planes against
Dresden on the night of February13-14, the 786 attacking planes dropping
2,600 tons of bombs. In a now-familiar scenario, the Eighth Air Force
attacked on the following two days, February 14 and 15, with a total of
521 bombers. Massives fires similar to those in Hamburg erupted, and the
German and neutral press press commented indignantly on the extensive loss
of life. Initial estimates indicated more than 100,000 dead, but offical
German police records later revised this down to approximately 35,000 to
60,000 killed or missing. As in all the devastated German cities, there
was no precise count of transient military personnel, displaced persons,
migrant workers, or slave laborers.
Unaware or insensitive to the brewing controversy, the Eighth Air Force
raided Dresden twice more before the end of the war, focusing the attacks
on the marshalling yards, unquestionably legitimate military targets.
Eisenhower was perhaps unreasonably concerned about the establishment of
an Alpine redoubt, but cannot be censured for wanting to minimize the flow
of troops from the eastern front to the area.
[...]
...Dresden was a military target because it had crucial rail,
governmental, and industrial facilities; the Soviets Union wanted it
bombed to facilitate the advance of its armies....
<end quote>'
Source: Boyne, _Clash of Wings_, pp.355,356.
The civilian casulties incurred by bombing Dresden were the result of
"focusing the attacks on the marshalling yards, [which were]
unquestionably legitimate military targets." So go the fortunes of war.
[Lord Baa Baa's irrelevant drivel snipped]
> "Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
> property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
> must be respected."
> [relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>
> "Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
> upon the population on account of the acts of
> individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
> responsible."
> [relevant to Dresden, Nuremburg and the attacks on Japan]
>
Relevant to Dresden et al.? Not in the least! Articles 42-50, subtitled
"Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State", deals with
the responbilities of the belligerent who _occupies_ territory (e.g. the
Nazi occupation of Poland).
Articles 46 and 50 _are_, however, supremely relevent to Nazi atrocities
against the civilian populations of Nazi occupied countries and
territories:
Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Lans,
Annex to the Convention [1 Bevens 63, signed 10/18/07, at The Hague]
<begin quote>
Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State
Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed
intot he hands of the occupant, the latter shall take al the measures in
his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force
in the country.
[...]
Article 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be
repsected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
Article 47. Pillage is formally forbidden.
[...]
Article 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
upon the population on account of the acts of the individuals for which
they cannot be regarded jointly and severally responsible.
<end quote>
Source: Reisman ans Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, pp.232-233.
According to Telford Taylor, Nazi atrocities against Polish civilains, for
example, were _plainly_ war crimes:
<begin quote>
The provisions of the Hague Convention and [first] Geneva conventions thus
became applicable, and the violations of the German's obligations to the
Polish civilain populations were therefore plainly war crimes...
<end quote>
Source: Taylor, _The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials_, p.22.
[Lord Baa Baa's bleating snipped]
Mark Van Alstine
> Mike Curtis wrote:
[snip]
> > LOL! How creative of you, Cuddles?
>
> Why? Mr Morris said I couldn't cite this document. I've cited it. Mr
> Morris was incorrect. What's your problem with that?
The problem is (now) that Lord Baa Baa misrepresented it.
[snip]
Mark Van Alstine
Rosenberg) wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-110...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >In article <ORACII-0909...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>,
> >ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
> >> mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ORACII-0709...@xs3-103.xsite.net>, ORA...@aol.com
> >> >(ORAC) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> The experience in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam have now shown us that
bombing
> >> >> alone almost never wins a conventional war or breaks the spirit of the
> >> >> enemy....
> >> >
> >> >Yet experiance in Desert Storm has shown that it is indeed possible break
> >> >the spirit of the enemy with air power.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> >Most of the Iraqi regulars that weren't killed in air attacks before the
> >ground war began, or didn't go AWOL, gave up with little or no resistance.
> >
> >
> >> Substantial ground troops were still required to retake Kuwait.
> >
> >Yup. Coalition forces suffered minor losses while infliincting enourmous
> >losses on the Iraqis. That's the whole point of overwhelming firepower.
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
> Bad example. Iraqi line troops were never much of a muchness.
OK. How bout German troops in Operation Cobra? They were utterly
demorialized, paralyzed even, by the carpet bombing. LIttle resistance
was offered when Patton rolled throught them and broke out.
ORAC
[A lot of stuff about his views on National Socialism and other things]
Well, this certainly was a voluminous post, and rather interesting.
Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a grant application and answering all
of your points in depth would take *way* too much time. (You can use this
opening to call me a "hit-and-run" debater again if you want, but it's
really true. I don't have the time right now. I really probably should be
abstaining from Usenet altogether for the next couple of weeks.
Unfortunately, I tend to be weak in that regard. In any case, this will be
relatively short, especially compared to your post.)
Allow me to summarize a couple of key points from your lengthy post. From
your post I gather that you sympathize with a considerable amount of the
philosophy of national socialism, particularly its nationalism and
die-hard opposition to Communism, but have a problem with its present form
and leadership, and that you also have a problem with the Fuehrer
principle and perhaps some of its more extreme forms of racism. However,
you openly state that you dislike Jews and agree in general with the Nazi
stereotype of Jews, an admission that is not surprising to me based on
your previous posts, implying that you probably sympathize to some degree
with the inherent racism of National Socialism.
I find National Socialism to be overall a reprehensible philosophy. My
main problems with it are twofold (although there are many others):
1.) I cannot agree with its lack of democratic principles and emphasis on
control of speech and the media to put out only "racially" or
"politically" acceptable speech. I've heard many National Socialists
discuss how the state supposedly should embody the will of the people and
should serve the race/state (these two concepts seem to be nearly
indistinguishable in many National Socialist writings). Many are openly
contemptuous of free speech, democracy, and limited government. It may
have many faults, but democracy, whether the American form or a
parliamentary form, is still clearly the best form of government.
2.) National Socialism's extreme emphasis on race and eugenics certainly
rubs me the wrong way. First, there is really little or no scientific
basis for National Socialist claims about racial differences or for
Hitler's eugenic program, although the original Nazis claimed that there
was, and present-day National Socialists often cloak their racism in
biology, genetics, and various other sciences. As a scientist, it offends
me to see science falsely represented to support a philosophy that denies
people equal representation under the law solely because of something they
can't control, their race. It is this very emphasis on race and and
eugenics that led first to a massive program of involuntary sterilization
of those the Nazis considered "unfit," which ultimately led to involuntary
euthanasia for the "unfit." From there, it was a relatively short step to
the Holocaust.
3.) The anti-Semitism inherent in National Socialism is morally wrong and
irrational. National Socialism uses Jews as a scapegoat for everything it
considers wrong with the world with very little evidence. It is an
obsession, more than anything else.
It always makes me sad to see a seemingly intelligent person sympathizing
with a philosophy as abhorrent as anti-Semitism, racism, and National
Socialism. You're no exception.
Cuddles
Mr Curtis! I think you are fair game for a little 'outing' yourself. And
you have just dropped what must be the best clanger since Yale Edeiken's
'Germany declared war on Britain', handing me, as it were, the weapon
with which to administer the coup de grace to your credibility.
You have long been trying to get people in this newsgroup to regard you
as something other than a complete joke. You began by pretending to be
an historian. You told me that I knew nothing about the Cold War. I then
asked YOU whether you knew Wojciech Jaruzelski's latest views on the
issue. You admitted that you didn't have the slightest idea who
Jaruzelski was!
One would have thought that you would have learned from this episode
that the Nizkor trick of discrediting one's opponent by demonstrating
his/her ignorance only works if you actually know more about your
subject than your opponent. If you know less, you end up looking very,
very silly indeed. But no! This time you pretend to be a lawyer! And
again, you end up getting splattered.
In your post of last Thursday, 're. For John Morris', the following
exchange took place between us:
<begin quote, with your words>
> >> When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
> >> will be all up hill.
> >
> >Why would judges say that to someone who works in a bookshop, Mike?
>
> Because I don't work in a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!
<end quote>
You will note that my attention was drawn to your comment 'When Judges
say I'm being creative'. Here you were clearly indicating that you
appear before Judges. More than that, that you actually present argument
before them (as opposed to being represented before them). The
implication being that now you are a man of law . . .
But let us return for a moment to your comment 'Because I don't work in
a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!'
Let us return to your message id. <3580d47b....@news.sig.net>
dated 11 June 1998 and posted at 13:20:53 GMT precisely. In this you are
on record as having stated:
<begin quote>
I run a bookstore and program computers for living.
<end quote>
It's there on Dejanews for everyone to check.
Now, Mr Curtis -- or should I address you as 'my learned friend'? -- why
did you state that you do not work in a bookshop when you very clearly
do? In other words, Mr Curtis, why did you lie? And I'm going to keep
pressing you on that until I get a straight answer.
And to spare you unnecessary embarrassment, let me add that I know the
name of your bookshop (although I would not post it unless invited to by
you) and (if so invited) I can post evidence that you were there only a
few weeks ago!
And when you've finished with that little question, please do inform me
of your legal qualifications. Why is it that judges tell you that you
are being 'creative'?
Or do they tell you that you have been 'creative' after you have been
dragged before the courts as a defendant and have been found telling
lies like the one you told last week, Mr Curtis?
Cuddles
Cuddles
>
> > > Although the primary objective of the bombing was to destroy Germany's
> > > armaments industry, punishment was probably also part of the motive,
> > > albeit a much smaller motive.
> >
> > Incorrect, sir. The objective was given in an Air Staff memo that it
> > cited in Harris's Despatch, para. 3. It was to cause '(i) destruction,
> > and (ii), the fear of death'.
>
> with "'morale' (i.e. industrial areas)" as the secondary, targeting
> priority of Bomber Command. Under Harris, in the beginning of 1942, after
> the shockwaves of the Butt Report had reverberated through Downing Street,
> Air Ministry, and Bomber Command, the targeting priorites were changed.
> "In cumbersome but clear enough terms the new directive instructed the Air
> Officer Commanding-in-Chief: 'The primary object of your operations should
> now be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population, and in
> particular th industrial workers.'" (Cf. Richard, _The Hardest Victory_,
> pp.86-87,96-98,112.)
Thanks for the clarification, Mr Van Allstine.
> > In other words it was terrorism.
>
> No, it was total war. One that Nazi Germay started -and the Allies would
> finish.
I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
clear. Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
Serbia.
> > > However, it's more likely that it was
> > > punishment for the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940, when for two
> > > solid months, the Germans attacked Britain (mainly London) day and night,
> > > sometimes with as many as 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters and
> > > sometimes with only a few.
> >
> > Really? So who were they punishing?
>
> According to Richard:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Though critics in recent years have tended to regard 'destroying morale'
> as a euphamism for 'killing', it was no part of this policy to
> deliberately slaughter civilians. Heavy civilian casulties would
> inevitably be involved, but the intention was to make it difficult or
> impossible for civilians, many of whom were an essential part of the war
> machine, to remain at their industrial or administrative jobs. It was
> hoped to break their will to do so by destroying their houses and all the
> comforts and necessities of a civilized urban life. If the civilians fled
> to the countryside, or the authorities managed to ecavuate them from major
> towns- as British mothers and children had been evacuated in the early
> days of the war -so much the better: the industrial desert could be
> created with less loss of life.
>
> As a practical policy at this stage of the war the attacking industrial
> centres and housing had one obvious merit: Bomber Command could hit urban
> areas with much less difficulty than individual factories. To make it
> effective, however, turned out to be a much harder and longer task than
> the Goivernment and Air Staff then thought. This was not simply because
> Bomber Command was limited in size and techniques, but because German
> morale was not in the least fragile, or impaired, as British Intelligence
> sources were reporting. Fed on conquests and the fruits of conquest, the
> Germans had hardly begun to feel the pinch of war. Lord Trenchard had
> given his opinion that in any 'bombing contest' the German people would
> cave in long before the British -but this was only Lord Trenchard's
> opinion. IN fact, the Germans then, as at other times, were brave,
> patriotic and disciplined people. They were not at all likely to panic and
> succumb quickly. Moreover, they had an additional spur to continue working
> despite the bombing of their cities: the Gestapo would regard them
> unfavourably if they did not. 'The Germans,' Harris was to observe later,
> 'are not allowed the luxury of morale.'
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, p.86.
I think that, as with the Nazis and the Jews, arguments about intent are
speculative. People can say they intend one thing and intend something
else. I suspect that there were real murderous bastards on both sides.
> > The innocent civilians of Hamburg and Dresden and all the other towns that
> > were bombed in this way? All those innocent children and babies? 400 000
> > of them?
>
> <begin quote>
>
> One night in December 1940, shortly after he had become Deputy Chief of
> the Air Staff, Harris had called Portal up to the roof of the Air Ministry
> in King Charles Street, Westminster, to watch the 'Blitz'- 'the old city
> in flames -with St. Paul's standing out in the midst of an ocean of
> fire...an incredible sight'. The two men gazed silently at the burning
> capital. Then Harris spoke: 'Well...they are sowing the wind.'
>
> It was the only time, he wrote later, that he felt vengeful. Vengeful or
> not, he would do his best to make sure the whirlwind followed.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, pp.110-111.
Interesting material w.r.t. the 'intent' argument. Thanks.
> > And you people consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
>
> Yes.
Heh! Well, at least you're honest Mr V.
B.T.W. -- I owe you an apology -- I haven't forgotten your post on
Japan. I've repeatedly said I'll answer but I really have to find a
period of several hours when I can sit down and follow the arguments.
Things will get quieter in December (I hope) and I'll deal with those
'big' posts then.
Cuddles
Mark Van Alstine
It is crystal clear, evidently, to everyone except Nazi apologists.
> Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> Serbia.
That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
Hitler starting World War II.
I disagree. I think there is plenty of evisdence available to be able to
discern true intentions.
> People can say they intend one thing and intend something
> else.
And people can say one thing and mean it.
> I suspect that there were real murderous bastards on both sides.
Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
> > > The innocent civilians of Hamburg and Dresden and all the other towns that
> > > were bombed in this way? All those innocent children and babies? 400 000
> > > of them?
> >
> > <begin quote>
> >
> > One night in December 1940, shortly after he had become Deputy Chief of
> > the Air Staff, Harris had called Portal up to the roof of the Air Ministry
> > in King Charles Street, Westminster, to watch the 'Blitz'- 'the old city
> > in flames -with St. Paul's standing out in the midst of an ocean of
> > fire...an incredible sight'. The two men gazed silently at the burning
> > capital. Then Harris spoke: 'Well...they are sowing the wind.'
> >
> > It was the only time, he wrote later, that he felt vengeful. Vengeful or
> > not, he would do his best to make sure the whirlwind followed.
> >
> > <end quote>
> >
> > Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, pp.110-111.
>
> Interesting material w.r.t. the 'intent' argument. Thanks.
>
> > > And you people consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Heh! Well, at least you're honest Mr V.
Yes. And you are not.
[snip]
Cuddles
Have you read the psychologist Jean Piaget? He had a theory that
children's thought develops through certain fixed stages. First there's
the sensorimotor stage, when they begin to distinguish themselves from
the world around them. Next there's the concrete operational stage, when
they can reason so long as they have real, concrete things to
manipulate. They end up at the formal operational stage, when they
become capable of abstract reasoning. It appears you've not got there
yet, Mr M!
> You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
> have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
> conducted.
Why not? That's a serious question. I want to get at why it is that an
attack on the jurisprudential basis of the Nuremburg trials should
require a consideration of 'how the trial was conducted' rather than the
legal basis for the trial.
> You seem to have the bizarre idea that being a POW makes one immune to
> being prosecuted for crimes.
Nope. You have the more bizarre idea that winning a war entitles people
to invent crimes, arbitrarily put their former foes on trial for those
'crimes' (even though the 'crimes' didn't exist at the time they were
'committed') and then kill them.
> Lastly, *I* didn't round up anybody, nor did I murder anybody. Whether
> I would have liked any of the defendants is irrelevant. Collective,
> heritable guilt is your Nazi fantasy, though I notice that it is a one
> way street.
<sigh> The English language lacks a clear distinction between second
person singular and plural. If I had been using French I would have said
'Vous', Italian 'Voi', Afrikaans 'julle', Polish 'wy'. Better?
> >> The
> >> Nuremberg defendants were not summarily executed but tried for crimes
> >> which their government had agreed were crimes prior to the
> >> commencement of hostilities.
>
> >False. You have admitted that the basis for these trials was entirely ex
> >post facto. The crimes for which they were 'tried' did not exist as such
> >at the time they were allegedly committed.
>
> You are a liar, Brian.
Oh but I thought I was David a couple of posts ago! :)-
Wrong, by the way! (Couldn't possibly let the world remain under the
illusion that I had a name like Brian!)
> I conceded no such thing.
>
> What I said, and what I still say, is that the punishments, not the
> offenses, were _ex post facto_ but also that there is a judicial basis
> in common law for applying punishments where statute law is silent.
My misunderstanding of your position, for which I apologise.
> Now that I have gone back to refresh my memory on the common law basis
> of the punishments, I have found that the argument did not involve
> Anglo-American common law only but also international common law. The
> common analogy to the Nuremberg trials is the international common law
> on piracy at sea where international judicial punishment was mutually
> respected before there were any international conventions on the law
> of the sea.
> What you seem incapable of grasping is that common law has the ability
> to set judicial precedents.
Not at all. I take your point entirely. So now we move to phase two of
the argument, which is to consider whether in this instance there were
indeed precedents arising from common laws against piracy.
First, it is one thing entirely to apply precedent established at sea to
crimes committed at sea. You might indeed have a case for hanging
Streicher had he conducted his operations from a ship that he had
unlawfully taken over. However, the 'crimes' for which the defendants
were, inter alia, killed, were, on the whole, alleged to have been
committed in Europe. To the best of my knowledge and belief Europe is
not a sea. We might wish that bits of it -- particularly Belgium -- were
a sea, but it is not. To put it in blander terms: we may DISTINGUISH the
common law applied to pirates from the very different set of
circumstances pertaining in the Second World War. You are applying
custom established under one set of circumstances in one particular
jurisdiction to another set of circumstances in another jurisdiction.
This is, by the way, a very important legal argument. If you are going
to cite precedent you must compare like with like. Otherwise you end up
with a situation where a British judge applies Mongolian common law
penalties against, say, kidnapping to a man who has been found not to
have paid outstanding wages to a dismissed employee in Chiswick.
Second, the counts for which the defendants were accused have no basis
in the common law you have cited. Crimes against humanity, etc., simply
did not exist, to the best of my knowledge, in the law of the sea. Now,
even if you had established that 'the common law has the ability to set
judicial precedents', you have most certainly not established that the
common law has the ability to come up with completely new crimes AND,
moreover, to put people on trial for those crimes even though the crimes
did not exist when they were allegedly committed?
Third, common law is, by definition, the body of law established through
custom and prior judgment, as opposed to the body of law created through
statute. However, the Nurmeburg trials were entirely novel! There had
never been anything like them! The particular set of circumstances that
existed leading up to the trials, the establishment of the trials, the
rules employed during the trials, the crimes, the selection of
defendants . . . these were quite without precedent. How then, can these
trials be said to be in accordance with any common law.
Fourth -- the obvious point. Initially you said that the Nuremburg
trials had their basis in treaties. You referred me to three. I checked
two up. Those treaties made no provision for the establishment of the
Nuremburg trials. You might make a persuasive case that the Germans
broke those treaties. Fine! We might make a case that so did the Allies,
certainly in the case of one of them. However, the trials certainly
cannot be said to derive their legality from these documents. I asked
you to quote me the precise clauses of these treaties giving legal force
to the Nuremburg trials. You could not do so. Instead you made vague
references to, but could not cite, 'Anglo-American' common law. I
pointed out that it was an entirely novel and arbitrary event to apply
'Anglo-American' common law (whatever that might be) to crimes allegedly
committed in, inter alia, the Soviet Union, which had a very different
legal system. Now you appeal to the law of the sea. It seems to me that
it is quite clear that (a) you haven't a clue what you're talking about,
and (b) you are drawing from a hotchpotch of different legal traditions
in an entirely arbitrary and novel way in a post hoc attempt to justify
the treatment meted out to the defendants at Nuremburg.
> >> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
> >> >unnecessary suffering; "
> >> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>
> >> It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
> >> case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
> >> the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
>
> >Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
> >terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
> >high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
> >Morris?
>
> It is not for me to say. You claim that it was unnecessary, then the
> burden of proof falls to you to prove your claim.
I see. So an army can go around slaughtering civilians and it is for
others to prove that the slaughter was NOT necessary rather than for the
army to explain and justify its actions?
Hang on! Can't we turn this argument around and use it against you. Let
us suppose that the Germans DID do all the beastly things they are
accused of. Are you saying that it is for YOU to prove that these
slaughters were not necessary to save the world from Bolshevism,
International Jewry, or indeed, little green men from Mars?
> You might wish to start by showing that the bombs were dropped on
> areas where there were no legitimate military targets.
Read Harris's 'Despatch'. If you post a contact address somewhere I'll
even send you a copy gratis.
> >> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
> >> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> >> Same as e. You must demonstrate that the destruction of property was
> >> unnecessary to he prosecution of the war.
So, Hague notwithstanding, an army can go around destroying people's
property as much as it likes, and it is for the VICTIMS to prove that
such destruction was unnecessary rather than for the army, or its
political controllers, to explain and justify its actions. Hmmm.
Fascinating.
> >No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
> >house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
> >can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
> >a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
> >negative of that sort.
>
> Quit making lame excuses for failing to prove your own historical
> claims.
If you disagree with what I said above, why can't you produce a reason
for disagreeing?
> The Allies were fighting a war against an enemy willing to sacrifice
> his entire nation to his own egomania. You're just pissed off because
> they fought to win against your friends.
