Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 1st, 2018, 01:03 PM   #21

Res Ipsa Loquitur's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Belfast
Posts: 278

During the Battle of Britain, the Head of the Luftwaffe, Herman Goering asked General Leutenant Adolf Galland how he and other Luftwaffe pilots would feel about shooting any RAF pilots who had baled out of their destroyed aircraft. Galland replied "That would be nothing less than murder!"
Res Ipsa Loquitur is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 1st, 2018, 01:12 PM   #22

Recusant's Avatar
Miscreant Erendrake
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N after curfew
Posts: 2,554
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Morale bombing was a **** deal, whether before or after WWII. I don't think anyone sane would justify defending the actions of morale bombing.
When you write "whether before or after WWII" are you excluding the area bombing campaigns carried out by the Allies from consideration? If you are not, then I will note that sane people do attempt to justify and defend those bombing campaigns.
Recusant is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 01:22 PM   #23

Wallach's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Netherlands
Posts: 117

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Ok, we have to ask help to psychology.

It's more easy to drop a bomb over a city than to use a sword to disembowel an enemy. It's mundane human psychology: more far you are from the humans you're killing and less heavy will be to do that.

It's not about scale, but about distance. In other words, you don't see the persons you are going to kill. For the unconscious part of our mind ... you're not killing ... you're dropping a bomb.

When Crusaders took over Jerusalem and they massacred the population of the city, they did it directly, disemboweling men, raping women, killing children ...

Technically they demonstrated to be "better warriors" than modern ones.
Exactly, it's too personal for comfort. When having to take full responsibility for the act, people back down. It doesn't change the nature of the act, though.
Wallach is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 03:12 PM   #24

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,340

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Eh, you are taking opposite positions here.

And I was asking that question, you don't get to turn around and ask me essentially what I ask of you after you said

"If you drop a bomb on military target, say the military depot in Hiroshima, and kill civilians. And the enemy surrenders so the war ends. You’ve saved lots of lives yours and theirs. It’s not a war crime. "

YOU CAN'T USE THE JUSTIFICATION OF 'IF IT ENDS THE WAR' THEN IT'S NOT A CRIME, and then ask me war crime to end wars is that justified.

Like wtf?
Eh?
My statement was deliberately targeting civilians and unnecessary acts like rape are war crimes. Bombing cities, which will still kill civilians though they are not the intended target, is not a war crime.
For example.
Mai Lai - war crime
Hiroshima - not a war crime
Nan king - war crime
Dresden - not a war crime.
Unrestricted submarine warfare - not a war crime.
Killing sailors in the ocean - war crime.


You then said that does not make sense. And that plenty of cases had occurred of war rape and deliberate targetting of civilians being used to force an enemy to surrender.

So I ask for examples of the kind of thing you claim.
So once again. Examples, post 1949 of armies using war tape and terror to force another to surrender and it NOT being classed as a war crime.

Last edited by Edric Streona; January 1st, 2018 at 03:15 PM.
Edric Streona is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:17 AM   #25

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,127
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallach View Post
Exactly, it's too personal for comfort. When having to take full responsibility for the act, people back down. It doesn't change the nature of the act, though.
Absolutely, the nature of the act is the same, it changes the way we perceive it.

In battle it's licit to use a knife to slit your enemy's throat.

It's not kind, it's brutal, but licit.

There are behaviors which are not criminal in their nature, when embedded in a war context: to kill, generally is a crime, but not on a battlefield.

It can become a crime, also on a battlefield, depending on how you kill [according to existing international treaties and agreements].

It happens that some kinds of weapons have declared illegal: for example there are treaties banning the usage of chemical weapons [and there are discussions why if chemical weapons have been banned, we haven't banned nuclear weapons ... you cannot poison them, but you can disintegrate them ... leaving radiations everywhere ... and radiations are a poison as well, but not chemical!].

So, at the end, it's all about the interpretation that the powers give to war behaviors. It's all about existing conventions.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:18 AM   #26

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,450

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallach View Post
You're clearly avoiding the point, but I'll put it plainly:
Why do we see the murder of thousands of civilians during the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (for example) as acceptable, but when faced with the same kind of odds elsewhere, or at a smaller scale, we find it unacceptable?
The atomic bombings are often justified with numbers such as "an estimated million soldiers would've died if Japan would've been taken by conventional means'. So the magic ratio is 1:5? If I can save 5 of my countrymen, everything is merited? Or are we all horribly hypocritical? Or don't the same rules apply when we're talking small vs. big scale?
Nagasaki was a major port and Hiroshima was home to 3 army divisions.
SirOrmondeWinter is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:22 AM   #27

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,127
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter View Post
Nagasaki was a major port and Hiroshima was home to 3 army divisions.
To this we could add a related consideration: why not Tokyo?

To leave someone who was in condition to surrender and to have a working administrative structure to manage the country after the military occupation. The death of the Emperor and of the commanders of the Japanese Army, with the total destruction of the central administration, would have meant a giant question mark about what was going to happen ... and a tremendous confusion.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:50 AM   #28

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,340

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
To this we could add a related consideration: why not Tokyo?

To leave someone who was in condition to surrender and to have a working administrative structure to manage the country after the military occupation. The death of the Emperor and of the commanders of the Japanese Army, with the total destruction of the central administration, would have meant a giant question mark about what was going to happen ... and a tremendous confusion.
Tokyo had already been bombed into the ground.
And would be needed by the occupation government.

And killing the emperor, while personally agreeable to me, was considered likely to cause the Japanese to refuse to surrender. Or at least leave them I’ll disposed to the USA and thus likely to become allies with their enemies.

Last edited by Edric Streona; January 2nd, 2018 at 12:53 AM.
Edric Streona is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 02:34 AM   #29
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Germany
Posts: 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
To this we could add a related consideration: why not Tokyo?
Tokyo was subject to conventional attacks that cost more lives then the nuclear attacks. These also targeted civilian areas for their ability to burn better. When the nuclear weapons became available, there was not much point in using them on Tokyo.
MasPuster is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 05:47 AM   #30

Wallach's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Netherlands
Posts: 117

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter View Post
Nagasaki was a major port and Hiroshima was home to