Sounds like you've given up the ghost, Mr Morris.
> >> >" h.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
> >> >the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
> >> >belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile
> >> >party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
> >> >country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the
> >> >commencement of the war."
> >> >[first sentence relevant to Nuremburg]
>
> >> So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
> >> admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
> >> know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
> >> and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
> >> the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
>
> >No. In British criminal trials it is not for the Bench to rule on the
> >admissibility of evidence. There is a very onerous piece of statute law,
> >the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or 'PACE' at it's known, that lays
> >down what is admissible and what is not. The Bench can rule on what is
> >admissible only with reference to this Act. In other words the judge
> >interprets this statute. At Nuremburg, the Charter is quite explicit
> >that there are no limits on what may be admitted as evidence save that
> >the judge consider it of probative value.
>
> Oh, I see. When I cite British legal tradition, it is invalid, but
> when you cite it, it is a perfectly good standard of evidence. Make up
> your mind which way you want it, and get back to me.
Oh, it's perfectly good. But not when you apply it to crimes committed
in the Soviet Union. Not when you combine arbitrarily with American law
to invent something called 'Anglo-American common law', which you then
apply (retrospectively) to justify judgements for the commission of
non-existent crimes in Germany. Not when you try to imply that the
Nuremburg trials were given legal force by it.
Yup. I don't dispute any of that. But you're still stuck with those
awkward clauses in the Charter that I cited earlier.
> >Let me give you a simple example. A newspaper report would normally be
> >inadmissible as evidence here (I say 'normally' because one can envisage
> >exceptional circumstances where it would -- for example, if it were
> >found on the scene of a murder with the murderer's blood all over it).
>
> Maybe you'd like to prove that you are not completely demented.
How could I do that? :)
> Or, if
> you would rather have that as a positive proposition, maybe you would
> like to demonstrate that you have sufficient mental acuity to carry on
> an intelligent conversation.
>
> Sigh. If the newspaper were covered in blood, it would be submitted as
> a newspaper covered in blood irrespective of the contents of any
> article it contained. It would be a wholly different class of
> artifact.
I believe that was my point.
> Have you looked up category errors yet? You should. You are an awfully
> sloppy thinker.
Well, I have my good days and bad . . .
> >The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
>
> Then who the hell rules on it, Lackwit?
The judge may rule only that it is inadmissible. Otherwise there is
ground for appeal.
> >If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal.
>
> If he did allow in bad evidence, then he ruled on its admissibility.
And the ruling could be appealed to a higher court.
> >At
> >Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
> >appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
> >something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible.
>
> Places quite a burden on the impartiality of the judges, then. Would
> you care to point out where bad evidence was not recognized as such
> and figured into their judgments?
I understand that there was a lot of hearsay evidence, photocopied
documents, evidence from people with a clear axe to grind.
> Thought not.
> >The STATUTORY
> >protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
> >would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
>
> Then I guess you would have to say that they had only a judicial
> protection from bad evidence.
Correct. And in a situation where the judiciary were appointed by the
former enemies of the accused in a bitter and bloody battle.
> >> Will you now talk about the actual trials and specify which rights the
> >> Nuremberg defendants were denied?
>
> >How's this for a start:
>
> >1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
>
> The only way you could determine whether the judges were impartial is
> by looking at their rulings and their conduct.
NO!!!! If the judges were appointed by the former enemies of the accused
in a bitter war, that is in itself sufficient.
> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
> your fantasy of the trial.
No. You want to discuss the detailed history of the trials. I am making
a simple jurisprudential point that you cannot answer.
> >2. Right of fair indictment.
>
> Moot. You can't tell if the indictment was fair until after the trial.
> Unfortunately, you haven't even got to the beginning of the trial.
Er . . . Mr Morris . . . it's 1998. The trial ended half a century ago!
We DO, in fact, have the benefit of hindsight. Indeed, we now have
access to formerly classified documents such as the Harris 'Despatch'.
> In addition, "16 (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars
> specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the
> Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment,
> translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to
> the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial."
>
> >3. Right to be tried for crimes that existed when they were allegedly
> >committed.
>
> You still haven't named a crime which was not a crime before the Nazis
> violated the Kellog-Briand Pact and invaded Poland.
Lets try crimes against humanity. Can you give me the legal basis for
that please, Mr Morris?
> >4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
>
> The only way you could determine whether the judges were arbitrary in
> sentencing is by looking at their judgments.
>
> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
> your fantasy of the trial.
Well, let's take one example: the hanging of Mr Streicher. Please could
you indicate how that was anything other than totally arbitrary.
> >5. Right of appeal.
>
> They had the right of appeal against both judgments and sentences.
> Appeals against both were filed.
The Charter very clearly states that there is no right of appeal.
> >6. Right to be judged by a jury of their fellow countrymen.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Germans had jury trials?
YOU invoked 'Anglo-American' common law, Mr Morris. Both England and
America have the right of trial by jury.
> >> Simply stating that rights and actions have been abolished or
> >> suspended does not make it so, and I note that the defendants were
>
> >> -arrested;
> >Arbitrarily.
>
> Prove it.
They arrested Streicher but not Harris. Or, put more broadly, the
Charter limited the power of arrest to the arrest of AXIS war criminals.
> >> -advised of their rights;
> >Which were severely curtailed.
> Prove it.
Arguments re. impartiality, universality, admissibility of evidence,
appeal, retroactive application of novel law, absence of legal basis for
the trial.
> >> -allowed the counsel of their choice;
> >But not an impartial forum in which to be judged.
> Prove it by looking at the trial and not you fantasy of the trial.
I am doing.
> >> -allowed to answer their accusers;
> >But not to appeal against their judgment.
> Wrong. Appeals were filed against judgments and sentences.
See the Charter.
> But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
> beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
I can only quote you what it says.
> >> -allowed to testify in their own defence;
> >But not to challenge the admissibility of evidence against them that
> >would not be allowed, say, in a British criminal court.
> They did challenge the admissibility of evidence, and they won rulings
> from the judges.
Twit! Of course they challenged the fact that virtually anything was
allowed in! And the fact that some of the stuff the prosecution tried to
get through was so cretinous that even the judges at Nuremburg couldn't
stomach it hardly detracts from the general point.
> But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
> beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
> In addition, "16 (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a
> Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to
> the charges made against him."
>
> >> -allowed to examine all evidence entered against them;
> >But not to challenge its admissibility.
>
> A repetitive, unresponsive answer. The defence successfully challenged
> the admission of evidence.
See above. The point is that in terms of the charter the only protection
against abuses regarding the admission of evidence was the judiciary.
There was no statutory protection. They could not challenge the
admissibility by appealing to statute such as PACE here in Britain.
Their only protection was the goodwill of the judges. And they were
appointed by the former enemies of the accused.
> >> -allowed to rebut evidence entered against them;
> >But not to challenge its admissibility.
> A repetitive, unresponsive answer.
See above.
> >> -allowed to enter their own evidence and exhibits;
> >But not allowed to have it assessed by a jury of their fellow countrymen
> >or judges other than those appointed by their former adversaries.
> Oh, is it at this point that you start to have a vague recollection
> that Germany didn't have jury trials?
Nope, YOU wanted to argue that the trials had their basis in
'Anglo-American common law' remember? Now you want to invoke German
domestic law! Hell, why not throw in Islamic law and perhaps a bit of
good old Soviet law too just for the fun of it. If you can't get the
buggers with one legal system, try another!
> Whoever the judges were appointed by, you have yet to prove their
> partiality.
See above.
> >> -allowed the cross-examination of witnesses;
> >But not to challenge the admissibility of their contributions.
> The argumentive equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and
> shouting.
I've already quoted the Charter at you. What more can I do?
> >> -allowed to call rebuttal witnesses;
> >Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted at best.
>
> No, it is a common judicial procedure and one of the procedures which
> guarantees the rights of the accused.
I agree that it is a common judicial procedure and that it tends to
protect, but does not guarantee, the rights of the accused. However,
given the other problems with the trial it was locking the door after
the horse had bolted.
> >> -allowed the extraordinary right to make statements to the
> >> court without prosecution rebuttal or cross-examination
> >What's extraordinary about this. I have done the self same thing, both
> >in Britain and in South Africa.
> I guess you didn't say anything the prosecutors wanted to examine or
> rebut.
My point is that there is nothing extraordinary about the right to make
statements to the court without prosecution rebuttal or
cross-examination.
> >> -allowed the right to appeal judgments and sentences.
> >See the Charter. It says no right of appeal.
> See the trial for the first time. Appeals of judgments and sentences
> were allowed and heard.
See above, we're going around in circles.
> >> I note that some of the defendants' counsel exercised the right of
> >> appeal above the objections of their clients,
> >Which in itself sounds dodgy and has Stalinist undertones. If I hire
> >counsel to represent me and counsel acts contrary to my instructions, I
> >have every right to take them to the cleaners.
> I rather think it a sign of the extraordinary effort to make the
> trials as fair as possible that appeals of the guilt of the defendants
> were heard even when the defendants were content to accept their
> guilt.
Funny how this extraordinary effort didn't extend to trying these people
in domestic courts for crimes that actually existed at the time when
they were allegedly committed.
> Basically, your sucky argument boils down to saying that if the
> defendants were content to accept their guilt, then the court should
> have been content not to hear appeals.
My argument is that counsel should represent their clients, not the
interests of the prosecution.
> >> and the appeals were not
> >> heard by the justices who rendered the judgments and sentences.
> >Charter says no right of appeal.
> So what? You know, this is my point in a nutshell. You are so
> determined to spin out a fantasy of the trial based on your reading of
> the Charter that you even bring yourself to examine the trial itself.
> Several defendants appealed. Live with it.
Mr Morris you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word RIGHT.
If I have a RIGHT of appeal to a superior court, it is not contingent
upon the indulgence of the court -- an indulgence designed doubtless to
try to cover over the otherwise ludicrous nature of the proceedings --
it is something to which I am entitled as a matter of law. And that
RIGHT of appeal is to a superior court.
> >> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
> >> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
> >> >prohibited."
> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> >> Dresden was defended.
> >The defenses were very sparse and were quickly overwhelemed. The
> >continued bombardment of the city beyond that point infringe this
> >article. Note, however, that even attacks on undefended dwellings or
> >buildings is prohibited.
No answer?
> >> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
> >> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
> >> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>
> >> The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
> >> bombarded.
>
> >But not WHICH cities and WHEN, of course.
No answer?
> >> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
> >> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
> >> >must be respected."
> >> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>
> >> The section is irrelevant to Nuremberg in that the "lives of persons"
> >> were respected until legal convictions had been obtained.
>
> >No. The defendants were murdered after a grotesque mock trial.
>
> Tendentious question begging. Prove it by looking at the trial for the
> first time.
No, I'll leave that to the historians. I'll prove it by looking at the
legal basis for the trial instead.
> >> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
> >> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany at
> >> the time of the bombardment.
>
> >Don't know. I'll have to look it up again. That certainly wouldn't get
> >you off the hook with Nuremburg, however. I'd say that during a
> >bombardment, when ground defences have been overwhelmed, you have a
> >situation exactly parallel to that which pertains when a land assault
> >has been successful and enemy defences have been overwhelmed. The
> >territory is effectively at the mercy of the attackers.
>
> The Allies would only have had authority over territory which had been
> captured or if Germany had surrendered.
>
> Would you care to list the cities which were bombed after Allied
> ground forces had taken them or which were bombed after Germany
> surrendered?
You might have a point. I'll have to look it up.
Sorry but I am about to run out of space again.
Cuddles
Cuddles
>
> In article <35F99A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> [A lot of stuff about his views on National Socialism and other things]
>
> Well, this certainly was a voluminous post, and rather interesting.
> Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a grant application and answering all
> of your points in depth would take *way* too much time. (You can use this
> opening to call me a "hit-and-run" debater again if you want, but it's
> really true. I don't have the time right now. I really probably should be
> abstaining from Usenet altogether for the next couple of weeks.
> Unfortunately, I tend to be weak in that regard. In any case, this will be
> relatively short, especially compared to your post.)
Don't worry -- I know the problem, Mr G. It's enfuriating because I'd
like to respond to well-thought-out posts with well-thought-out replies,
but this takes up time, so I end up answering the dafter ones and not
really doing justice to the good ones.
> Allow me to summarize a couple of key points from your lengthy post. From
> your post I gather that you sympathize with a considerable amount of the
> philosophy of national socialism, particularly its nationalism and
> die-hard opposition to Communism, but have a problem with its present form
> and leadership, and that you also have a problem with the Fuehrer
> principle and perhaps some of its more extreme forms of racism.
Yup. In a nutshell, except I don't really think that national socialism
had a 'philosophy'. If you read Count 1 of the Nuremburg indictment,
they argued that the Nazi's goals were always shifting. On that point,
if nothing else, they were right. It isn't a 'doctrine' like Marxism,
however much its new proponents might like to make it one.
> However,
> you openly state that you dislike Jews
That's overstating it. I have met a lot and I have been very much
surprised at the level of aggression, dishonesty and general
unpleasantness in that community. That doesn't mean they're all like
that, or that the ones who ARE like that are beyond redemption, but it
certainly seems to be a cultural feature of that community. Not sure
why. Heck, they even joke about it themselves!
> and agree in general with the Nazi
> stereotype of Jews, an admission that is not surprising to me based on
> your previous posts, implying that you probably sympathize to some degree
> with the inherent racism of National Socialism.
I don't see that implication. London's Metropolitan Police are also a
community of individuals whom I would regard as aggressive and
unpleasant, on the whole and with some exceptions. Does that 'imply'
that I am racially prejudiced against members of the Metropolitan
Police??? :)
> I find National Socialism to be overall a reprehensible philosophy.
I'm surprised that you find it to be a philosophy!!!
> My
> main problems with it are twofold (although there are many others):
>
> 1.) I cannot agree with its lack of democratic principles and emphasis on
> control of speech and the media to put out only "racially" or
> "politically" acceptable speech. I've heard many National Socialists
> discuss how the state supposedly should embody the will of the people and
> should serve the race/state (these two concepts seem to be nearly
> indistinguishable in many National Socialist writings). Many are openly
> contemptuous of free speech, democracy, and limited government. It may
> have many faults, but democracy, whether the American form or a
> parliamentary form, is still clearly the best form of government.
I believe the thinking is that the institutions of democracies are very
vulnerable to manipulation by malevolent forces. While they might appear
superficially fair and reasonable, in fact, so the argument goes, they
tend to serve the interests of international finance and the enemies of
the nation's interests.
> 2.) National Socialism's extreme emphasis on race and eugenics certainly
> rubs me the wrong way. First, there is really little or no scientific
> basis for National Socialist claims about racial differences or for
> Hitler's eugenic program, although the original Nazis claimed that there
> was, and present-day National Socialists often cloak their racism in
> biology, genetics, and various other sciences. As a scientist, it offends
> me to see science falsely represented to support a philosophy that denies
> people equal representation under the law solely because of something they
> can't control, their race. It is this very emphasis on race and and
> eugenics that led first to a massive program of involuntary sterilization
> of those the Nazis considered "unfit," which ultimately led to involuntary
> euthanasia for the "unfit." From there, it was a relatively short step to
> the Holocaust.
I can agree with you on the tendency of SOME neo-Nazis to resort to
pseudo-science. Irritates me too. That's one of my biggest criticisms of
them. However, your side is just as guilty with its 'all races are
equal' nonsense, which is certainly not true BIOLOGICALLY -- or in
several other respects (including socially relevant respects such as a
predisposition to commit crime).
> 3.) The anti-Semitism inherent in National Socialism is morally wrong and
> irrational. National Socialism uses Jews as a scapegoat for everything it
> considers wrong with the world with very little evidence. It is an
> obsession, more than anything else.
I think that the Jewish community contains some individuals who rub a
lot of people up the wrong way. I spent a year sincerely and honestly
helping a Jewish businessman, only to find myself lied to, lied about,
and ripped off. The episode cost me about £200 000 and the only reason I
couldn't sue him was a very obscure legal clause indeed that let him off
the hook. That sort of behaviour, which seems very common in the Jewish
community, is what makes people like me very wary of dealing with that
community.
> It always makes me sad to see a seemingly intelligent person sympathizing
> with a philosophy as abhorrent as anti-Semitism, racism, and National
> Socialism. You're no exception.
Heh! Well thanks for the compliment even if it did have a sting in it.
Read what I said again. I think you'll find that what I sympathise with
is not so abhorrent, and what is abhorrent is largely what I reject.
Hope your grant application goes well, Mr G.
Cuddles
Gord McFee
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
> was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> clear. Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> Serbia.
Mr Cuddles might wish to check out _The First World War_ by A.J.P.
Taylor and correct his mistaken impression.
Gord McFee
13 Sep 1998 18:30:03 GMT, mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com (Mark Van
Alstine) wrote:
[deleted]
> > > No, it was total war. One that Nazi Germay started -and the Allies would
> > > finish.
> >
> > I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
> > was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> > clear.
>
> It is crystal clear, evidently, to everyone except Nazi apologists.
Indeed. Heavens, even David Irving disagrees with that one.
> > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > Serbia.
>
> That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> Hitler starting World War II.
And an absolutely inaccurate one as well.
Mark Van Alstine
[snip]
> > You keep begging the question. You have not yet proved it was a farce
> > of a trial, and you have not proved it because of your tendentious
> > refusal to examine the trial itself.
>
> Have you read the psychologist Jean Piaget? He had a theory that
> children's thought develops through certain fixed stages. First there's
> the sensorimotor stage, when they begin to distinguish themselves from
> the world around them. Next there's the concrete operational stage, when
> they can reason so long as they have real, concrete things to
> manipulate. They end up at the formal operational stage, when they
> become capable of abstract reasoning. It appears you've not got there
> yet, Mr M!
Note Lord Baa Baa's continuing silly drivel, specious behavior, and ad
hominems to evade, as Mr. Morris points out, examining the trial itself.
> > You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
> > have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
> > conducted.
>
> Why not? That's a serious question....
No, it's not a serious question. It _is_, however, a specious question
-and an evasion.
[Lord Baa Baa's silly twaddle snipped]
> > >> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
> > >> >unnecessary suffering; "
> > >> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
> >
> > >> It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
> > >> case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
> > >> the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
> >
> > >Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
> > >terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
> > >high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
> > >Morris?
> >
> > It is not for me to say. You claim that it was unnecessary, then the
> > burden of proof falls to you to prove your claim.
>
> I see. So an army can go around slaughtering civilians and it is for
> others to prove that the slaughter was NOT necessary rather than for the
> army to explain and justify its actions?
But the "army" _did_ explain and justify it actions. It's just that Lord
Baa Baa, being a Nazi sympathizer and apoologist, doesn't like the
explination and justification. Too bad for him.
[Lord Baa Baa's silly twaddle snipped]
> > You still haven't named a crime which was not a crime before the Nazis
> > violated the Kellog-Briand Pact and invaded Poland.
>
> Lets try crimes against humanity. Can you give me the legal basis for
> that please, Mr Morris?
>
[Lord Baa Baa's silly twaddle snipped]
> > >> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
> > >> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
> > >> >prohibited."
> > >> >[relevant to Dresden]
> >
> > >> Dresden was defended.
> > >The defenses were very sparse and were quickly overwhelemed....
Even by your own admission Dresden _was_ defended so your protestations
are moot.
> > >The continued bombardment of the city beyond that point infringe this
> > >article. Note, however, that even attacks on undefended dwellings or
> > >buildings is prohibited.
>
> No answer?
Hague Rules of Aerial Warfare
<begin quote>
[...]
<end quote>
<begin quote>
[...]
<end quote>'
> > >> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
> > >> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
> > >> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
> > >> >[relevant to Dresden]
> >
> > >> The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
> > >> bombarded.
> >
> > >But not WHICH cities and WHEN, of course.
>
> No answer?
It would be rather stupid of the Allies to tell Germany in advance which
cities they were going to bomb. That would let the Lutfwaffe concentrate
its defence around that city and inflict even heavier losses than it
normally would have.
BTW, why does Lord Baa Baa not rail against the Nazis for _their_ bombing
of _Allied_ cities without giving advanced warning? Why does Lord Baa Baa
not rail against the Germans bombing Coventry, Rotterdam, or Warsaw as he
does against the Allied bombing of Dresden?
Could it be that Lord Baa Baa's Naziphillia colors his emotions and clouds
his thoughts?
Of course it could.
[Lord Baa Baa's silly twaddle snipped]
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>> Allow me to summarize a couple of key points from your lengthy post. From
>> your post I gather that you sympathize with a considerable amount of the
>> philosophy of national socialism, particularly its nationalism and
>> die-hard opposition to Communism, but have a problem with its present form
>> and leadership, and that you also have a problem with the Fuehrer
>> principle and perhaps some of its more extreme forms of racism.
>
>Yup. In a nutshell, except I don't really think that national socialism
>had a 'philosophy'. If you read Count 1 of the Nuremburg indictment,
>they argued that the Nazi's goals were always shifting. On that point,
>if nothing else, they were right. It isn't a 'doctrine' like Marxism,
>however much its new proponents might like to make it one.
Perhaps, but certain aspects of it did not shift much, including a
pseudobiological basis for its views on race, its contempt for democracy,
its insistence on the Fuehrer principle, its hatred of communism, and its
extreme anti-Semitism. All these existed from the beginning and still
existed at the end of the war.
>> However,
>> you openly state that you dislike Jews
>
>That's overstating it. I have met a lot and I have been very much
>surprised at the level of aggression, dishonesty and general
>unpleasantness in that community. That doesn't mean they're all like
>that, or that the ones who ARE like that are beyond redemption, but it
>certainly seems to be a cultural feature of that community. Not sure
>why. Heck, they even joke about it themselves!
Funny, I've heard a lot of jokes about Jews supposedly being greedy and
manipulative, but I've never heard any about them being aggressive or
unpleasant, even from anti-Semites.
>> and agree in general with the Nazi
>> stereotype of Jews, an admission that is not surprising to me based on
>> your previous posts, implying that you probably sympathize to some degree
>> with the inherent racism of National Socialism.
>
>I don't see that implication. London's Metropolitan Police are also a
>community of individuals whom I would regard as aggressive and
>unpleasant, on the whole and with some exceptions. Does that 'imply'
>that I am racially prejudiced against members of the Metropolitan
>Police??? :)
Silly example. The Metropolitan Police are not a "race."
>> I find National Socialism to be overall a reprehensible philosophy.
>
>I'm surprised that you find it to be a philosophy!!!
True, it's a muddle-brained philosophy that is hard to define, but, as I
said above, certain aspects of it have remained pretty constant.
>> My
>> main problems with it are twofold (although there are many others):
>>
>> 1.) I cannot agree with its lack of democratic principles and emphasis on
>> control of speech and the media to put out only "racially" or
>> "politically" acceptable speech. I've heard many National Socialists
>> discuss how the state supposedly should embody the will of the people and
>> should serve the race/state (these two concepts seem to be nearly
>> indistinguishable in many National Socialist writings). Many are openly
>> contemptuous of free speech, democracy, and limited government. It may
>> have many faults, but democracy, whether the American form or a
>> parliamentary form, is still clearly the best form of government.
>
>I believe the thinking is that the institutions of democracies are very
>vulnerable to manipulation by malevolent forces.
I think you underestimate the resiliency of democracies. While it is true
that democracies can sometimes be vulnerable to manipulation of public
opinion and elected officials, this has always been true, even from the
beginning, yet the Republic still stands. America has had crackpot
political movements throughout its entire history. Some have resulted in
violence. The Republic has always managed to endure.
>While they might appear
>superficially fair and reasonable, in fact, so the argument goes, they
>tend to serve the interests of international finance and the enemies of
>the nation's interests.
The same concerns about democracy have been voiced for a long time, going
back at least to the time of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the
robber barons. Yet, our democracy endures. Even if you were 100% correct,
which you are not, how would National Socialism or anyother non-Democratic
form of government be better? How would it be better to curb freedom of
speech and to relegate entire groups in the population to the status of
second class citizens simply because of their race.
>> 2.) National Socialism's extreme emphasis on race and eugenics certainly
>> rubs me the wrong way. First, there is really little or no scientific
>> basis for National Socialist claims about racial differences or for
>> Hitler's eugenic program, although the original Nazis claimed that there
>> was, and present-day National Socialists often cloak their racism in
>> biology, genetics, and various other sciences. As a scientist, it offends
>> me to see science falsely represented to support a philosophy that denies
>> people equal representation under the law solely because of something they
>> can't control, their race. It is this very emphasis on race and and
>> eugenics that led first to a massive program of involuntary sterilization
>> of those the Nazis considered "unfit," which ultimately led to involuntary
>> euthanasia for the "unfit." From there, it was a relatively short step to
>> the Holocaust.
>
>I can agree with you on the tendency of SOME neo-Nazis to resort to
>pseudo-science. Irritates me too. That's one of my biggest criticisms of
>them. However, your side is just as guilty with its 'all races are
>equal' nonsense, which is certainly not true BIOLOGICALLY -- or in
>several other respects (including socially relevant respects such as a
>predisposition to commit crime).
I beg to differ. Those who assert that "all races are equal" are much
closer to the truth than the racists who rant about "superior" and
"inferior" races. People of different races are far more similar
biologically and genetically than they are different. The vast majority of
research purporting to demonstrate that some races differ in intelligence
or predisposition to violent crime is flawed, especially those purporting
to demonstrate differences in "intelligence." IQ tests are very imprecise
measurements of intelligence and very prone to cultural biases. What most
really measure more than anything else is what a person has been taught.
>> 3.) The anti-Semitism inherent in National Socialism is morally wrong and
>> irrational. National Socialism uses Jews as a scapegoat for everything it
>> considers wrong with the world with very little evidence. It is an
>> obsession, more than anything else.
>
>I think that the Jewish community contains some individuals who rub a
>lot of people up the wrong way.
So? The white community also contains some individuals who rub a lot of
people the wrong way. (Aryan nationalists in general, for instance,
definitely rub me the wrong way.) The black community has a lot of
individuals who rub people the wrong way (Jesse Jackson and Louis
Farrakhan are prime examples). The Hispanic community has a lot of
individuals who rub people the wrong way. The Asian community has a lot of
individuals who rub people the wrong way.
Personally, I have yet to find any racial group with more annoying people
than others. People in general can be annoying and hard to take. I highly
doubt that the proportion of these people differs significantly in any one
racial group as opposed to any other.
>I spent a year sincerely and honestly
>helping a Jewish businessman, only to find myself lied to, lied about,
>and ripped off. The episode cost me about £200 000 and the only reason I
>couldn't sue him was a very obscure legal clause indeed that let him off
>the hook. That sort of behaviour, which seems very common in the Jewish
>community, is what makes people like me very wary of dealing with that
>community.
I am sorry that you were ripped off. However, I have to ask: You have hard
evidence, I assume, that fraud, lying, and such white collar crime is more
prevalent among Jews than among whites? Or is this just your prejudice
from one bad experience with a Jew?
If I were to generalize bad experiences with people of other races that
way, I'd have a hard time dealing with anybody.
>> It always makes me sad to see a seemingly intelligent person sympathizing
>> with a philosophy as abhorrent as anti-Semitism, racism, and National
>> Socialism. You're no exception.
>
>Heh! Well thanks for the compliment even if it did have a sting in it.
>Read what I said again. I think you'll find that what I sympathise with
>is not so abhorrent, and what is abhorrent is largely what I reject.
No problem. We'll see if what you say is true by future posts.
>Hope your grant application goes well, Mr G.
Thanks.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
Cuddles
>
> In <35FB37...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Sun, 13 Sep 1998 04:09:53 +0100,
> Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> > clear. Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > Serbia.
>
> Taylor and correct his mistaken impression.
No need, Gord. I've spotted the howler. That's what comes of posting in
the early hours of the morning. Delete Serbia. Insert Austria-Hungary.
Cuddles
Cuddles
In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you on that
point 'Nazi apologists'.
> > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > Serbia.
>
> That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> Hitler starting World War II.
Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
If you read what I actually said, I said 'I think the Nazis saw World
War II as an attempt to settle injustices from World War I'. It's not a
rationalization on my part but pretty much what Hitler himself said.
I must regretfully differ with you on that one.
> > People can say they intend one thing and intend something
> > else.
>
> And people can say one thing and mean it.
Yup. Problem is distinguishing the two.
> > I suspect that there were real murderous bastards on both sides.
>
> Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
carry nuclear warheads.
> > > > The innocent civilians of Hamburg and Dresden and all the other towns that
> > > > were bombed in this way? All those innocent children and babies? 400 000
> > > > of them?
> > >
> > > <begin quote>
> > >
> > > One night in December 1940, shortly after he had become Deputy Chief of
> > > the Air Staff, Harris had called Portal up to the roof of the Air Ministry
> > > in King Charles Street, Westminster, to watch the 'Blitz'- 'the old city
> > > in flames -with St. Paul's standing out in the midst of an ocean of
> > > fire...an incredible sight'. The two men gazed silently at the burning
> > > capital. Then Harris spoke: 'Well...they are sowing the wind.'
> > >
> > > It was the only time, he wrote later, that he felt vengeful. Vengeful or
> > > not, he would do his best to make sure the whirlwind followed.
> > >
> > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > Source: Richard, _The Hardest Victory_, pp.110-111.
> >
> > Interesting material w.r.t. the 'intent' argument. Thanks.
> >
> > > > And you people consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Heh! Well, at least you're honest Mr V.
>
> Yes. And you are not.
Seems I spoke too soon. Ah well. I am only human and I concede that I
sometimes make mistakes (c.f. the Serbia one above) but I don't
intentionally make false statements. If you have evidence to the
contrary, perhaps you'd care to post it?
> [snip]
>
> Mark
>
Cuddles
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mr Morris, you queried my contention that the bombing of Dresden
>> >> >violated the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
>> >> >War on Land 18 October 1907. You further asserted that I was unable to
>> >> >quote the relevant passage.
>> >> >
>> >> >I would like to demonstrate how both the bombing of Dresden and the
>> >> >Nuremburg trials infringed contravened this.
>> >> >
>> >> >First, note:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
>> >> >is not unlimited."
>> >> >
>> >> >Then note:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
>> >> >Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
>> >> >
>> >> >[deleted irrelevant clauses about poisoned weapons etc.]
>> >> >
>> >> > c.To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
>> >> >no longer means of defence, has surrendered at
>> >> > discretion;"
>> >> >[which explicitly renders an infringement the slaughter of Mr Streicher
>> >> >and other individuals innocent of any crime existing at the time of the
>> >> >Third Reich]
>> >>
>> >> LOL! How creative of you, Cuddles?
>> >
>> >Why? Mr Morris said I couldn't cite this document. I've cited it. Mr
>> >Morris was incorrect. What's your problem with that?
>>
>> My comment is to your legal creativity, Cuddles and not John Morris
>> nor is it a comment on your citing this thing. LOL!
>
>Mr Curtis! I think you are fair game for a little 'outing' yourself. And
>you have just dropped what must be the best clanger since Yale Edeiken's
>'Germany declared war on Britain', handing me, as it were, the weapon
>with which to administer the coup de grace to your credibility.
Sure, Cuddles, sure.
>You have long been trying to get people in this newsgroup to regard you
>as something other than a complete joke. You began by pretending to be
>an historian. You told me that I knew nothing about the Cold War. I then
I have a degree in the subject, Cuddles. Yet as I have told many here
in the past: I program computers for a living (my other degree) in
order to feed my family. I'm returning to school so I can teach after
I retire programming. This has been said before. Most everyone seems
to know this but you!
>asked YOU whether you knew Wojciech Jaruzelski's latest views on the
>issue. You admitted that you didn't have the slightest idea who
>Jaruzelski was!
I never ever claimed expertise on the Cold War or on the 1980s. If
readers want to go back to the threads when this came out you will
find something like this: I'm specializing in American Colonial
History. I read the holocaust history as a hobby. So My period of
history for the holocaust is 1933-1947. After that I'm a generalist.
So I was rather unimpressed with this name you dropped. It wasn't from
the 1933-47 period at all. Yet I was attacked by you for not knowing
everything about world history from the beginning of time to now. If
anyone is outed it is you, Cuddles.
>One would have thought that you would have learned from this episode
>that the Nizkor trick of discrediting one's opponent by demonstrating
>his/her ignorance only works if you actually know more about your
>subject than your opponent. If you know less, you end up looking very,
>very silly indeed. But no! This time you pretend to be a lawyer! And
>again, you end up getting splattered.
I see. So asking questions of you is pretending to be a lawyer?
Because I have a couple of friends who are lawyers and have spoken
with several judges is a pretence at being a lawyer? You are desperate
to attack me so, Cuddles.
>In your post of last Thursday, 're. For John Morris', the following
>exchange took place between us:
>
><begin quote, with your words>
>> >> When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
>> >> will be all up hill.
>> >
>> >Why would judges say that to someone who works in a bookshop, Mike?
>>
>> Because I don't work in a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!
><end quote>
>
>You will note that my attention was drawn to your comment 'When Judges
>say I'm being creative'. Here you were clearly indicating that you
>appear before Judges.
This is your assumption, Cuddles. I can talk over coffee with judges?
Am allowed to do that in your world, Cuddles? Are judges some kind of
celebrity that no one can speak with them? During a course of
conversation I have presented hypotheticals to judges and other
lawyers. They told me it was creative reasoning. To _them_ this means
that you are probably going to lose. I see you doing the same thing.
So I told you what they told me.
> More than that, that you actually present argument
>before them (as opposed to being represented before them). The
>implication being that now you are a man of law . . .
Only in your demented mind, Cuddles.
>But let us return for a moment to your comment 'Because I don't work in
>a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!'
>
>Let us return to your message id. <3580d47b....@news.sig.net>
>dated 11 June 1998 and posted at 13:20:53 GMT precisely. In this you are
>on record as having stated:
>
><begin quote>
>I run a bookstore and program computers for living.
><end quote>
>
>It's there on Dejanews for everyone to check.
>
>Now, Mr Curtis -- or should I address you as 'my learned friend'? -- why
>did you state that you do not work in a bookshop when you very clearly
>do?
Because it isn't a"shop", Cuddles. I don't have a store front,
Cuddles. I have a closed shop that I own. $0 hours a week I program
computers.
> In other words, Mr Curtis, why did you lie? And I'm going to keep
>pressing you on that until I get a straight answer.
>
>And to spare you unnecessary embarrassment, let me add that I know the
>name of your bookshop (although I would not post it unless invited to by
>you) and (if so invited) I can post evidence that you were there only a
>few weeks ago!
Time and Again Books. I'm easy to find, Cuddles. As I told you in the
past I use my real name. So when are you going to post the rest of my
personal information so that you and your friends can abuse my
personal life? I guess that's what I get for trying to have a
discussion with you.
>And when you've finished with that little question, please do inform me
>of your legal qualifications. Why is it that judges tell you that you
>are being 'creative'?
I never claimed any like that, Cuddles. This is you making sweeping
assumptions. I never mentioned being in court or anything like that. I
only brought up conversations with friends.
>Or do they tell you that you have been 'creative' after you have been
>dragged before the courts as a defendant and have been found telling
>lies like the one you told last week, Mr Curtis?
I'm not going to be made as issue of here, Cuddles. You can have the
final word. But I see that you've dipped into this little foray to
save yourself from writing about history. I don't think anyone is
impressed. This is my final word on my personal life in this
newsgroup.
Mike Curtis
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35FB37...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <35F561...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk
[smip]
> > > > > In other words it was terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > No, it was total war. One that Nazi Germay started -and the Allies would
> > > > finish.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
> > > was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> > > clear.
> >
> > It is crystal clear, evidently, to everyone except Nazi apologists.
>
> In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you on that
> point 'Nazi apologists'.
Nooo, I call Nazi apologists Nazi apologists.
> > > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > > Serbia.
> >
> > That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> > Hitler starting World War II.
>
> Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
It's _still_ an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
justify Hitler starting World War II.
> If you read what I actually said, I said 'I think the Nazis saw World
> War II as an attempt to settle injustices from World War I'. It's not a
> rationalization on my part but pretty much what Hitler himself said.
Hitler's military aggression had it roots in his "foreign policy" from as
far back (excluding _Mein Kampf_) as November 5, 1937, when at a
top-secret meeting with the senior officers of the OKW, he announced his
intentions of gaining _Lebensraum_ in (eastern) Europe by force of arms.
In this plan first Austria and Czechoslovakia were to be seized and then
Poland and the Soviet Union. The target date was set for 1938-1943. (cf.
Dupuy & Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, Fourth
Edition, p.1133; Cooper, _The German Army_, pp.55-56.)
Subsequently, after the annexation of Austria; Hitler's "diplomatic
efforts" vis-a-vis the Munich Agreement which garnered Nazi Germany the
Sudeten; the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia in blatant violation of the
Munich Agreement; and the annexation of Memel and the German demands on
Danzig and Pomorze, which resulted in the Anglo-French pledge of
assistance to Poland; it becomes clear that Hitler intended military
agression from the beginning. Such intentions are simply confirmed by
Hitler's April and May 1939 meetings with senior OKW officers in which he
makes it clear that he would invade Poland irregardless if it meant war
with Britian and France.
Now you may say that this all was to "settle injustices from World War I",
so, for starters, I'm sure you won't mind explaining what "injustices"
needed to be "settled" vis the, Sudeten, Bohemia and Moravia, Poland, and
the Soviet Union.
[snip]
> > Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
>
> Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
> carry nuclear warheads.
But that's not murder -unlike the SS operating homicidal gas chambers for
the sole purpose of the mass murder of innocents because they were Jews.
Gord McFee
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In <35FB37...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Sun, 13 Sep 1998 04:09:53 +0100,
> > Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
> > > was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> > > clear. Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > > Serbia.
> >
> > Mr Cuddles might wish to check out _The First World War_ by A.J.P.
> > Taylor and correct his mistaken impression.
>
> No need, Gord. I've spotted the howler. That's what comes of posting in
> the early hours of the morning. Delete Serbia. Insert Austria-Hungary.
Closer. :-)
Actually, it is one of the most debated questions about WWI. Some hold
that it was started by everyone, all for different reasons.
Interestingly enough, it is the great German historian Fritz Fischer,
who essentially blames the Kaiser and his gang, but I am inclined to
accept that just about everyone was looking for a fight.
John Morris
+0100, Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> >I don't see the words 'summary execution'. The Germans surrendered. You
>> >rounded up their leaders, and some who were not their leaders, and then,
>> >after a farce of a trial, murdered those whom you disliked.
>> You keep begging the question. You have not yet proved it was a farce
>> of a trial, and you have not proved it because of your tendentious
>> refusal to examine the trial itself.
>Have you read the psychologist Jean Piaget? He had a theory that
>children's thought develops through certain fixed stages. First there's
>the sensorimotor stage, when they begin to distinguish themselves from
>the world around them. Next there's the concrete operational stage, when
>they can reason so long as they have real, concrete things to
>manipulate. They end up at the formal operational stage, when they
>become capable of abstract reasoning. It appears you've not got there
>yet, Mr M!
Would that be the same Piaget who developed his theories independently
of experimental or clinical practice?
>> You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
>> have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
>> conducted.
>Why not? That's a serious question. I want to get at why it is that an
>attack on the jurisprudential basis of the Nuremburg trials should
>require a consideration of 'how the trial was conducted' rather than the
>legal basis for the trial.
Because the trial was conducted in the real world. Assuming that our
agreement for the sake of argument that the real world exists also
extends to historical reality, of course.
You also introduced considerations such as impartiality and the like.
Perhaps you could explain to me how the "jurisprudential basis" for
the trial makes the trial necessarily partial. To my mind, you would
want to demonstrate partiality of the judges. But you seem to want to
wallow about in your philosophical Valhalla.
Empirical evidence does not seem to be your long suit.
>> You seem to have the bizarre idea that being a POW makes one immune to
>> being prosecuted for crimes.
>Nope. You have the more bizarre idea that winning a war entitles people
>to invent crimes, arbitrarily put their former foes on trial for those
>'crimes' (even though the 'crimes' didn't exist at the time they were
>'committed') and then kill them.
Yet you have consistently failed, despite my repeated requests, to
name a crime indicted at Nuremberg which was not already considered a
crime in international law prior to World War II.
That is the legal basis for the trials, not your abstract
philosophical maunderings about the "jurisprudential basis."
>> Lastly, *I* didn't round up anybody, nor did I murder anybody. Whether
>> I would have liked any of the defendants is irrelevant. Collective,
>> heritable guilt is your Nazi fantasy, though I notice that it is a one
>> way street.
><sigh> The English language lacks a clear distinction between second
>person singular and plural. If I had been using French I would have said
>'Vous', Italian 'Voi', Afrikaans 'julle', Polish 'wy'. Better?
I understood you the first time when I said, "I didn't round up
anybody, nor did I murder anybody. Whether I would have liked any of
the defendants is irrelevant. Collective, heritable guilt is your
Nazi fantasy, though I notice that it is a one way street."
>> >> The
>> >> Nuremberg defendants were not summarily executed but tried for crimes
>> >> which their government had agreed were crimes prior to the
>> >> commencement of hostilities.
>> >False. You have admitted that the basis for these trials was entirely ex
>> >post facto. The crimes for which they were 'tried' did not exist as such
>> >at the time they were allegedly committed.
>> You are a liar, Brian.
>Oh but I thought I was David a couple of posts ago! :)-
>Wrong, by the way! (Couldn't possibly let the world remain under the
>illusion that I had a name like Brian!)
Whatever you say, David.
>> I conceded no such thing.
>> What I said, and what I still say, is that the punishments, not the
>> offenses, were _ex post facto_ but also that there is a judicial basis
>> in common law for applying punishments where statute law is silent.
>My misunderstanding of your position, for which I apologise.
>> Now that I have gone back to refresh my memory on the common law basis
>> of the punishments, I have found that the argument did not involve
>> Anglo-American common law only but also international common law. The
>> common analogy to the Nuremberg trials is the international common law
>> on piracy at sea where international judicial punishment was mutually
>> respected before there were any international conventions on the law
>> of the sea.
>> What you seem incapable of grasping is that common law has the ability
>> to set judicial precedents.
>Not at all. I take your point entirely. So now we move to phase two of
>the argument, which is to consider whether in this instance there were
>indeed precedents arising from common laws against piracy.
I didn't say that the common law of the sea established a precedent
for the Nuremberg Trial, so the idiot literalness with which you
answer the analogy is just that, idiot literalness.
>First, it is one thing entirely to apply precedent established at sea to
>crimes committed at sea. You might indeed have a case for hanging
>Streicher had he conducted his operations from a ship that he had
>unlawfully taken over. However, the 'crimes' for which the defendants
>were, inter alia, killed, were, on the whole, alleged to have been
>committed in Europe. To the best of my knowledge and belief Europe is
>not a sea. We might wish that bits of it -- particularly Belgium -- were
>a sea, but it is not. To put it in blander terms: we may DISTINGUISH the
>common law applied to pirates from the very different set of
>circumstances pertaining in the Second World War.
You most certainly may distinguish the law of the sea from war crimes
law on all sorts of practical grounds. I agree that they should be
distinguished.
And if I had cited the law of the sea as a precedent for the Nuremberg
Trial, you might even have grounds to complain that I had cited it as
a precedent.
But I didn't. What I did say is that there is a legal analogy for the
action of common law in international law, particularly that judicial
law existed in place of statute law.
Where the analogy breaks down, of course, is that there already was a
code of conduct in place which had statutory force. What didn't exist,
and had to be established by judicial precedent, was a mechanism for
trying and punishing violations of that code. Where the law of the sea
evolved out of international common law judicial precedent, only the
trials and punishments of Nazi war criminals were without precedent.
>You are applying
>custom established under one set of circumstances in one particular
>jurisdiction to another set of circumstances in another jurisdiction.
>This is, by the way, a very important legal argument. If you are going
>to cite precedent you must compare like with like. Otherwise you end up
>with a situation where a British judge applies Mongolian common law
>penalties against, say, kidnapping to a man who has been found not to
>have paid outstanding wages to a dismissed employee in Chiswick.
Utter twaddle. Get back to me when you want to address what I actually
said.
>Second, the counts for which the defendants were accused have no basis
>in the common law you have cited. Crimes against humanity, etc., simply
>did not exist, to the best of my knowledge, in the law of the sea.
No, Clueless, they existed in the international conventions on the
laws of war which Germany signed. Germany agreed that acts such as it
committed were crimes before they committed the crimes.
>Now,
>even if you had established that 'the common law has the ability to set
>judicial precedents',
And just where did you think precedents came from? They had to be set,
didn't they? And who set them? Statutes? No. The judiciary.
> you have most certainly not established that the
>common law has the ability to come up with completely new crimes AND,
>moreover, to put people on trial for those crimes even though the crimes
>did not exist when they were allegedly committed?
Is that a question?
>Third, common law is, by definition, the body of law established through
>custom and prior judgment, as opposed to the body of law created through
>statute. However, the Nurmeburg trials were entirely novel!
Yes! You finally grasped my point! You are soooo sharp sometimes.
>There had
>never been anything like them! The particular set of circumstances that
>existed leading up to the trials, the establishment of the trials, the
>rules employed during the trials, the crimes,
But, alas, it was all an illusion. You haven't grasped my point at
all.
The crimes were crimes per Germany's agreement before Germany
undertook to commit the crimes.
> the selection of
>defendants . . . these were quite without precedent. How then, can these
>trials be said to be in accordance with any common law.
Because common law has the ability to establish legal precedents such
as prescribing punishments where the statutes are silent.
>Fourth -- the obvious point. Initially you said that the Nuremburg
>trials had their basis in treaties. You referred me to three. I checked
>two up. Those treaties made no provision for the establishment of the
>Nuremburg trials.
Your point being?
> You might make a persuasive case that the Germans
>broke those treaties. Fine! We might make a case that so did the Allies,
>certainly in the case of one of them.
Yes, I believe the _tu quoque_ argument is the real basis for your
complaint about the "jurisprudential basis."
> However, the trials certainly
>cannot be said to derive their legality from these documents. I asked
>you to quote me the precise clauses of these treaties giving legal force
>to the Nuremburg trials. You could not do so.
Why should I be able to cite clauses from documents which I have
consistently maintained do *not* give legal force to the trials.
Why don't you try arguing with me instead of your own fantasies about
what I have said?
>Instead you made vague
>references to, but could not cite, 'Anglo-American' common law.
Now that I have clarified my position to include international common
law, why are you whinging on about my having limited my remarks to
Anglo-American common law.
Since you didn't read what I wrote the first time, let me repeat it
and hope that you get it the second time: "Now that I have gone back
to refresh my memory on the common law basis of the punishments, I
have found that the argument did not involve Anglo-American common law
only but also international common law."
And how the hell could I "cite" common law?
>I
>pointed out that it was an entirely novel and arbitrary event to apply
>'Anglo-American' common law (whatever that might be) to crimes allegedly
>committed in, inter alia, the Soviet Union, which had a very different
>legal system.
Notwithstanding your cluelessness about "Anglo-American common law"
despite my previous explanation, Nazi crimes were international. The
same defendants committed crimes in nations from the Atlantic Ocean to
the gates of Moscow.
The legal system applied was international law.
>Now you appeal to the law of the sea.
I did?
> It seems to me that
>it is quite clear that (a) you haven't a clue what you're talking about,
Golly, that is a revealing statement, and not a very flattering
revelation about you.
>and (b) you are drawing from a hotchpotch of different legal traditions
>in an entirely arbitrary and novel way in a post hoc attempt to justify
>the treatment meted out to the defendants at Nuremburg.
That's rich coming from someone who just asked me to "cite" common
law.
>> >> >" e.To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
>> >> >unnecessary suffering; "
>> >> >[relevant to Dresden and other cities in Germany, and also to Japan]
>> >> It is certainly relevant, since that is where you wish to make your
>> >> case. But in order to demonstrate an infringement, you must show that
>> >> the bombardment was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
>> >Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
>> >terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
>> >high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
>> >Morris?
>> It is not for me to say. You claim that it was unnecessary, then the
>> burden of proof falls to you to prove your claim.
>I see. So an army can go around slaughtering civilians and it is for
>others to prove that the slaughter was NOT necessary rather than for the
>army to explain and justify its actions?
No, you don't see. You are accusing the Allies of using unnecessary
force to bring the war to a conclusion. Germany was unwilling to
surrender until almost the whole country had been occupied. The
Allies, of necessity, had to fight on against an enemy which had, _de
facto_ or _de jure_ declared war on them.
So far your proof seems to be that the Allies attacked lightly
defended military targets adjacent to civilian areas.
>Hang on! Can't we turn this argument around and use it against you. Let
>us suppose that the Germans DID do all the beastly things they are
>accused of. Are you saying that it is for YOU to prove that these
>slaughters were not necessary to save the world from Bolshevism,
>International Jewry, or indeed, little green men from Mars?
Sure.
Now, are you claiming that the Germans did "beastly" things to
accomplish those aims?
>> You might wish to start by showing that the bombs were dropped on
>> areas where there were no legitimate military targets.
>Read Harris's 'Despatch'. If you post a contact address somewhere I'll
>even send you a copy gratis.
I guess I'd better, since it has become obvious that you are not to be
relied upon to read accurately.
>> >> >" g.To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction
>> >> >or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; "
>> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> >> Same as e. You must demonstrate that the destruction of property was
>> >> unnecessary to the prosecution of the war.
>So, Hague notwithstanding, an army can go around destroying people's
>property as much as it likes, and it is for the VICTIMS to prove that
>such destruction was unnecessary rather than for the army, or its
>political controllers, to explain and justify its actions. Hmmm.
>Fascinating.
And that was what was proved at Nuremberg.
>> >No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
>> >house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
>> >can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
>> >a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
>> >negative of that sort.
>> Quit making lame excuses for failing to prove your own historical
>> claims.
>If you disagree with what I said above, why can't you produce a reason
>for disagreeing?
Sigh.
>> The Allies were fighting a war against an enemy willing to sacrifice
>> his entire nation to his own egomania. You're just pissed off because
>> they fought to win against your friends.
>Sounds like you've given up the ghost, Mr Morris.
Sounds like you failed to follow the argument past the first full
stop. Again.
Did you miss my discussion of international common law?
> which you then
>apply (retrospectively) to justify judgements for the commission of
>non-existent crimes in Germany. Not when you try to imply that the
>Nuremburg trials were given legal force by it.
I didn't imply any such thing. I said straight out that the
international common law tradition allowed for judicial decisions to
operate where there was no statutory law. An example of where this
happened in the past is the law of the sea.
Were the Nuremberg Trials unprecedented? Yes.
Are we clear on this point yet?
Were there ever trials of international crimes in the past where there
was no treaty basis for trials? Yes.
Oh, you mean the "awkward" passage where they name the offender who is
to be tried.
>> >Let me give you a simple example. A newspaper report would normally be
>> >inadmissible as evidence here (I say 'normally' because one can envisage
>> >exceptional circumstances where it would -- for example, if it were
>> >found on the scene of a murder with the murderer's blood all over it).
>> Maybe you'd like to prove that you are not completely demented.
>How could I do that? :)
You could answer the positive proposition instead:
>> Or, if
>> you would rather have that as a positive proposition, maybe you would
>> like to demonstrate that you have sufficient mental acuity to carry on
>> an intelligent conversation.
>> Sigh. If the newspaper were covered in blood, it would be submitted as
>> a newspaper covered in blood irrespective of the contents of any
>> article it contained. It would be a wholly different class of
>> artifact.
>I believe that was my point.
Not in the sloppy way you worded it. You said that a newspaper
*report* would be admitted as evidence if it was covered in blood.
I'm still waiting for your demonstration of my positive proposition
regarding your mental acuity.
>> Have you looked up category errors yet? You should. You are an awfully
>> sloppy thinker.
>Well, I have my good days and bad . . .
I can be patient. A good day will come, I am sure.
>> >The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
>> Then who the hell rules on it, Lackwit?
>The judge may rule only that it is inadmissible. Otherwise there is
>ground for appeal.
ROTFL! This obviously isn't one of those fabled good days.
Think about what you just said. If, when the admissibility of evidence
is challenged, a judge may only rule that evidence is inadmissible,
then a defendant would have only to challenge evidence to have it
ruled inadmissible.
>> >If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal.
>> If he did allow in bad evidence, then he ruled on its admissibility.
>And the ruling could be appealed to a higher court.
And now we are agreed, did you have a point you wished to make?
>> >At
>> >Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
>> >appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
>> >something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible.
>> Places quite a burden on the impartiality of the judges, then. Would
>> you care to point out where bad evidence was not recognized as such
>> and figured into their judgments?
>I understand that there was a lot of hearsay evidence, photocopied
>documents, evidence from people with a clear axe to grind.
Yes, but that is the very thing you refuse to address on the grounds
of your self-declared incompetence to do so. It is, as you say, a
matter for the historians.
So whatever you may have heard or "understood" is, as you imply,
utterly without value.
>> Thought not.
>> >The STATUTORY
>> >protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
>> >would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
>> Then I guess you would have to say that they had only a judicial
>> protection from bad evidence.
>Correct. And in a situation where the judiciary were appointed by the
>former enemies of the accused in a bitter and bloody battle.
That remains to be proven by you. What you have to show is that their
decisions were politically-controlled.
I can show that they were not simply by pointing to the acquittals and
the various sentences handed down.
Even in the case of Streicher, the political independence of the
prosecutors is readily apparent. Telford Taylor, for instance, argues
that the execution of Streicher was a mistake because the judges were
swayed by his personal repulsiveness instead of the evidence against
him. I agree with Taylor, by the way. Up to a point. The international
treaties which made German actions crimes do not say anything about
advocating murder. That would have been a matter for the German courts
to decide.
>> >> Will you now talk about the actual trials and specify which rights the
>> >> Nuremberg defendants were denied?
>> >How's this for a start:
>> >1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
>> The only way you could determine whether the judges were impartial is
>> by looking at their rulings and their conduct.
>NO!!!! If the judges were appointed by the former enemies of the accused
>in a bitter war, that is in itself sufficient.
Shouting doesn't make it sufficient. Show that the judges were under
the political control of the Allies and that they rendered their
judgments accordingly.
>> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
>> your fantasy of the trial.
>No. You want to discuss the detailed history of the trials. I am making
>a simple jurisprudential point that you cannot answer.
Funny. I was sure you had just spent a great deal of time discussing
the statutory basis for defining Nazi actions as crimes.
>> >2. Right of fair indictment.
>> Moot. You can't tell if the indictment was fair until after the trial.
>> Unfortunately, you haven't even got to the beginning of the trial.
>Er . . . Mr Morris . . . it's 1998. The trial ended half a century ago!
And you didn't call me a liar based on your precious reading of my
words. What a surprise.
Let me rephrase: you haven't even begun to discuss the trial.
>We DO, in fact, have the benefit of hindsight. Indeed, we now have
>access to formerly classified documents such as the Harris 'Despatch'.
And that bears on the guilt or innocence of the defendants at
Nuremberg how exactly?
>> In addition, "16 (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars
>> specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the
>> Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment,
>> translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to
>> the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial."
>> >3. Right to be tried for crimes that existed when they were allegedly
>> >committed.
>> You still haven't named a crime which was not a crime before the Nazis
>> violated the Kellog-Briand Pact and invaded Poland.
>Lets try crimes against humanity. Can you give me the legal basis for
>that please, Mr Morris?
Piece o' cake. The Hague Conventions. If you were to read the
particulars of the Indictment instead of the count headings, you would
know that the Nazi government's violations of international law were
grouped under four general counts. The specific crimes refer to
Germany's violations of its obligations.
Under crimes against humanity we have, for instance,
4.(a) Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and
other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations
before and during the war.
If you want to know which sections of the Hague Convention these
charges refer to, go back and find the post where I listed them and
you snipped them. In fact, you have listed some of them with respect
to Dresden.
Just as an exercise, point out the part of the specific allegation in
the Indictment on count 4(a) which the court held in favour of the
defence.
>> >4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
>> The only way you could determine whether the judges were arbitrary in
>> sentencing is by looking at their judgments.
>> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
>> your fantasy of the trial.
>Well, let's take one example: the hanging of Mr Streicher. Please could
>you indicate how that was anything other than totally arbitrary.
It wasn't arbitrary, as you might know if you bothered to read some of
the memoirs about the trial. But the sentence was mistaken in my view.
Care to pick another example?
>> >5. Right of appeal.
>> They had the right of appeal against both judgments and sentences.
>> Appeals against both were filed.
>The Charter very clearly states that there is no right of appeal.
The trial clearly shows that the defendants' right of appeal was
respected.
>> >6. Right to be judged by a jury of their fellow countrymen.
>> ROTFLMAO! Germans had jury trials?
>YOU invoked 'Anglo-American' common law, Mr Morris. Both England and
>America have the right of trial by jury.
And you were the one who said the defendants should have been tried
under domestic laws. In fact, you specified trial by their "fellow
countrymen." Look just above beside the numeral six. You wrote that,
not me.
In any case, I clarified which common law I was referring to. It is
merely a sign of how badly you are doing that you have to revert to
what I said before I offered my clarification.
While you are looking up category errors, you might want to look up
other argumentive fallacies such as "red herring" and "strawman."
>> >> Simply stating that rights and actions have been abolished or
>> >> suspended does not make it so, and I note that the defendants were
>> >> -arrested;
>> >Arbitrarily.
>> Prove it.
>They arrested Streicher but not Harris. Or, put more broadly, the
>Charter limited the power of arrest to the arrest of AXIS war criminals.
>> >> -advised of their rights;
>> >Which were severely curtailed.
>> Prove it.
>Arguments re. impartiality,
You have made no substantial argument showing the partiality of the
court. You have merely asserted its partiality on the grounds that the
judges were appointed by the Allies.
By analogy, you could equally well argue that British domestic trials
are illegitimate because the Crown brings a case before judges
appointed by the Crown.
> universality,
Which does not show that the trial of the particular defendants was
unfair nor that the judgment was unjust.
> admissibility of evidence,
All you have shown (actually, I showed you how) is that relied on
judicial fairness in the admission of evidence. You have not shown how
they were unfair.
>appeal,
The defendants appealed, and their appeals were heard. What part of
that do you still find yourself unable to grasp?
> retroactive application of novel law,
Yaaaawwwwn.
>absence of legal basis for
>the trial.
International common law. All you have shown is your inability to
grasp the concept.
>> >> -allowed the counsel of their choice;
>> >But not an impartial forum in which to be judged.
>> Prove it by looking at the trial and not your fantasy of the trial.
>I am doing.
Where? Not in this post. Not in any post I have seen.
>> >> -allowed to answer their accusers;
>> >But not to appeal against their judgment.
>> Wrong. Appeals were filed against judgments and sentences.
>See the Charter.
See the appeals.
>> But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
>> beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
>I can only quote you what it says.
I know. That is your whole problem, and the core of my complaint.
>> >> -allowed to testify in their own defence;
>> >But not to challenge the admissibility of evidence against them that
>> >would not be allowed, say, in a British criminal court.
>> They did challenge the admissibility of evidence, and they won rulings
>> from the judges.
>Twit! Of course they challenged the fact that virtually anything was
>allowed in! And the fact that some of the stuff the prosecution tried to
>get through was so cretinous that even the judges at Nuremburg couldn't
>stomach it hardly detracts from the general point.
Tendentious language is not proof. Saying that the judges could not
"stomach" evidence is not proof that they did not rule in favor of the
defence on many occasions.
>> But, of course, you couldn't know that if you are unwilling to look
>> beyond the Charter and you fantasy of the trial.
>> In addition, "16 (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a
>> Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to
>> the charges made against him."
>> >> -allowed to examine all evidence entered against them;
>> >But not to challenge its admissibility.
>> A repetitive, unresponsive answer. The defence successfully challenged
>> the admission of evidence.
>See above. The point is that in terms of the charter the only protection
>against abuses regarding the admission of evidence was the judiciary.
>There was no statutory protection. They could not challenge the
>admissibility by appealing to statute such as PACE here in Britain.
>Their only protection was the goodwill of the judges. And they were
>appointed by the former enemies of the accused.
And they also supported defence arguments and reprimanded the
prosecutors. I think their goodwill, and more importantly, the
fairness of their rulings and conduct, is plain to anyone who has read
the trials.
That lets you out, unfortunately.
>> >> -allowed to rebut evidence entered against them;
>> >But not to challenge its admissibility.
>> A repetitive, unresponsive answer.
>See above.
Above, I see a lot of repetitive, unresponsive answers.
>> >> -allowed to enter their own evidence and exhibits;
>> >But not allowed to have it assessed by a jury of their fellow countrymen
>> >or judges other than those appointed by their former adversaries.
>> Oh, is it at this point that you start to have a vague recollection
>> that Germany didn't have jury trials?
>Nope, YOU wanted to argue that the trials had their basis in
>'Anglo-American common law' remember? Now you want to invoke German
>domestic law! Hell, why not throw in Islamic law and perhaps a bit of
>good old Soviet law too just for the fun of it. If you can't get the
>buggers with one legal system, try another!
The ranting really begins.
Do you think you are going to convince me by ranting? Do you think you
are going to convince me by misrepresenting my arguments?
>> Whoever the judges were appointed by, you have yet to prove their
>> partiality.
>See above.
See above where? Your previous repetition of an unsupported claim?
>> >> -allowed the cross-examination of witnesses;
>> >But not to challenge the admissibility of their contributions.
>> The argumentive equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and
>> shouting.
>I've already quoted the Charter at you. What more can I do?
You could start to blubber. You never know, I might concede your point
out of sheer sympathy for your plight.
Alternatively, you could allow that looking at the Charter is not the
last word on the Nuremberg Trial.
>> >> -allowed to call rebuttal witnesses;
>> >Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted at best.
>> No, it is a common judicial procedure and one of the procedures which
>> guarantees the rights of the accused.
>I agree that it is a common judicial procedure and that it tends to
>protect, but does not guarantee, the rights of the accused.
So what is your problem? The rights of the accused were protected.
> However,
>given the other problems with the trial it was locking the door after
>the horse had bolted.
Begging the question. The other problems are not given. You have yet
to prove them.
>> >> -allowed the extraordinary right to make statements to the
>> >> court without prosecution rebuttal or cross-examination
>> >What's extraordinary about this. I have done the self same thing, both
>> >in Britain and in South Africa.
>> I guess you didn't say anything the prosecutors wanted to examine or
>> rebut.
>My point is that there is nothing extraordinary about the right to make
>statements to the court without prosecution rebuttal or
>cross-examination.
>> >> -allowed the right to appeal judgments and sentences.
>> >See the Charter. It says no right of appeal.
>> See the trial for the first time. Appeals of judgments and sentences
>> were allowed and heard.
>See above, we're going around in circles.
I noticed. What I don't understand is your dogged determination not to
advance the argument.
The fact that appeals were allowed whatever the Charter said should
have led a person of normal intelligence to question whether slapping
on the Charter-blinkers was really the best way of assessing the
historical facts of the trial.
Since your "outing," however, you seem determined to prove yourself as
good an "Aryan" as the rest of the flobbering morons who have recently
joined us.
>> >> I note that some of the defendants' counsel exercised the right of
>> >> appeal above the objections of their clients,
>> >Which in itself sounds dodgy and has Stalinist undertones. If I hire
>> >counsel to represent me and counsel acts contrary to my instructions, I
>> >have every right to take them to the cleaners.
>> I rather think it a sign of the extraordinary effort to make the
>> trials as fair as possible that appeals of the guilt of the defendants
>> were heard even when the defendants were content to accept their
>> guilt.
>Funny how this extraordinary effort didn't extend to trying these people
>in domestic courts for crimes that actually existed at the time when
>they were allegedly committed.
Yaaaawwwwn.
>> Basically, your sucky argument boils down to saying that if the
>> defendants were content to accept their guilt, then the court should
>> have been content not to hear appeals.
>My argument is that counsel should represent their clients, not the
>interests of the prosecution.
Fine. Then their appeals wouldn't have been heard. You know, the
appeals you say didn't exist because the Charter says so.
>> >> and the appeals were not
>> >> heard by the justices who rendered the judgments and sentences.
>> >Charter says no right of appeal.
>> So what? You know, this is my point in a nutshell. You are so
>> determined to spin out a fantasy of the trial based on your reading of
>> the Charter that you even bring yourself to examine the trial itself.
>> Several defendants appealed. Live with it.
>Mr Morris you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word RIGHT.
>If I have a RIGHT of appeal to a superior court, it is not contingent
>upon the indulgence of the court -- an indulgence designed doubtless to
>try to cover over the otherwise ludicrous nature of the proceedings --
>it is something to which I am entitled as a matter of law. And that
>RIGHT of appeal is to a superior court.
The court granted the defendants' right to appeal as evidenced by
their hearing the defendants' appeals.
On this point, the court was better than the Charter. That is why I
would like you to look at the trial before declaring it unfair.
That is also why you don't want to look at the trial.
>> >> >"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
>> >> >villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is
>> >> >prohibited."
>> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> >> Dresden was defended.
>> >The defenses were very sparse and were quickly overwhelemed. The
>> >continued bombardment of the city beyond that point infringe this
>> >article. Note, however, that even attacks on undefended dwellings or
>> >buildings is prohibited.
>No answer?
What was to answer. You agreed that Dresden was defended.
>> >> >"Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
>> >> >commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault,
>> >> >do all in his power to warn the authorities."
>> >> >[relevant to Dresden]
>> >> The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its cities would be
>> >> bombarded.
>> >But not WHICH cities and WHEN, of course.
>No answer?
I guess you are stupid enough to need one.
Here it is again: "The Nazi government of Germany was warned that its
cities would be bombarded."
Still, it is a pretty funny picture to imagine you leading an attack:
"We will attack at dawn and begin with a bombardment. Please be
certain that your defenses are adequate to repulse us. If adequate
defenses are not possible, and you are still unwilling to surrender,
please advise so that we may withdraw."
>> >> >"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
>> >> >property, as well as religious convictions and practice,
>> >> >must be respected."
>> >> >[relevant to both Dresden and Nuremburg]
>>
>> >> The section is irrelevant to Nuremberg in that the "lives of persons"
>> >> were respected until legal convictions had been obtained.
>> >No. The defendants were murdered after a grotesque mock trial.
>> Tendentious question begging. Prove it by looking at the trial for the
>> first time.
>No, I'll leave that to the historians. I'll prove it by looking at the
>legal basis for the trial instead.
You are funny. So basically, your argument is this: in your opinion,
it was _de jure_ a grotesque mock trial, and you'll be damned if you
will look to see whether it was a fair trial in fact.
>> >> The section also applies to territories over which an occupying power
>> >> has authority. The Allies had no territorial authority over Germany at
>> >> the time of the bombardment.
>> >Don't know. I'll have to look it up again. That certainly wouldn't get
>> >you off the hook with Nuremburg, however. I'd say that during a
>> >bombardment, when ground defences have been overwhelmed, you have a
>> >situation exactly parallel to that which pertains when a land assault
>> >has been successful and enemy defences have been overwhelmed. The
>> >territory is effectively at the mercy of the attackers.
>> The Allies would only have had authority over territory which had been
>> captured or if Germany had surrendered.
>> Would you care to list the cities which were bombed after Allied
>> ground forces had taken them or which were bombed after Germany
>> surrendered?
>You might have a point. I'll have to look it up.
Idiot.
>Sorry but I am about to run out of space again.
We count our blessings.
Cuddles
> >You have long been trying to get people in this newsgroup to regard you
> >as something other than a complete joke. You began by pretending to be
> >an historian. You told me that I knew nothing about the Cold War. I then
>
> I have a degree in the subject, Cuddles. Yet as I have told many here
> in the past: I program computers for a living (my other degree) in
> order to feed my family. I'm returning to school so I can teach after
> I retire programming. This has been said before. Most everyone seems
> to know this but you!
> >asked YOU whether you knew Wojciech Jaruzelski's latest views on the
> >issue. You admitted that you didn't have the slightest idea who
> >Jaruzelski was!
>
> I never ever claimed expertise on the Cold War or on the 1980s. If
> readers want to go back to the threads when this came out you will
> find something like this: I'm specializing in American Colonial
> History. I read the holocaust history as a hobby. So My period of
> history for the holocaust is 1933-1947. After that I'm a generalist.
> So I was rather unimpressed with this name you dropped. It wasn't from
> the 1933-47 period at all. Yet I was attacked by you for not knowing
> everything about world history from the beginning of time to now. If
> anyone is outed it is you, Cuddles.
Ah! I see! So it is necessary to have 'expertise' on the Cold War to
know who General Wojciech Jaruzelski was. So may we take it, historian
Curtis, that you also do not know who Lech Walensa and Leonid Brezhnev
were?
<snip>
> >In your post of last Thursday, 're. For John Morris', the following
> >exchange took place between us:
> >
> ><begin quote, with your words>
> >> >> When Judges say I'm being creative they are telling me that my point
> >> >> will be all up hill.
> >> >
> >> >Why would judges say that to someone who works in a bookshop, Mike?
> >>
> >> Because I don't work in a bookshop, Cuddles. LOL!
> ><end quote>
> >
> >You will note that my attention was drawn to your comment 'When Judges
> >say I'm being creative'. Here you were clearly indicating that you
> >appear before Judges.
>
> This is your assumption, Cuddles. I can talk over coffee with judges?
> Am allowed to do that in your world, Cuddles? Are judges some kind of
> celebrity that no one can speak with them? During a course of
> conversation I have presented hypotheticals to judges and other
> lawyers. They told me it was creative reasoning. To _them_ this means
> that you are probably going to lose. I see you doing the same thing.
> So I told you what they told me.
Ah! I see! So Mr Curtis, programer and bookseller, spends his coffee
break presenting his hypotheticals to judges and other lawyers. That
quaint image might actually be a plausible explanation were it not for
one little inconsistency in your tale. You have stated that you do not
work in a bookshop. But:
<snip>
> >Let us return to your message id. <3580d47b....@news.sig.net>
> >dated 11 June 1998 and posted at 13:20:53 GMT precisely. In this you are
> >on record as having stated:
> >
> ><begin quote>
> >I run a bookstore and program computers for living.
> ><end quote>
<snip>
You address this with the following argument:
> Because it isn't a"shop", Cuddles. I don't have a store front,
> Cuddles. I have a closed shop that I own. $0 hours a week I program
> computers.
Very interesting. You say you 'run a bookstore and program computers for
living' (note the words 'for a living') and yet the bookshop, which was
placing adverts only a week or so ago, pays you $0 'for a living'.
Moreoever, it is not a 'bookshop' because you don't have a 'store
front'. Sounds a bit like 'I didn't inhale' or 'I did not have sexual
relations with that woman', don't you think?
<snip>
> Time and Again Books. I'm easy to find, Cuddles.
Yup, you are Mike.
> As I told you in the
> past I use my real name. So when are you going to post the rest of my
> personal information so that you and your friends can abuse my
> personal life?
What friends, Mr Curtis? What evidence do you have that I or anyone
wishes to abuse your personal life? Is this another lie? I assure you
that the only harm I have ever done to you, or will ever do to you, is
to show the world that you are a complete prat of the first order!
> I guess that's what I get for trying to have a
> discussion with you.
Nope, but if you're going to post inconsistencies you must expect them
to be queried, Mr Curtis. And if they're funny ones, you must expect to
be made the victim of a certain amount of light sport.
> >And when you've finished with that little question, please do inform me
> >of your legal qualifications. Why is it that judges tell you that you
> >are being 'creative'?
>
> I never claimed any like that, Cuddles. This is you making sweeping
> assumptions. I never mentioned being in court or anything like that. I
> only brought up conversations with friends.
Ah yes. Judges AND lawyers. Who partake of coffee with a bookseller and
programer. A bookseller and a programer who has a degree in history (and
in programming computers) and yet who does not know who Wojciech
Jaruzelski is?
<snip>
> I don't think anyone is
> impressed.
Not for one second, Mr Curtis.
> This is my final word on my personal life in this
> newsgroup.
Just as well, I'd say!
Cuddles
Cuddles
>
> In article <35FC71...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35FB37...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <35F561...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk
>
>
> > > > > > In other words it was terrorism.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it was total war. One that Nazi Germay started -and the Allies would
> > > > > finish.
> > > >
> > > > I don't disagree with you on the proposition that it was total war. It
> > > > was. As to whether Nazi Germany started it, I don't think that's so
> > > > clear.
> > >
> > > It is crystal clear, evidently, to everyone except Nazi apologists.
> >
> > In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you on that
> > point 'Nazi apologists'.
>
Well, any twit can call people names. You are at your most persuasive
when you abstain from that sort of thing and produce awkward historical
quotations that make me think.
> > > > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way bound
> > > > by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an attempt to
> > > > settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was started by
> > > > Serbia.
> > >
> > > That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> > > Hitler starting World War II.
> >
> > Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
>
> It's _still_ an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
> justify Hitler starting World War II.
No, I'm not trying to justify Hitler starting World War II. If you look
at his speech to the Reichstag of 30 January 1937 you'll see that he
argues that Germany had been brought to its knees and that he was out to
restore Germany's honour. His words, not mine.
> > If you read what I actually said, I said 'I think the Nazis saw World
> > War II as an attempt to settle injustices from World War I'. It's not a
> > rationalization on my part but pretty much what Hitler himself said.
>
> Hitler's military aggression had it roots in his "foreign policy" from as
> far back (excluding _Mein Kampf_) as November 5, 1937, when at a
> top-secret meeting with the senior officers of the OKW, he announced his
> intentions of gaining _Lebensraum_ in (eastern) Europe by force of arms.
> In this plan first Austria and Czechoslovakia were to be seized and then
> Poland and the Soviet Union. The target date was set for 1938-1943. (cf.
> Dupuy & Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, Fourth
> Edition, p.1133; Cooper, _The German Army_, pp.55-56.)
>
> Subsequently, after the annexation of Austria; Hitler's "diplomatic
> efforts" vis-a-vis the Munich Agreement which garnered Nazi Germany the
> Sudeten; the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia in blatant violation of the
> Munich Agreement; and the annexation of Memel and the German demands on
> Danzig and Pomorze, which resulted in the Anglo-French pledge of
> assistance to Poland; it becomes clear that Hitler intended military
> agression from the beginning. Such intentions are simply confirmed by
> Hitler's April and May 1939 meetings with senior OKW officers in which he
> makes it clear that he would invade Poland irregardless if it meant war
> with Britian and France.
>
> Now you may say that this all was to "settle injustices from World War I",
> so, for starters, I'm sure you won't mind explaining what "injustices"
> needed to be "settled" vis the, Sudeten, Bohemia and Moravia, Poland, and
> the Soviet Union.
Agreed. I don't think for one moment that those examples had anything to
do with the 'settling injustices from World War I' aspect of things.
Probably more associated with the quest for Lebensraum for the German
volk and also the hatred of Bolshevism.
> [snip]
>
> > > Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
> >
> > Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
> > carry nuclear warheads.
>
> But that's not murder -unlike the SS operating homicidal gas chambers for
> the sole purpose of the mass murder of innocents because they were Jews.
That's what we were discussing earlier and I've noted your arguments.
I'm going to have to read up on Japan because you've produced some very
detailed argument with which I am not familiar. With regard to Dresden I
think your apparent contention that it was primarily aimed at targeting
military targets is refuted by paras 3 and 4 of the Harris 'Despatch on
War Operations', his report to his superiors on the wartime operations,
sitting for years in the PRO and published by Cass in 1995 -- ISBN 0
7146 4692 X:
<begin quote>
3. The main task, therefore, laid upon the Command by the Air Ministry
directif letter numbered S.46368/D.C.A.S., of 14th February, 1942 was
"to focus attacks on the morale of the enemy civil population, and, in
particular, of the industrial workers."* [* Later expanded by directive
issued by Combined Chiefs of Staff on 21st January, 1943, to include the
general disorganisation of German industry]. This was to be achieved by
destroying, mainly by incendiary attacks, first, four large cities in
the Ruhr area and, then, as opportunity offered, fourteen other
industrial cities in Northern, Central and Southern Germany. The aim of
attacks on town areas had already been defined in an Air Staff paper
(dated 23rd September, 1941) as follows: -
"The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale of
the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two
things; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and,
secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.
The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i)
destruction, and (ii) the fear of death"
4. My primary authorised task was therefore clear beyond doubt: to
inflict the most severe material damage on German industrial cities. . .
.
<end quote>
It is clear from this that the PRIMARY target of Harris's campaign was
the civilian population. This is where I think we can make a compelling
case against him (and his superiors) for terrorism. There is not much
difference between what he was doing here and putting bombs on crowded
planes or in shopping centres to induce terror in the general public.
I agree with you insofar as a SECONDARY aim was more in accordance with
legitimate practice, and indeed para. 5 says as much, although note that
it makes the SECONDARY nature of this aim very clear:
<begin quote>
5. In addition to the main task, however, the Air Ministry directif
letter of 14th February, 1942, laid down that the Command should also
(i) be prepared to take on particular targets of immediate strategic
importance, such as naval units, submarine building-yards and bases;
(ii) support combined operations when required;
(iii) attack specified factories in France, in order to discourage
French workers from producing war equipment for the enemy.
<end quote>
Para. 5 then goes on to deal with the role of the light bomber force of
No. 2 group.
Cuddles
Tim Starr
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>>In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
>>>In article <6t1sop$16e$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
>>>Rosenberg) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <35F46A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >It was cold blooded murder, in violation of the Hague Convention on Land
>>>> >Warfare of 1907.
>>>>
>>>> How so? (There was ample reason to believe that all major German cities were
>>
>>>> involved in the Nazi war effort, after all.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Harris should have hanged. And so should you, you
>>>> >murdering bastard.
>>>>
>>>> Pfui.
>>>
>>>Double pfui. Harris should have been _decorated_.
>>>
>>>> In hindsight, it's clear that both the British nighttime bombing, and the
>>>> American daylight, "precision" bombing theories were, all in all, not
>>>the best
>>>> use of manpower or material.
>>>
>>>Only partially true. The Allied bombing campaigns gained two _very_
>>>important victories: the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the near
>>>destruction of the German oil industry.
>>
>>Which of those two victories did the firebombing of Dresden contribute to?
>
>The first, certainly; the second, indirectly, as well, by preventing the Nazis
>from concentrating their defenses around oil-industry targets. The problem
>with daylight precision bombing was that it permitted that sort of
>concentration of Nazi defenses.
>
>OTOH, it's likely that many bombs that were dropped didn't directly contribute
>to either victory. C'est la vie, eh?
C'est la guerre, to be more precise.
There were 3 separate bombing runs on Dresden by the Allies. Any contribution
to the destruction of the Luftwaffe & diversion of air defenses from the oil
industry had to have been accomplished at least by the end of the second run,
after the firestorm had already started.
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com (Tim
>Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <mvanalst-080...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,
>> Mark Van Alstine <mvanalst@netmail.!spam!home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, the RAF bombers, like the USAAF bombers, _did_ tie up the majority
>>>of 88mm cannon production and several million troops (to man them), thus
>>>keeping them away from the Eastern Front.
>>
>>Good rationale for deliberately targeting civilians: it forces the enemy to
>>allocate military resources for their defense, thus preventing them from
>>allocating those resources elsewhere.
>>
>>Dresden, unfortunately, wasn't even defended,
>
>So? All the better for the Allied aircrews.
So there goes your "justification" for the mass-murder of the people of
Dresden.
>>...so not even this rationalization for mass-murder can be applied to the
>>firebombing of Dresden.
>
>You mean _your_ canard. Nobody has suggested that Dresden was
>specifically bombed for that reason.
Oh, I see, you weren't trying to justify the bombing of Dresden at all. Your
statement of the beneficial contribution made by the bombing of Dresden to
the Allied war effort had nothing to do with whether it was justified in the
least.
Does that mean that you think the bombing of Dresden was unjustified? If
you do think it was justified, what would say was the justification?
>That you suggest otherwise is telling either to your lack of reading
>comprehension or scruples. Or both.
A man who ducked & ran like you did when it came to the unconstitutionality
of anti-paramilitary laws in the USA has no grounds to question the reading
comprehension or scruples of others.
Mark Van Alstine
[Lord Baa Baa's bleating snipped]
> > I don't think anyone is impressed.
>
> Not for one second, Mr Curtis.
Indeed! Lord Baa Baa, spouting his inane drvel impresses no one. Not even
for even a second.
> > This is my final word on my personal life in this
> > newsgroup.
>
> Just as well, I'd say!
Agreed. Lord Baa Baa is quite the bore. <yawn>
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35FC71...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > > In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you on that
> > > point 'Nazi apologists'.
> >
> > Nooo, I call Nazi apologists Nazi apologists.
>
> Well, any twit can call people names.
Rather, it appears any twit can be a Nazi apologist.
> You are at your most persuasive
> when you abstain from that sort of thing and produce awkward historical
> quotations that make me think.
You actually think? I couldn't tell with all your twittering.
> > > > > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way
> > > > > bound by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an
> > > > > attempt to settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was
> > > > > started by Serbia.
> > > >
> > > > That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> > > > Hitler starting World War II.
> > >
> > > Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
> >
> > It's _still_ an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
> > justify Hitler starting World War II.
>
> No, I'm not trying to justify Hitler starting World War II.
Sure you are. Even a twit like should be able to recognize this.
[Lord Baa Baa's twittering snipped]
IOW, you think "those examples"- Hitler's reasons for starting World War
II - had nothing to do with "settling injustices from World War I".
Thank you for that clarification.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
> > >
> > > Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
> > > carry nuclear warheads.
> >
> > But that's not murder -unlike the SS operating homicidal gas chambers for
> > the sole purpose of the mass murder of innocents because they were Jews.
>
> That's what we were discussing earlier and I've noted your arguments.
> I'm going to have to read up on Japan because you've produced some very
> detailed argument with which I am not familiar.
IOW, you are punting. Fine. Get back to me you have "read up on Japan."
> With regard to Dresden I think your apparent contention that it was
> primarily aimed at targeting military targets is refuted by paras 3 and 4
> of the Harris 'Despatch on War Operations', his report to his superiors on
> the wartime operations, sitting for years in the PRO and published by Cass
> in 1995 -- ISBN 0 7146 4692 X:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> 3. The main task, therefore, laid upon the Command by the Air Ministry
> directif letter numbered S.46368/D.C.A.S., of 14th February, 1942 was
> "to focus attacks on the morale of the enemy civil population, and, in
> particular, of the industrial workers."* [* Later expanded by directive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> issued by Combined Chiefs of Staff on 21st January, 1943, to include the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> general disorganisation of German industry]. This was to be achieved by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> destroying, mainly by incendiary attacks, first, four large cities in
> the Ruhr area and, then, as opportunity offered, fourteen other
> industrial cities in Northern, Central and Southern Germany. The aim of
> attacks on town areas had already been defined in an Air Staff paper
> (dated 23rd September, 1941) as follows: -
>
> "The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale of
> the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two
> things; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and,
> secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.
> The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i)
> destruction, and (ii) the fear of death"
>
> 4. My primary authorised task was therefore clear beyond doubt: to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> inflict the most severe material damage on German industrial cities. . .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> .
>
> <end quote>
>
> It is clear from this that the PRIMARY target of Harris's campaign was
> the civilian population....
What is there about "My primary authorised task was therefore clear beyond
doubt: to inflict the most severe material damage on German industrial
cities" that you don't understand?
In each an every raid by Bomber command legitmate military and industrial
targets were attacked. In fact, the actual primary targets of most, if not
all, of these raids were military and industrial installations. It was a
intentionally maximized side-effect to "dehouse" the civilain workers to
further burden the German economy and (generally unsuccesfully) to
demoralize them to impair industrial production. The reasons for this were
primarily due to operational and technological limitations. In short,
Bomber Command tried to maximize their (initially) somewhat limited
resources and abilities and inflict as much damage on the German economy-
and hence the German war machine -as possible. Including the "collaterol
targeting" of civilains. This a pattern in warfare that has evolved since
the Napoleonic era into what we know now as "total war."
> This is where I think we can make a compelling
> case against him (and his superiors) for terrorism.
Then you also certainly agree that Göring and his Luftwaffe subordinates
should be "in the docks" as well, yes? After all, the Allies did nothing
more reprehensible vis aerial bombardment and the laws of War than did the
Germans. Less, in fact, as the Allies never used strictly
_Vergeltungswaffe_ ("revenge weapons") against Germany as Germany did
against the Allies with its V-1 and V-2 terror bombing campaigns.
But of course, neither Göring nor his Luftwaffe subordinates were even
tried, much less convicted, for war crimes in regard to aerial
bombardment. Not for Warsaw. Not for Rotterdam. Not for Coventry or
London. The IMT did not consider strategic bombing to be a war crime -just
as it did not consider unrestricted submarine warfare to be a war crime.
If the Allies did not consider the aerial bom,bardment of their cities and
people by Germany, their _defeated enemy_ to be a war crime, why should
such accusations of war crimews against the Allies even be remotely
entertained?
They shouldn't. It's just that twittering Nazi apologists don't have very
many dead horses to beat, so they make due with the well-flogged ones ones
they have The problem is, of course, bombing cities- be it by the RAF,
USAAF, or the Luftwaffe -is not even remotely comparable to German
soldiers shooting tens of thousands of people, not to mention paramilitary
units, such as the Order Police and the SS, shooting and gassing
_millions_ of innocent and defenseless people in cold blood.
> There is not much difference between what he was doing here and putting
> bombs on crowded planes or in shopping centres to induce terror in the
> general public.
Absolute bullshit. The Combined Bomber Offensive was indended to, as you
pointed out, "to inflict the most severe material damage on German
industrial cities."
Or, as Churchill put it, "...to pulverize the entire industry and
scientific structure on which the war effort and economic life of the
enemy depended...." (Cf. Richards, _The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
Mike Curtis
>> I have a degree in the subject, Cuddles. Yet as I have told many here
>> in the past: I program computers for a living (my other degree) in
>> order to feed my family. I'm returning to school so I can teach after
>> I retire programming. This has been said before. Most everyone seems
>> to know this but you!
>
[snip]
> Mr Curtis,<snip>
At least you can call me Mr. Curtis because that is my name. Yet you
have failed to answer the question you were asked by both Mr. Morris
and myself.
Present your evidence of bias and unfairness at Nuremberg using the
trial itself. Attacking me isn't going to make that question go away.
Mike Curtis
Cuddles
> >> in the past: I program computers for a living (my other degree) in
> >> order to feed my family. I'm returning to school so I can teach after
> >> I retire programming. This has been said before. Most everyone seems
> >> to know this but you!
> >
>
> > Mr Curtis,<snip>
>
> At least you can call me Mr. Curtis because that is my name.
Your wish is my command, millud . . . er . . . I mean Mr Curtis.
> Yet you
> have failed to answer the question you were asked by both Mr. Morris
> and myself.
>
> Present your evidence of bias and unfairness at Nuremberg using the
> trial itself. Attacking me isn't going to make that question go away.
Still stuck in THAT groove. Every time I present such evidence you run
away and tell me present evidence! I can't win. It's much more fun to
draw attention to you telling brazen lies, like you did last week.
Cuddles
Cuddles
>
> In article <35FEE5...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35FC71...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you on that
> > > > point 'Nazi apologists'.
> > >
> > > Nooo, I call Nazi apologists Nazi apologists.
> >
> > Well, any twit can call people names.
>
> Rather, it appears any twit can be a Nazi apologist.
>
> > You are at your most persuasive
> > when you abstain from that sort of thing and produce awkward historical
> > quotations that make me think.
>
> You actually think? I couldn't tell with all your twittering.
Well, after all this associating with Nizkor I'm not surprised that you
can't tell a thought when you see one . . . :)-
> > > > > > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > > > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way
> > > > > > bound by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as an
> > > > > > attempt to settle injustices from World War I, which, I believe, was
> > > > > > started by Serbia.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to justify
> > > > > Hitler starting World War II.
> > > >
> > > > Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
> > >
> > > It's _still_ an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
> > > justify Hitler starting World War II.
> >
> > No, I'm not trying to justify Hitler starting World War II.
>
> Sure you are. Even a twit like should be able to recognize this.
Actually, I think starting World War II was NOT a particularly good move
from Mr Hitler's point of view. Continuing it was a completely
disastrous move. So why would I want to justify him doing either?
> [Lord Baa Baa's twittering snipped]
[Lord Baa Baa is not surprised that his twittering was snipped]
Settling injustices and reasserting Germany's position were certainly
what he CLAIMED as his basis for his actions. Read the speech I referred
you to.
> Thank you for that clarification.
Pleasure.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
> > > >
> > > > Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
> > > > carry nuclear warheads.
> > >
> > > But that's not murder -unlike the SS operating homicidal gas chambers for
> > > the sole purpose of the mass murder of innocents because they were Jews.
> >
> > That's what we were discussing earlier and I've noted your arguments.
> > I'm going to have to read up on Japan because you've produced some very
> > detailed argument with which I am not familiar.
>
> IOW, you are punting. Fine. Get back to me you have "read up on Japan."
Not sure what you mean. I advanced an argument. You asked me to quote an
historian on the matter. I quoted one. You answered his arguments. I
have to look at your answers carefully before I answer or you will
doubtless squash me. When you argue seriously and honestly you are
actually a very good debater, unlike 99% of your accomplices.
Let me begin by quoting back at you a quote that you fired at me a few
days ago:
<begin quote>
Article 24. (1) Aeriel bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a
military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction
or
injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the
belligerent.
(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the
following objectives: military forces; military works; military
establishments or depots; factories constituting important and
well-known
centers engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively
military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for
military purposes.
[...]
<end quote>
Source: Reisman ans Antoniou, _The Laws of_ War_, p.83.
Look at point (2) and observe the word 'exclusively'.
I now again refer you to the Harris 'Despatch' para. 3, quoting the air
staff memorandum:
<begin quote>
"The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale
of
> > the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two
> > things; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and,
> > secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.
> > The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i)
> > destruction, and (ii) the fear of death"
<end quote>
These are aims over and above what was exclusively permitted.
I don't dispute that damage to industry was regarded as a valuable
spin-off from the attacks. However the ULTIMATE targets were defenceless
civilians. And it is on the basis of the terroristic, rather than the
military, aims of the raids that I would rest my case that Harris was a
war criminal who should have been hanged together with his accomplices
if the Allied 'justice' had been applied consistently.
> They shouldn't. It's just that twittering Nazi apologists don't have very
> many dead horses to beat, so they make due with the well-flogged ones ones
> they have The problem is, of course, bombing cities- be it by the RAF,
> USAAF, or the Luftwaffe -is not even remotely comparable to German
> soldiers shooting tens of thousands of people, not to mention paramilitary
> units, such as the Order Police and the SS, shooting and gassing
> _millions_ of innocent and defenseless people in cold blood.
Whenever we bring up an Allied atrocity or killing, the standard
response seems to be that it is 'not comparable'. Anything is comparable
with anything else. What do you mean 'not comparable'? The comparison
makes you feel awkward? I'm shooting at your holy cows? Is that what you
mean?
> > There is not much difference between what he was doing here and putting
> > bombs on crowded planes or in shopping centres to induce terror in the
> > general public.
>
> Absolute bullshit. The Combined Bomber Offensive was indended to, as you
> pointed out, "to inflict the most severe material damage on German
> industrial cities."
>
> Or, as Churchill put it, "...to pulverize the entire industry and
> scientific structure on which the war effort and economic life of the
> enemy depended...." (Cf. Richards, _The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
Or as Harris put it:
<begin quote>
"The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale
of
> > the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two
> > things; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and,
> > secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.
> > The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i)
> > destruction, and (ii) the fear of death"
<end quote>
And that 'immediate aim' seems to me to be the classic aim of the likes
of the Oklahoma bomber, Mr Van Alstine.
Cuddles
Cuddles
I'm going to snip brutally to deal with as many points as I can fit in.
> Would that be the same Piaget who developed his theories independently
> of experimental or clinical practice?
Same technique as Sigmund Freud: observe a lot of cases and speculate.
Can you think of a better way of conducting research in that area?
> >> You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
> >> have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
> >> conducted.
>
> >Why not? That's a serious question. I want to get at why it is that an
> >attack on the jurisprudential basis of the Nuremburg trials should
> >require a consideration of 'how the trial was conducted' rather than the
> >legal basis for the trial.
>
> Because the trial was conducted in the real world.
Why should that prevent me from making points about the law that
underlies the trial? You seem to feel that questions such as whether
such law was impartial, novel, retroactive, etc. are somehow not
legitimate questions for debate. Why?
<snip>
> You also introduced considerations such as impartiality and the like.
> Perhaps you could explain to me how the "jurisprudential basis" for
> the trial makes the trial necessarily partial. To my mind, you would
> want to demonstrate partiality of the judges. But you seem to want to
> wallow about in your philosophical Valhalla.
You are wrong in saying that I want to demonstrate partiality of judges.
It is the law underlying the trial that interests me. It interests me
simply because it is so unlike the sort of law that we have in domestic
courts and has a lot of similarities with the practices normally
associated with show trials. It also interests me because it seems
unfair. It is the type of law that, if applied here, would cause
outrage.
> Empirical evidence does not seem to be your long suit.
Well, here we're returning to your favourite theme. Anyone who wants to
discuss aspects of World War II other than detailed history is
'ignorant' in your eyes. It is not, it seems, legitimate for us to
enquire into aspects such as the legal basis of the Nuremburg trials,
the moral equivalence of Allied and Axis actions, whether bombings
constitute war crimes and so forth. Yet these are the issues that do
interest me. And I think that these are areas that are increasingly
interesting the general public, if newspaper articles are any
indication.
<snip>
> >Not at all. I take your point entirely. So now we move to phase two of
> >the argument, which is to consider whether in this instance there were
> >indeed precedents arising from common laws against piracy.
>
> I didn't say that the common law of the sea established a precedent
> for the Nuremberg Trial, so the idiot literalness with which you
> answer the analogy is just that, idiot literalness.
Then why did you mention the law of the sea? Ah but you answer:
<snip my own stuff>
> You most certainly may distinguish the law of the sea from war crimes
> law on all sorts of practical grounds. I agree that they should be
> distinguished.
>
> And if I had cited the law of the sea as a precedent for the Nuremberg
> Trial, you might even have grounds to complain that I had cited it as
> a precedent.
>
> But I didn't. What I did say is that there is a legal analogy for the
> action of common law in international law, particularly that judicial
> law existed in place of statute law.
I submit that there is not a legal analogy here for putting individuals
on trial because their countries breached international treaties,
inventing crimes like 'crimes against peace' and 'crimes against
humanity' which did not exist in their domestic law at the time these
'crimes' were committed. Not is there an analogy here for foreign
invading powers, including criminal powers such as the Soviet Union,
establishing a court on sovereign German soil despite there being no
statutory or common law precedent for this, implementing a Charter that
violates commonly accepted principles of jurisprudence, and then, inter
alia, murdering the defendants.
> Where the analogy breaks down, of course, is that there already was a
> code of conduct in place which had statutory force. What didn't exist,
> and had to be established by judicial precedent, was a mechanism for
> trying and punishing violations of that code. Where the law of the sea
> evolved out of international common law judicial precedent, only the
> trials and punishments of Nazi war criminals were without precedent.
As I have argued above, there is no precedent for most of what went on
in those trials. The important word here, Mr Morris, is ARBITRARY. The
whole thing was set up specifically for a political purpose: propaganda.
<snip>
> >Second, the counts for which the defendants were accused have no basis
> >in the common law you have cited. Crimes against humanity, etc., simply
> >did not exist, to the best of my knowledge, in the law of the sea.
>
> No, Clueless, they existed in the international conventions on the
> laws of war which Germany signed. Germany agreed that acts such as it
> committed were crimes before they committed the crimes.
Then why can you not cite me the relevant paragraphs of the conventions?
I asked you to do this before. You mentioned, but did not cite, three
documents. I checked two. There were no mention of these 'crimes'. At
most these documents show that Germany violated international treaties.
They do not mention the crimes to which I have referred.
> >Now,
> >even if you had established that 'the common law has the ability to set
> >judicial precedents',
>
> And just where did you think precedents came from? They had to be set,
> didn't they? And who set them? Statutes? No. The judiciary.
>
> > you have most certainly not established that the
> >common law has the ability to come up with completely new crimes AND,
> >moreover, to put people on trial for those crimes even though the crimes
> >did not exist when they were allegedly committed?
>
> Is that a question?
Add the words 'have you?' to the end and it will be.
> >Third, common law is, by definition, the body of law established through
> >custom and prior judgment, as opposed to the body of law created through
> >statute. However, the Nurmeburg trials were entirely novel!
>
> Yes! You finally grasped my point! You are soooo sharp sometimes.
Funny. It was my point too. The Nuremburg trials were novel. And
therefore without any common law precedent. And without any statutory
basis. And therefore without any conventional legal basis whatsoever, Mr
Morris.
<snip>
>
> The crimes were crimes per Germany's agreement before Germany
> undertook to commit the crimes.
I'm not talking about Germany violating international treaties. Germany
as a nation wasn't imprisoned or hanged. I am talking about the poor
buggers who were tried for rubbish like 'crimes against humanity' and
'crimes against peace'.
> > the selection of
> >defendants . . . these were quite without precedent. How then, can these
> >trials be said to be in accordance with any common law.
>
> Because common law has the ability to establish legal precedents such
> as prescribing punishments where the statutes are silent.
You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that the trials were
entirely novel (see above) or that they were based on common law? Please
make up your mind.
> >Fourth -- the obvious point. Initially you said that the Nuremburg
> >trials had their basis in treaties. You referred me to three. I checked
> >two up. Those treaties made no provision for the establishment of the
> >Nuremburg trials.
>
> Your point being?
That you sent me on a wild goose chase. All these documents suggest is
that Germany violated treaties. I can agree with you on that. This
provides no basis for the trial of individuals at Nuremburg. Are we to
put, say, American journalists on trial for the American invasions of
Grenada or Panama? Once you start punishing (arbitrarily) individuals
for the actions of their governments, this is what you're on the
slippery slope to.
> > You might make a persuasive case that the Germans
> >broke those treaties. Fine! We might make a case that so did the Allies,
> >certainly in the case of one of them.
>
> Yes, I believe the _tu quoque_ argument is the real basis for your
> complaint about the "jurisprudential basis."
The BASIS of my complaint is the novel and, in my view, unfair
application of law. The REASON for my complaint is to suggest that the
Nuremurg trials were a propaganda stunt rather than a fair application
of the law. As such, they had a farcical quality and cannot be taken
seriously.
> > However, the trials certainly
> >cannot be said to derive their legality from these documents. I asked
> >you to quote me the precise clauses of these treaties giving legal force
> >to the Nuremburg trials. You could not do so.
>
> Why should I be able to cite clauses from documents which I have
> consistently maintained do *not* give legal force to the trials.
>
> Why don't you try arguing with me instead of your own fantasies about
> what I have said?
Then why did you quote them as sources of the 'crimes' for which the
defendants were tried?
> >Instead you made vague
> >references to, but could not cite, 'Anglo-American' common law.
>
> Now that I have clarified my position to include international common
> law, why are you whinging on about my having limited my remarks to
> Anglo-American common law.
Because it shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
> Since you didn't read what I wrote the first time, let me repeat it
> and hope that you get it the second time: "Now that I have gone back
> to refresh my memory on the common law basis of the punishments, I
> have found that the argument did not involve Anglo-American common law
> only but also international common law."
>
> And how the hell could I "cite" common law?
Well let me bounce that one back to you. Why should you have a problem
in citing common law? I can tell you that if I am an employee, and I am
dismissed, and my employer does not pay me the money he owes me for work
that I have done, then I have a common law right, over and above rights
granted by industrial legislation, to sue for my money. I may be able to
find other instances where courts have upheld this right and I can cite
them. If they've made their way into the law reports, I can cite these.
Did you fondly believe that court judgments that apply common law are
secret and go unrecorded?
Do you know what a 'law report' is, Mr Morris? Do you know why they
exist?
> >I
> >pointed out that it was an entirely novel and arbitrary event to apply
> >'Anglo-American' common law (whatever that might be) to crimes allegedly
> >committed in, inter alia, the Soviet Union, which had a very different
> >legal system.
>
> Notwithstanding your cluelessness about "Anglo-American common law"
> despite my previous explanation, Nazi crimes were international. The
> same defendants committed crimes in nations from the Atlantic Ocean to
> the gates of Moscow.
>
> The legal system applied was international law.
Define 'international law' for me, Mr Morris. Show me that you have some
inkling of what you're talking about.
> >Now you appeal to the law of the sea.
>
> I did?
Yup. It's there on Dejanews if you want me to cite it.
> > It seems to me that
> >it is quite clear that (a) you haven't a clue what you're talking about,
>
> Golly, that is a revealing statement, and not a very flattering
> revelation about you.
Ah . . . you don't understand the meaning of the word 'you' . . .
> >and (b) you are drawing from a hotchpotch of different legal traditions
> >in an entirely arbitrary and novel way in a post hoc attempt to justify
> >the treatment meted out to the defendants at Nuremburg.
>
> That's rich coming from someone who just asked me to "cite" common
> law.
And the fact that you even wrote that sentence illustrates point (a)
above very clearly. I ask you again: why are you under the impression
that common law cannot be cited?
<snip>
> >> >Two pieces of evidence. First, the Harris Despatch, which admits the
> >> >terroristic aims of the raids. Second, the deployment of 900 000 tons of
> >> >high explosives over civilian areas. How was that 'necessary', Mr
> >> >Morris?
>
> >> It is not for me to say. You claim that it was unnecessary, then the
> >> burden of proof falls to you to prove your claim.
>
> >I see. So an army can go around slaughtering civilians and it is for
> >others to prove that the slaughter was NOT necessary rather than for the
> >army to explain and justify its actions?
>
> No, you don't see. You are accusing the Allies of using unnecessary
> force to bring the war to a conclusion. Germany was unwilling to
> surrender until almost the whole country had been occupied. The
> Allies, of necessity, had to fight on against an enemy which had, _de
> facto_ or _de jure_ declared war on them.
Fine. But if they commit acts in contravention of international
treaties, then, applying your reasoning, they should be brought before a
kangaroo court . . . er . . . I mean an international court of justice.
> So far your proof seems to be that the Allies attacked lightly
> defended military targets adjacent to civilian areas.
Nope. See my argument with Van Allstine. The problem was that they had
aims that were incompatible with their treaty obligations. I don't doubt
that they attacked military targets. But attacking these targets was not
the 'exclusive' aim of the raids, as Harris's 'Despatch' shows. They
also had a terroristic element (c.f. Harris paras 3 and 4). This is
where, applying YOUR standards, Harris becomes a 'war criminal'.
> >Hang on! Can't we turn this argument around and use it against you. Let
> >us suppose that the Germans DID do all the beastly things they are
> >accused of. Are you saying that it is for YOU to prove that these
> >slaughters were not necessary to save the world from Bolshevism,
> >International Jewry, or indeed, little green men from Mars?
>
> Sure.
>
> Now, are you claiming that the Germans did "beastly" things to
> accomplish those aims?
Nope. What I am claiming is that when an army or airforce kills a lot of
civilians, it has, or should have, some explaining to do. And if it
doesn't explain itself adequately, heads should roll . . . literally.
<snip>
> >So, Hague notwithstanding, an army can go around destroying people's
> >property as much as it likes, and it is for the VICTIMS to prove that
> >such destruction was unnecessary rather than for the army, or its
> >political controllers, to explain and justify its actions. Hmmm.
> >Fascinating.
>
> And that was what was proved at Nuremberg.
Nuremburg was not capable of 'proving' anything other than the total
arbitrariness of the legal principles applied.
> >> >No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
> >> >house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
> >> >can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
> >> >a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
> >> >negative of that sort.
>
> >> Quit making lame excuses for failing to prove your own historical
> >> claims.
>
> >If you disagree with what I said above, why can't you produce a reason
> >for disagreeing?
>
> Sigh.
No answer? I repeat the question. What is the basis for your
disagreement?
<snip>
> >> >> So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
> >> >> admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
> >> >> know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
> >> >> and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
> >> >> the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
>
> >> >No. In British criminal trials it is not for the Bench to rule on the
> >> >admissibility of evidence. There is a very onerous piece of statute law,
> >> >the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or 'PACE' at it's known, that lays
> >> >down what is admissible and what is not. The Bench can rule on what is
> >> >admissible only with reference to this Act. In other words the judge
> >> >interprets this statute. At Nuremburg, the Charter is quite explicit
> >> >that there are no limits on what may be admitted as evidence save that
> >> >the judge consider it of probative value.
>
> >> Oh, I see. When I cite British legal tradition, it is invalid, but
> >> when you cite it, it is a perfectly good standard of evidence. Make up
> >> your mind which way you want it, and get back to me.
>
> >Oh, it's perfectly good. But not when you apply it to crimes committed
> >in the Soviet Union. Not when you combine arbitrarily with American law
> >to invent something called 'Anglo-American common law',
>
> Did you miss my discussion of international common law?
Yup. Where you are trying to wiggle out of introducing 'Anglo-American
common law' into the debate!
> > which you then
> >apply (retrospectively) to justify judgements for the commission of
> >non-existent crimes in Germany. Not when you try to imply that the
> >Nuremburg trials were given legal force by it.
>
> I didn't imply any such thing. I said straight out that the
> international common law tradition allowed for judicial decisions to
> operate where there was no statutory law. An example of where this
> happened in the past is the law of the sea.
>
> Were the Nuremberg Trials unprecedented? Yes.
>
> Are we clear on this point yet?
>
> Were there ever trials of international crimes in the past where there
> was no treaty basis for trials? Yes.
Indeed. Kangaroo courts were held in the past! So?
<snip>
> >> Sigh. If the newspaper were covered in blood, it would be submitted as
> >> a newspaper covered in blood irrespective of the contents of any
> >> article it contained. It would be a wholly different class of
> >> artifact.
>
> >I believe that was my point.
>
> Not in the sloppy way you worded it. You said that a newspaper
> *report* would be admitted as evidence if it was covered in blood.
I don't understand the point you're making.
<snip>
> >> >The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
>
> >> Then who the hell rules on it, Lackwit?
>
> >The judge may rule only that it is inadmissible. Otherwise there is
> >ground for appeal.
>
> ROTFL! This obviously isn't one of those fabled good days.
>
> Think about what you just said. If, when the admissibility of evidence
> is challenged, a judge may only rule that evidence is inadmissible,
> then a defendant would have only to challenge evidence to have it
> ruled inadmissible.
No, if evidence that is, in terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act, inadmissible, is placed before the criminal court, the judge must
rule that it is inadmissible or there will be grounds for appeal.
> >> >If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal.
>
> >> If he did allow in bad evidence, then he ruled on its admissibility.
>
> >And the ruling could be appealed to a higher court.
>
> And now we are agreed, did you have a point you wished to make?
Yes. That statute law such as PACE offers protection against the
admission of certain categories of prejudicial evidence over and above
the discretion of the judges. This protection was missing in the
Nuremburg trials.
> >> >At
> >> >Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
> >> >appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
> >> >something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible.
>
> >> Places quite a burden on the impartiality of the judges, then. Would
> >> you care to point out where bad evidence was not recognized as such
> >> and figured into their judgments?
>
> >I understand that there was a lot of hearsay evidence, photocopied
> >documents, evidence from people with a clear axe to grind.
>
> Yes, but that is the very thing you refuse to address on the grounds
> of your self-declared incompetence to do so. It is, as you say, a
> matter for the historians.
Quite.
> So whatever you may have heard or "understood" is, as you imply,
> utterly without value.
Only if I misheard or misunderstood.
> >> Thought not.
>
> >> >The STATUTORY
> >> >protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
> >> >would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
>
> >> Then I guess you would have to say that they had only a judicial
> >> protection from bad evidence.
>
> >Correct. And in a situation where the judiciary were appointed by the
> >former enemies of the accused in a bitter and bloody battle.
>
> That remains to be proven by you. What you have to show is that their
> decisions were politically-controlled.
Well let's begin on that one, starting with the easiest target. Do you
dispute that the Soviet decisions were politically controlled?
> I can show that they were not simply by pointing to the acquittals and
> the various sentences handed down.
Read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. Even the Soviet judicial system
sometimes let people go, or gave them light sentences (Solzhenitsyn
himself being an example of a light sentence). Is this evidence of lack
of political control of that system? Just look at the argument you've
advanced.
PREMISE: A judicial system produces acquittals and lenient sentences.
CONCLUSION: Therefore that judicial system is not politically
controlled.
Of course, it's a non sequitur. To make it work you need a second
premise that 'if a judicial system produces acquitals or lenient
sentences it is not politically controlled'. As I illustrated, the
Soviet system demonstrates the manifest falsity of this second premise.
A controlled system can acquit or give light sentences, particularly
when it is in its perceived interest to do so.
> Even in the case of Streicher, the political independence of the
> prosecutors is readily apparent. Telford Taylor, for instance, argues
> that the execution of Streicher was a mistake because the judges were
> swayed by his personal repulsiveness instead of the evidence against
> him. I agree with Taylor, by the way. Up to a point. The international
> treaties which made German actions crimes do not say anything about
> advocating murder. That would have been a matter for the German courts
> to decide.
An injustice that would not have arisen were there a proper statutory
basis for these trlals, or a proper right to appeal to a superior court
with the power to overturn the judgment of the court of first
instance.
> >> >1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
>
> >> The only way you could determine whether the judges were impartial is
> >> by looking at their rulings and their conduct.
>
> >NO!!!! If the judges were appointed by the former enemies of the accused
> >in a bitter war, that is in itself sufficient.
>
> Shouting doesn't make it sufficient. Show that the judges were under
> the political control of the Allies and that they rendered their
> judgments accordingly.
They were controlled, inter alia, through the Charter, which imposed
limitations on the fairness of their conduct. Through the selection of
the judges. The Russians were clearly under strong political influence.
The Streicher verdict suggests that the judgments were not, indeed,
impartial.
> >> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
> >> your fantasy of the trial.
>
> >No. You want to discuss the detailed history of the trials. I am making
> >a simple jurisprudential point that you cannot answer.
>
> Funny. I was sure you had just spent a great deal of time discussing
> the statutory basis for defining Nazi actions as crimes.
What does that have to do with anything? You still haven't answered the
point!
> >> >2. Right of fair indictment.
>
> >> Moot. You can't tell if the indictment was fair until after the trial.
> >> Unfortunately, you haven't even got to the beginning of the trial.
>
> >Er . . . Mr Morris . . . it's 1998. The trial ended half a century ago!
>
> And you didn't call me a liar based on your precious reading of my
> words. What a surprise.
>
> Let me rephrase: you haven't even begun to discuss the trial.
>
> >We DO, in fact, have the benefit of hindsight. Indeed, we now have
> >access to formerly classified documents such as the Harris 'Despatch'.
>
> And that bears on the guilt or innocence of the defendants at
> Nuremberg how exactly?
Insofar as it shows that there was prima facie evidence that the Allied
powers committed the same sorts of breaches of treaties for which
Germans were hanged, yet they were not indicted. Therefore there was no
fair indictment. Indictment was on the basis of 'we will try our enemies
but not our friends'.
>> In addition, "16 (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars
>> specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the
>> Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment,
>> translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to
>> the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial."
>> >3. Right to be tried for crimes that existed when they were allegedly
>> >committed.
>>> You still haven't named a crime which was not a crime before the Nazis
>>> violated the Kellog-Briand Pact and invaded Poland.
>>Lets try crimes against humanity. Can you give me the legal basis for
>>that please, Mr Morris?
> Piece o' cake. The Hague Conventions. If you were to read the
> particulars of the Indictment instead of the count headings, you would
> know that the Nazi government's violations of international law were
> grouped under four general counts. The specific crimes refer to
> Germany's violations of its obligations.
> Under crimes against humanity we have, for instance,
> 4.(a) Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and
> other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations
> before and during the war.
> If you want to know which sections of the Hague Convention these
> charges refer to, go back and find the post where I listed them and
> you snipped them. In fact, you have listed some of them with respect
> to Dresden.
The origin of 'crimes against humanity' is the Charter (i.e. a document
drawn up AFTER the alleged crimes were committed). Prior to this there
was no such crime.
To be sure, 'murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts' may well have been against domestic law. And here there
would doubtless have been a strong basis in statute law for the trial of
the individuals concerned. But one thing I can tell you: 'crimes against
humanity' did not exist as such prior to the Nuremburg trials.
You try to get around this, as did the Nuremburg circus-masters, by
invoking the Hague conventions. Yet these were not statements of
criminal law. These were agreements between nations. They do not mention
'crimes against humanity'. They do not deal in crime at all. They are
voluntary agreements between nations. They provide no basis for the
indictment, trial, sentencing, and murder of civilians from a defeated
power by an invading power after the war has ended.
> Just as an exercise, point out the part of the specific allegation in
> the Indictment on count 4(a) which the court held in favour of the
> defence.
No -- YOU point out where, in the Hague conventions, 'crimes against
humanity' are made a crime for which citizens of a defeated power may be
indicted, tried, sentenced, and murdered by an invading power after the
war has ended.
>>> >4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
>>> The only way you could determine whether the judges were arbitrary in
>>> sentencing is by looking at their judgments.
>>> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
>>> your fantasy of the trial.
>>Well, let's take one example: the hanging of Mr Streicher. Please could
>>you indicate how that was anything other than totally arbitrary.
>It wasn't arbitrary, as you might know if you bothered to read some of
>the memoirs about the trial. But the sentence was mistaken in my view.
> Care to pick another example?
I asked you 'please could you indicate how that was anything other than
totally arbitrary?' Why are you unable to answer?
>> >5. Right of appeal.
>> They had the right of appeal against both judgments and sentences.
>> Appeals against both were filed.
>The Charter very clearly states that there is no right of appeal.
> The trial clearly shows that the defendants' right of appeal was
> respected.
The trial shows merely that they were allowed to apply for 'clemency',
not to appeal to a superior court for the conduct of the entire trial to
be reviewed as would happen in a civilised country.
<out of space, I fear>
Cuddles
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35FEE5...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <35FC71...@cableinet.co.uk>,
Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > In other words you're going to call people who disagree with you
on that
> > > > > point 'Nazi apologists'.
> > > >
> > > > Nooo, I call Nazi apologists Nazi apologists.
> > >
> > > Well, any twit can call people names.
> >
> > Rather, it appears any twit can be a Nazi apologist.
> >
> > > You are at your most persuasive
> > > when you abstain from that sort of thing and produce awkward historical
> > > quotations that make me think.
> >
> > You actually think? I couldn't tell with all your twittering.
>
> Well, after all this associating with Nizkor I'm not surprised that you
> can't tell a thought when you see one . . . :)-
Brain farts aren't thoughts, you moron. Maybe if you hold a Bic lighter to
your ear the next time you break out in a mental sweat that will help you
tell the difference.
> > > > > > > Hitler clearly regarded the terms imposed on Germany at the end
> > > > > > > of World War I as outrageous and considered that he was in no way
> > > > > > > bound by them. In a sense, I think the Nazis saw World War II as
> > > > > > > an attempt to settle injustices from World War I, which, I
> > > > > > > believe, was started by Serbia.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
> > > > > > justify Hitler starting World War II.
> > > > >
> > > > > Heh. Delete Serbia. Replace with Austria-Hungary. <sheepish grin>
> > > >
> > > > It's _still_ an absolutely ridiculous rationalization on your part to
> > > > justify Hitler starting World War II.
> > >
> > > No, I'm not trying to justify Hitler starting World War II.
> >
> > Sure you are. Even a twit like should be able to recognize this.
>
> Actually, I think starting World War II was NOT a particularly good move
> from Mr Hitler's point of view. Continuing it was a completely
> disastrous move. So why would I want to justify him doing either?
Because you're a Nazi apologist?
But you just agreed that Hitler's reasons were different. You said, "I
don't think for one moment that those examples had anything to do with the
'settling injustices from World War I' aspect of things." Can't you make
up your mind? Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Tsk Tsk.
> > Thank you for that clarification.
>
> Pleasure.
All mine. Really.
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > Undoubtably. Most of them, however, wore SS uniforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you don't need many people to drop bombs, particularly if they
> > > > > carry nuclear warheads.
> > > >
> > > > But that's not murder -unlike the SS operating homicidal gas chambers
> > > > for the sole purpose of the mass murder of innocents because they were
> > > > Jews.
> > >
> > > That's what we were discussing earlier and I've noted your arguments.
> > > I'm going to have to read up on Japan because you've produced some very
> > > detailed argument with which I am not familiar.
> >
> > IOW, you are punting. Fine. Get back to me you have "read up on Japan."
>
> Not sure what you mean.
No, sounds like you are not sure what _you_ mean! LOL!
> I advanced an argument. You asked me to quote an
> historian on the matter. I quoted one. You answered his arguments. I
> have to look at your answers carefully before I answer or you will
> doubtless squash me. When you argue seriously and honestly you are
> actually a very good debater, unlike 99% of your accomplices.
LIke I said, you're punting. Fine. Get back to me when you have "read up
on Japan."
Maybe _you_ should read on a little further: "...factories constituting
important and well-known centers engaged in the manufacture of arms,
ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or
transportation used for military purposes."
[snip]
> I don't dispute that damage to industry was regarded as a valuable
> spin-off from the attacks.
It was the goal of the combined Bomber Offensive. Again, as Churchill put
it: " "...to pulverize the entire industry and scientific structure on
which the war effort and economic life of the enemy depended...."
> However the ULTIMATE targets were defenceless civilians.
Defenseless? Hardly. Dresden was defended. USAAF losses and battle-damaged
aircraft from the Dresden raids prove that.
[snip]
> Whenever we bring up an Allied atrocity or killing, the standard
> response seems to be that it is 'not comparable'.
It's _not_ comparable for the simple reason that, for example, Dresden was
not an atrocity. However, for example, the mass murder of millions of
innocent defenseless people in Nazi gas chambers _was_ an atrocity.
[snip]
> > > There is not much difference between what he was doing here and putting
> > > bombs on crowded planes or in shopping centres to induce terror in the
> > > general public.
> >
> > Absolute bullshit. The Combined Bomber Offensive was indended to, as you
> > pointed out, "to inflict the most severe material damage on German
> > industrial cities."
> >
> > Or, as Churchill put it, "...to pulverize the entire industry and
> > scientific structure on which the war effort and economic life of the
> > enemy depended...." (Cf. Richards, _The Hardest Victory_, p.69.)
>
> Or as Harris put it:
>
> <begin quote>
> "The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale
> > > of the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two
> > > things; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and,
> > > secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.
> > > The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i)
> > > destruction, and (ii) the fear of death"
> <end quote>
>
> And that 'immediate aim' seems to me to be the classic aim of the likes
> of the Oklahoma bomber, Mr Van Alstine.
Then you are quite bereft of your senses. But then why should anyone
expect anything different from a Nazi apologist? Nazi apologia is a
senseless pursuit.
John Morris
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
><snip to make space>
>I'm going to snip brutally to deal with as many points as I can fit in.
>> Would that be the same Piaget who developed his theories independently
>> of experimental or clinical practice?
>Same technique as Sigmund Freud: observe a lot of cases and speculate.
>Can you think of a better way of conducting research in that area?
Having been hired as a researcher in a joint English-Psychology
reading study, I can think of a better way. But you wouldn't get it.
>> >> You can repeat this over and over and over, but it you will still not
>> >> have proved the trial a farce until you look at how the trial was
>> >> conducted.
>> >Why not? That's a serious question. I want to get at why it is that an
>> >attack on the jurisprudential basis of the Nuremburg trials should
>> >require a consideration of 'how the trial was conducted' rather than the
>> >legal basis for the trial.
>> Because the trial was conducted in the real world.
>Why should that prevent me from making points about the law that
>underlies the trial? You seem to feel that questions such as whether
>such law was impartial, novel, retroactive, etc. are somehow not
>legitimate questions for debate. Why?
I've been carrying on exactly that conversation with you. Sorry you
didn't notice.
How many times have I asked you to prove rather than assert that the
trials were partial? How many ways to Sunday can I argue that the law
was not retroactive?
If you want to falsify my participation in this conversation, is
really there any point in continuing?
><snip>
>
>> You also introduced considerations such as impartiality and the like.
>> Perhaps you could explain to me how the "jurisprudential basis" for
>> the trial makes the trial necessarily partial. To my mind, you would
>> want to demonstrate partiality of the judges. But you seem to want to
>> wallow about in your philosophical Valhalla.
>You are wrong in saying that I want to demonstrate partiality of judges.
Did you miss the conditional in that sentence? No, I am telling you
that is what you ought to want to do. You want to play at shuffling
around abstract concepts with no purchase in the real world.
>It is the law underlying the trial that interests me. It interests me
>simply because it is so unlike the sort of law that we have in domestic
>courts and has a lot of similarities with the practices normally
>associated with show trials.
_Ipse dixit_. You *still* haven't proved it. All you have done is
assert it.
Support your assertions, or give it up.
> It also interests me because it seems
>unfair. It is the type of law that, if applied here, would cause
>outrage.
Applied where? In the real world? In this newsgroup? In Cuddles
Philosophical Valhalla?
>> Empirical evidence does not seem to be your long suit.
>Well, here we're returning to your favourite theme. Anyone who wants to
>discuss aspects of World War II other than detailed history is
>'ignorant' in your eyes.
Typical. That is not what I said. I said *you* are ignorant.
Whenever you are ready to stop having a conversation with yourself,
let me know.
>It is not, it seems, legitimate for us to
>enquire into aspects such as the legal basis of the Nuremburg trials,
>the moral equivalence of Allied and Axis actions,
How do you determine the moral equivalence of actions without looking
at the actions themselves?
> whether bombings
>constitute war crimes and so forth. Yet these are the issues that do
>interest me.
No, they don't interest you. If they did, we wouldn't be arguing about
what to argue about.
>And I think that these are areas that are increasingly
>interesting the general public, if newspaper articles are any
>indication.
><snip>
>> >Not at all. I take your point entirely. So now we move to phase two of
>> >the argument, which is to consider whether in this instance there were
>> >indeed precedents arising from common laws against piracy.
>> I didn't say that the common law of the sea established a precedent
>> for the Nuremberg Trial, so the idiot literalness with which you
>> answer the analogy is just that, idiot literalness.
>Then why did you mention the law of the sea? Ah but you answer:
><snip my own stuff>
You are too kind.
>> You most certainly may distinguish the law of the sea from war crimes
>> law on all sorts of practical grounds. I agree that they should be
>> distinguished.
>> And if I had cited the law of the sea as a precedent for the Nuremberg
>> Trial, you might even have grounds to complain that I had cited it as
>> a precedent.
>> But I didn't. What I did say is that there is a legal analogy for the
>> action of common law in international law, particularly that judicial
>> law existed in place of statute law.
>I submit that there is not a legal analogy here for putting individuals
>on trial because their countries breached international treaties,
The individuals ran their governments. This is especially true for
Nazi Germany. Did you forget about the Fuhrer Principle?
Those individuals made decisions that affected real people in the real
world. Those decisions were in violation of the treaty obligations
agreed to by their governments.
But that is not what you want to discuss. You want to discuss the
philosophy of law.
>inventing crimes like 'crimes against peace' and 'crimes against
>humanity'
This is bloody ridiculous. Is that how you argue? Simply repeat the
same stupid content-free slogans over and over and over?
"Crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity" are categories of
crime given content in the course of the trial. Every specific
instance is derived from Germany's agreement to treat such things as
crimes.
Did I type it slowly enough this time so that you could understand the
point?
> which did not exist in their domestic law at the time these
>'crimes' were committed.
By undertaking treaty obligations, they became part of German domestic
law.
Read de Zayas on the Nazi War Crimes Bureau. Unlike you, they knew
what they were talking about when it came to international war crimes
law.
> Not is there an analogy here for foreign
>invading powers, including criminal powers such as the Soviet Union,
>establishing a court on sovereign German soil despite there being no
>statutory or common law precedent for this, implementing a Charter that
>violates commonly accepted principles of jurisprudence, and then, inter
>alia, murdering the defendants.
First, Dimwit, the analogy is simply that international crimes had
been tried in the past in the absence of a statute law allowing for
trial of those crimes.
Second, common law establishes precedents. That is where precedents
come from.
Third, naming the subject of a trial does not violate any "principles
of jurisprudence."
Fourth, prejudicial language like "murdering the defendants" is no
substitute for proving that they were murdered. First you have to
prove that they did not receive a fair trial. But that is not what you
want to discuss.
>> Where the analogy breaks down, of course, is that there already was a
>> code of conduct in place which had statutory force. What didn't exist,
>> and had to be established by judicial precedent, was a mechanism for
>> trying and punishing violations of that code. Where the law of the sea
>> evolved out of international common law judicial precedent, only the
>> trials and punishments of Nazi war criminals were without precedent.
>As I have argued above, there is no precedent for most of what went on
>in those trials. The important word here, Mr Morris, is ARBITRARY. The
>whole thing was set up specifically for a political purpose: propaganda.
That is what you should be trying to prove for the *first* time.
Unfortunately, you believe that simply repeating an unsupported claim
proves it.
><snip>
>> >Second, the counts for which the defendants were accused have no basis
>> >in the common law you have cited. Crimes against humanity, etc., simply
>> >did not exist, to the best of my knowledge, in the law of the sea.
>> No, Clueless, they existed in the international conventions on the
>> laws of war which Germany signed. Germany agreed that acts such as it
>> committed were crimes before they committed the crimes.
>Then why can you not cite me the relevant paragraphs of the conventions?
I have done so repeatedly. You simply choose to lie about whether I
did.
>I asked you to do this before. You mentioned, but did not cite, three
>documents. I checked two. There were no mention of these 'crimes'. At
>most these documents show that Germany violated international treaties.
>They do not mention the crimes to which I have referred.
Polly want a cracker?
>> >Now,
>> >even if you had established that 'the common law has the ability to set
>> >judicial precedents',
>> And just where did you think precedents came from? They had to be set,
>> didn't they? And who set them? Statutes? No. The judiciary.
No answer?
Oh, yes, I guess you did answer above. Unfortunately, you simply
repeated your stock phrases.
>> > you have most certainly not established that the
>> >common law has the ability to come up with completely new crimes AND,
>> >moreover, to put people on trial for those crimes even though the crimes
>> >did not exist when they were allegedly committed?
>> Is that a question?
>Add the words 'have you?' to the end and it will be.
Fine. Now I'll answer.
The crimes were not new but part of Germany's international treaty
obligations. Live with it. So, I was not trying to prove that there
were any new crimes at all. That is the conversation you are having
with someone else. I guess your confusion comes from naming your
imaginary interlocutor "John Morris."
>> >Third, common law is, by definition, the body of law established through
>> >custom and prior judgment, as opposed to the body of law created through
>> >statute. However, the Nurmeburg trials were entirely novel!
Where do precedents come from?
>> Yes! You finally grasped my point! You are soooo sharp sometimes.
>Funny. It was my point too. The Nuremburg trials were novel. And
>therefore without any common law precedent.
Yes.
> And without any statutory
>basis. And therefore without any conventional legal basis whatsoever, Mr
>Morris.
They established a precedent. So did the judiciary before there were
statutes regarding the law of the sea.
Live with it.
><snip>
>> The crimes were crimes per Germany's agreement before Germany
>> undertook to commit the crimes.
>I'm not talking about Germany violating international treaties. Germany
>as a nation wasn't imprisoned or hanged.
That is a pretty stupid indirection. Is that the best you can come up
with?
> I am talking about the poor
>buggers who were tried for rubbish like 'crimes against humanity' and
>'crimes against peace'.
You mean the guys who actually made the decisions that caused
"Germany" to violation its treaty obligations?
>> > the selection of
>> >defendants . . . these were quite without precedent. How then, can these
>> >trials be said to be in accordance with any common law.
>> Because common law has the ability to establish legal precedents such
>> as prescribing punishments where the statutes are silent.
>You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that the trials were
>entirely novel (see above) or that they were based on common law? Please
>make up your mind.
Sigh. Common law allows for the establishment legal precedents such as
prescribing punishments where the statutes are silent.
How is that having it both ways? What are the two parts of "both
ways"?
>> >Fourth -- the obvious point. Initially you said that the Nuremburg
>> >trials had their basis in treaties. You referred me to three. I checked
>> >two up. Those treaties made no provision for the establishment of the
>> >Nuremburg trials.
>> Your point being?
>That you sent me on a wild goose chase. All these documents suggest is
>that Germany violated treaties. I can agree with you on that.
Huzzah. I consider this a breakthrough. But I doubt it will last.
Now when did I tell you that the treaties allowed for trials?
You can hardly blame me because you are too obtuse to understand the
rather simple points I have been making.
And the rather simple point I was making is that the treaty violations
were criminal acts. Unless, of course, you think that it is not
criminal to kill non-combatants simply because of their race,
religion, or nationality.
But you do think that. You do think it is alright, if necessary, to
kill others in order to establish a racially homogeneous Britain. And,
that, I believe is the real reason you want to excuse the crimes of
the Nazis.
>This
>provides no basis for the trial of individuals at Nuremburg. Are we to
>put, say, American journalists on trial for the American invasions of
>Grenada or Panama?
Must you always ask such blitheringly stupid questions?
If a war crimes tribunal were to be convened, then the chief defendant
would be Ronald Reagan.
>Once you start punishing (arbitrarily) individuals
>for the actions of their governments, this is what you're on the
>slippery slope to.
How tiresome you are.
Speer, Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Ley, _et al_., made decisions which
caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.
>> > You might make a persuasive case that the Germans
>> >broke those treaties. Fine! We might make a case that so did the Allies,
>> >certainly in the case of one of them.
>> Yes, I believe the _tu quoque_ argument is the real basis for your
>> complaint about the "jurisprudential basis."
>The BASIS of my complaint is the novel and, in my view, unfair
>application of law. The REASON for my complaint is to suggest that the
>Nuremurg trials were a propaganda stunt rather than a fair application
>of the law. As such, they had a farcical quality and cannot be taken
>seriously.
Bzzzt. No, you have suggested that the law itself was unfair. What you
desperately want to avoid is discussing is whether at the end of the
day the defendants were treated fairly in the application of the
actual law you claim didn't exist.
And I am very much cognizant that you are engaging in a propaganda
stunt of your own by suggesting that the trials were farcical. But it
is nice to see that you are so candid about it.
>> > However, the trials certainly
>> >cannot be said to derive their legality from these documents. I asked
>> >you to quote me the precise clauses of these treaties giving legal force
>> >to the Nuremburg trials. You could not do so.
>> Why should I be able to cite clauses from documents which I have
>> consistently maintained do *not* give legal force to the trials.
>> Why don't you try arguing with me instead of your own fantasies about
>> what I have said?
>Then why did you quote them as sources of the 'crimes' for which the
>defendants were tried?
Because they are. I never argued that the treaties gave legal force to
the trials, only that they defined the crimes.
You just like to lie about it.
>> >Instead you made vague
>> >references to, but could not cite, 'Anglo-American' common law.
>> Now that I have clarified my position to include international common
>> law, why are you whinging on about my having limited my remarks to
>> Anglo-American common law.
>Because it shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Nice try. But all that it shows is that it has been awhile since I
have had to discuss the question.
But let's watch as Cuddles the Nazi tries to turn an insignificant
point into a Big Lie.
>> Since you didn't read what I wrote the first time, let me repeat it
>> and hope that you get it the second time: "Now that I have gone back
>> to refresh my memory on the common law basis of the punishments, I
>> have found that the argument did not involve Anglo-American common law
>> only but also international common law."
>> And how the hell could I "cite" common law?
>Well let me bounce that one back to you. Why should you have a problem
>in citing common law? I can tell you that if I am an employee, and I am
>dismissed, and my employer does not pay me the money he owes me for work
>that I have done, then I have a common law right, over and above rights
>granted by industrial legislation, to sue for my money. I may be able to
>find other instances where courts have upheld this right and I can cite
>them. If they've made their way into the law reports, I can cite these.
>Did you fondly believe that court judgments that apply common law are
>secret and go unrecorded?
So, would you like me to search through centuries of law reports
looking for examples where courts have prescribed punishments where
the statutes are silent just because you *may* be able to find a
precedent in an industrial case? Shall I go back to the Limit of Legal
Memory?
And then what good would that do me? Since I would have to look at
national law reports where international law was applied, you could
simply dismiss my labours because all my references would be to
national law reports.
But perhaps we could look at trials of war criminals undertaken by
Germany or the Permanent Court.
May I also look at legal scholarship on the subject?
Be careful how you answer.
>Do you know what a 'law report' is, Mr Morris? Do you know why they
>exist?
That's pretty funny. Yes, Snothead, I do know what a law report is. In
fact, I have used them quite routinely in my own research.
Now here is a question for you. Have law reports always recorded the
verdict and the sentencing?
>> >I
>> >pointed out that it was an entirely novel and arbitrary event to apply
>> >'Anglo-American' common law (whatever that might be) to crimes allegedly
>> >committed in, inter alia, the Soviet Union, which had a very different
>> >legal system.
>> Notwithstanding your cluelessness about "Anglo-American common law"
>> despite my previous explanation, Nazi crimes were international. The
>> same defendants committed crimes in nations from the Atlantic Ocean to
>> the gates of Moscow.
>> The legal system applied was international law.
>Define 'international law' for me, Mr Morris. Show me that you have some
>inkling of what you're talking about.
The rules and customs which are the common heritage of all civilized
peoples. In the case we are discussing, the laws and customs of
warfare agreed to by all civilized nations.
And let's not forget that Germany tried war criminals in the
Franco-Prussian War, in the World War I, in World War II irrespective
of the nationality of the criminals or the teritoriality of the
crimes. They did so by the established custom of nations running back
to at least the seventeenth century.
>> >Now you appeal to the law of the sea.
>> I did?
>Yup. It's there on Dejanews if you want me to cite it.
But I didn't appeal to the law of the sea. And I just spent a good
deal of effort sorting out your misrepresentations of what I did say.
>> > It seems to me that
>> >it is quite clear that (a) you haven't a clue what you're talking about,
>> Golly, that is a revealing statement, and not a very flattering
>> revelation about you.
>Ah . . . you don't understand the meaning of the word 'you' . . .
Ah, cut the crap. You're just sore because I keep showing up how
little you know of what you are talking about.
><snip>
Of course they should. If there had been a competent court to the hear
the case and decide on their guilt, I'll bet they would have been,
too.
>> So far your proof seems to be that the Allies attacked lightly
>> defended military targets adjacent to civilian areas.
>Nope. See my argument with Van Allstine. The problem was that they had
>aims that were incompatible with their treaty obligations. I don't doubt
>that they attacked military targets. But attacking these targets was not
>the 'exclusive' aim of the raids, as Harris's 'Despatch' shows. They
>also had a terroristic element (c.f. Harris paras 3 and 4). This is
>where, applying YOUR standards, Harris becomes a 'war criminal'.
>> >Hang on! Can't we turn this argument around and use it against you. Let
>> >us suppose that the Germans DID do all the beastly things they are
>> >accused of. Are you saying that it is for YOU to prove that these
>> >slaughters were not necessary to save the world from Bolshevism,
>> >International Jewry, or indeed, little green men from Mars?
>> Sure.
>> Now, are you claiming that the Germans did "beastly" things to
>> accomplish those aims?
>Nope. What I am claiming is that when an army or airforce kills a lot of
>civilians, it has, or should have, some explaining to do. And if it
>doesn't explain itself adequately, heads should roll . . . literally.
Good. The principle was applied to Nazi Germany exactly as Nazi
Germany applied it to others.
><snip>
>> >So, Hague notwithstanding, an army can go around destroying people's
>> >property as much as it likes, and it is for the VICTIMS to prove that
>> >such destruction was unnecessary rather than for the army, or its
>> >political controllers, to explain and justify its actions. Hmmm.
>> >Fascinating.
>> And that was what was proved at Nuremberg.
>Nuremburg was not capable of 'proving' anything other than the total
>arbitrariness of the legal principles applied.
I just love how fall back on the old slogans when pressed to admit
Nazi crimes. Now, prove your contention.
>> >> >No. You must demonstrate that it was necessary. If you blow up someone's
>> >> >house, Mr Morris, you have to have a pretty good reason for it. You
>> >> >can't just turn around afterwards and say 'well prove that I DIDN'T have
>> >> >a good reason for it!' It is, moreoever, logically impossible to prove a
>> >> >negative of that sort.
>> >> Quit making lame excuses for failing to prove your own historical
>> >> claims.
>> >If you disagree with what I said above, why can't you produce a reason
>> >for disagreeing?
>> Sigh.
>No answer? I repeat the question. What is the basis for your
>disagreement?
Sigh. You seem to think that I am under some sort of obligation to
explain to you what you already know to be an illogical and
tendentious argument. Or would know if you were really debating with
me instead of using me as springboard for your Nazi apologetics.
On top of that, I already explained why I disagree with you.
><snip>
>> >> >> So far as I have seen, you have whittered on about low standards of
>> >> >> admissible evidence. If you had any knowledge of the trial, you would
>> >> >> know that the standards cut both ways: the defendants were allowed to,
>> >> >> and did, enter exhibits in their own defence. As in any other trial,
>> >> >> the bench ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
>> >> >No. In British criminal trials it is not for the Bench to rule on the
>> >> >admissibility of evidence. There is a very onerous piece of statute law,
>> >> >the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or 'PACE' at it's known, that lays
>> >> >down what is admissible and what is not. The Bench can rule on what is
>> >> >admissible only with reference to this Act. In other words the judge
>> >> >interprets this statute. At Nuremburg, the Charter is quite explicit
>> >> >that there are no limits on what may be admitted as evidence save that
>> >> >the judge consider it of probative value.
>> >> Oh, I see. When I cite British legal tradition, it is invalid, but
>> >> when you cite it, it is a perfectly good standard of evidence. Make up
>> >> your mind which way you want it, and get back to me.
>> >Oh, it's perfectly good. But not when you apply it to crimes committed
>> >in the Soviet Union. Not when you combine arbitrarily with American law
>> >to invent something called 'Anglo-American common law',
>> Did you miss my discussion of international common law?
>Yup. Where you are trying to wiggle out of introducing 'Anglo-American
>common law' into the debate!
Sigh. In other words, you are going to apply the Cuddles Rules of
Debate: no matter how many times your opponent admits he erred, keep
harping on the error.
And you wonder why I question your basic honesty.
>> > which you then
>> >apply (retrospectively) to justify judgements for the commission of
>> >non-existent crimes in Germany. Not when you try to imply that the
>> >Nuremburg trials were given legal force by it.
>> I didn't imply any such thing. I said straight out that the
>> international common law tradition allowed for judicial decisions to
>> operate where there was no statutory law. An example of where this
>> happened in the past is the law of the sea.
>> Were the Nuremberg Trials unprecedented? Yes.
>> Are we clear on this point yet?
>> Were there ever trials of international crimes in the past where there
>> was no treaty basis for trials? Yes.
>Indeed. Kangaroo courts were held in the past! So?
I see you have filed for intellectual bankruptcy. Whether "kangaroo
courts" were held in the past has no bearing on whether the Nuremberg
Trials were kangaroo courts.
At least make an effort to argue logically.
><snip>
>> >> Sigh. If the newspaper were covered in blood, it would be submitted as
>> >> a newspaper covered in blood irrespective of the contents of any
>> >> article it contained. It would be a wholly different class of
>> >> artifact.
>> >I believe that was my point.
>> Not in the sloppy way you worded it. You said that a newspaper
>> *report* would be admitted as evidence if it was covered in blood.
>I don't understand the point you're making.
Tell me something I don't know.
><snip>
>> >> >The judge would not normally have the power to rule that it be admitted.
>
>> >> Then who the hell rules on it, Lackwit?
>> >The judge may rule only that it is inadmissible. Otherwise there is
>> >ground for appeal.
>> ROTFL! This obviously isn't one of those fabled good days.
>> Think about what you just said. If, when the admissibility of evidence
>> is challenged, a judge may only rule that evidence is inadmissible,
>> then a defendant would have only to challenge evidence to have it
>> ruled inadmissible.
>No, if evidence that is, in terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence
>Act, inadmissible, is placed before the criminal court, the judge must
>rule that it is inadmissible or there will be grounds for appeal.
So what?
>> >> >If he did allow it in, then there would be grounds for appeal.
>> >> If he did allow in bad evidence, then he ruled on its admissibility.
>> >And the ruling could be appealed to a higher court.
>> And now we are agreed, did you have a point you wished to make?
>Yes. That statute law such as PACE offers protection against the
>admission of certain categories of prejudicial evidence over and above
>the discretion of the judges. This protection was missing in the
>Nuremburg trials.
The protection was not missing. And you would know that if your were
not so wilfully ignorant of the case.
But don't take my word for it. Look at the trial.
Oh, but I keep forgetting: you don't want to discuss the trial. You
want to discuss the Charter.
>> >> >At
>> >> >Nuremburg, this statutory limitation would not exist. If the judges,
>> >> >appointed by the former enemies of the defendants, considered that
>> >> >something has 'probative' value, then it is admissible.
>> >> Places quite a burden on the impartiality of the judges, then. Would
>> >> you care to point out where bad evidence was not recognized as such
>> >> and figured into their judgments?
>> >I understand that there was a lot of hearsay evidence, photocopied
>> >documents, evidence from people with a clear axe to grind.
>> Yes, but that is the very thing you refuse to address on the grounds
>> of your self-declared incompetence to do so. It is, as you say, a
>> matter for the historians.
>Quite.
>> So whatever you may have heard or "understood" is, as you imply,
>> utterly without value.
>Only if I misheard or misunderstood.
Or, if you were misled.
But you refuse to find out whether you have been misled because "it
is, as you say, a matter for the historians." Your opinions are
therefore utterly without value.
>> >> Thought not.
>> >> >The STATUTORY
>> >> >protection that exists for common criminals in English law, and which
>> >> >would not exist were it unnecessary, did not exist at Nuremburg.
>> >> Then I guess you would have to say that they had only a judicial
>> >> protection from bad evidence.
>> >Correct. And in a situation where the judiciary were appointed by the
>> >former enemies of the accused in a bitter and bloody battle.
>> That remains to be proven by you. What you have to show is that their
>> decisions were politically-controlled.
>Well let's begin on that one, starting with the easiest target. Do you
>dispute that the Soviet decisions were politically controlled?
Whether they were is irrelevant because to effect their decisions they
had to negotiate with three other judges to put their decisions into
effect. That was true for all four judges: they all acted as a check
on the others. Paradoxical as it may sound, they were constrained to
act independently.
If you don't believe me, read up on it, particularly the Soviet
proesecutor's claims that the Soviet judge agrees that there should
have been no acquittals.
>> I can show that they were not simply by pointing to the acquittals and
>> the various sentences handed down.
>Read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. Even the Soviet judicial system
>sometimes let people go, or gave them light sentences (Solzhenitsyn
>himself being an example of a light sentence). Is this evidence of lack
>of political control of that system? Just look at the argument you've
>advanced.
>PREMISE: A judicial system produces acquittals and lenient sentences.
>CONCLUSION: Therefore that judicial system is not politically
>controlled.
>Of course, it's a non sequitur. To make it work you need a second
>premise that 'if a judicial system produces acquitals or lenient
>sentences it is not politically controlled'. As I illustrated, the
>Soviet system demonstrates the manifest falsity of this second premise.
>A controlled system can acquit or give light sentences, particularly
>when it is in its perceived interest to do so.
Then prove the interest. And by that I don't mean that you should beg
the question: the trials were unfair but they needed to look fair.
In any event, you are already begging the question since you have not
proved a) that the Nuremberg Trials were comparable to Soviet
political trials and b) that all acquittals under the Soviet system
were politically motivated to make the system look fair.
>> Even in the case of Streicher, the political independence of the
>> prosecutors is readily apparent. Telford Taylor, for instance, argues
>> that the execution of Streicher was a mistake because the judges were
>> swayed by his personal repulsiveness instead of the evidence against
>> him. I agree with Taylor, by the way. Up to a point. The international
>> treaties which made German actions crimes do not say anything about
>> advocating murder. That would have been a matter for the German courts
>> to decide.
>An injustice that would not have arisen were there a proper statutory
>basis for these trlals,
Of course. We'll let the pirates get away with sinking our ships on
the high seas because we have no statutory protection. But that is not
what civilized nations did.
>or a proper right to appeal to a superior court
>with the power to overturn the judgment of the court of first
>instance.
They appealed to such a body.
>> >> >1. Right to be judged by impartial judges.
>> >> The only way you could determine whether the judges were impartial is
>> >> by looking at their rulings and their conduct.
>> >NO!!!! If the judges were appointed by the former enemies of the accused
>> >in a bitter war, that is in itself sufficient.
>> Shouting doesn't make it sufficient. Show that the judges were under
>> the political control of the Allies and that they rendered their
>> judgments accordingly.
>They were controlled, inter alia, through the Charter, which imposed
>limitations on the fairness of their conduct.
Were they so controlled? I have pointed to any number of ways that the
judges
> Through the selection of
>the judges. The Russians were clearly under strong political influence.
>The Streicher verdict suggests that the judgments were not, indeed,
>impartial.
Does it now? Does it "suggest" that to you? How wonderful for you.
>> >> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
>> >> your fantasy of the trial.
>> >No. You want to discuss the detailed history of the trials. I am making
>> >a simple jurisprudential point that you cannot answer.
>> Funny. I was sure you had just spent a great deal of time discussing
>> the statutory basis for defining Nazi actions as crimes.
>What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with your endless refrain that you want to discuss only
your precious "jurisprudential point" yet you discuss the Charter as
the statutory basis for the trial.
I think you don't know what you want to discuss.
> You still haven't answered the
>point!
The "jurisprudential point" that it is unfair to name the accused?
>> >> >2. Right of fair indictment.
>> >> Moot. You can't tell if the indictment was fair until after the trial.
>> >> Unfortunately, you haven't even got to the beginning of the trial.
>> >Er . . . Mr Morris . . . it's 1998. The trial ended half a century ago!
>> And you didn't call me a liar based on your precious reading of my
>> words. What a surprise.
>> Let me rephrase: you haven't even begun to discuss the trial.
>> >We DO, in fact, have the benefit of hindsight. Indeed, we now have
>> >access to formerly classified documents such as the Harris 'Despatch'.
>> And that bears on the guilt or innocence of the defendants at
>> Nuremberg how exactly?
>Insofar as it shows that there was prima facie evidence that the Allied
>powers committed the same sorts of breaches of treaties for which
>Germans were hanged, yet they were not indicted.
And that bears on the guilt of the Nazis how exactly?
> Therefore there was no
>fair indictment. Indictment was on the basis of 'we will try our enemies
>but not our friends'.
And that bears on the guilt of the Nazis how exactly?
So basically you think you are going to convince me that there was no
codified basis for the charges by being bloody-minded.
>To be sure, 'murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
>inhumane acts' may well have been against domestic law.
They were also against international law. What is your problem?
> And here there
>would doubtless have been a strong basis in statute law for the trial of
>the individuals concerned.
Yes. We're on a roll.
>But one thing I can tell you: 'crimes against
>humanity' did not exist as such prior to the Nuremburg trials.
Crimes against humanity most certainly did exist before the trial.
Only the heading for grouping the crimes didn't exist.
This is really hilarious seeing a so-called Feyerabendian confusing
taxonomy with reality.
>You try to get around this, as did the Nuremburg circus-masters, by
>invoking the Hague conventions. Yet these were not statements of
>criminal law. These were agreements between nations. They do not mention
>'crimes against humanity'. They do not deal in crime at all. They are
>voluntary agreements between nations.
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off!!!!!
And where did you think international law came from? The International
Government? Did you think at all?
You are a truly remarkable idiot.
> They provide no basis for the
>indictment, trial, sentencing, and murder of civilians from a defeated
>power by an invading power after the war has ended.
Of course not. We are agreed on this point.
Where we are disagreed is your inability to grasp how common law
works. Sorry about that.
>> Just as an exercise, point out the part of the specific allegation in
>> the Indictment on count 4(a) which the court held in favour of the
>> defence.
>No -- YOU point out where, in the Hague conventions, 'crimes against
>humanity' are made a crime for which citizens of a defeated power may be
>indicted, tried, sentenced, and murdered by an invading power after the
>war has ended.
I knew you couldn't, you ignoramus.
But in answer to your specific question (which I have now answered
repeatedly), I will quote a famous legal scholar:
To be sure, 'murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and
other inhumane acts' may well have been against domestic law.
Now this famous scholar seems to agree that the items named are
crimes. Alas, he does not understand that they are also crimes in
international law.
>>>> >4. Right to be sentenced in a non-arbitrary way.
>>>> The only way you could determine whether the judges were arbitrary in
>>>> sentencing is by looking at their judgments.
>>>> But you have set your face against that. You would rather discuss a
>>>> your fantasy of the trial.
>>>Well, let's take one example: the hanging of Mr Streicher. Please could
>>>you indicate how that was anything other than totally arbitrary.
>>It wasn't arbitrary, as you might know if you bothered to read some of
>>the memoirs about the trial. But the sentence was mistaken in my view.
>> Care to pick another example?
>I asked you 'please could you indicate how that was anything other than
>totally arbitrary?' Why are you unable to answer?
Why are you too stupid to figure it out?
But let me spell it out for you. If you willing to take off your
Charter-blinkers for a second, you would know that the sentences were
arrived at through a complex process of legal argumentation and
negotiation between the four judges. If your want to call that kind of
process arbitrary, send your definition into the OED. I'm sure they
could use the laugh.
>>> >5. Right of appeal.
>>> They had the right of appeal against both judgments and sentences.
>>> Appeals against both were filed.
>>The Charter very clearly states that there is no right of appeal.
>> The trial clearly shows that the defendants' right of appeal was
>> respected.
>The trial shows merely that they were allowed to apply for 'clemency',
>not to appeal to a superior court for the conduct of the entire trial to
>be reviewed as would happen in a civilised country.
The trial clearly shows appeals of the *judgment*: Frick's on the
basis of superior orders; Neurath's on the basis of his advanced
years; Bormann's on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Petitions for
a revision of judgment were also filed in the criminal organizations
case.
><out of space, I fear>
Still hasn't figured out how to get a real newsreader.
Mike Curtis
>> Yet you
>> have failed to answer the question you were asked by both Mr. Morris
>> and myself.
>>
>> Present your evidence of bias and unfairness at Nuremberg using the
>> trial itself. Attacking me isn't going to make that question go away.
>
>Still stuck in THAT groove. Every time I present such evidence you run
>away and tell me present evidence! I can't win. It's much more fun to
>draw attention to you telling brazen lies, like you did last week.
You've presented unsubstantiated opinions, innuendo along with other
fairy tales. You have *not* presented evidence at all.
Mike Curtis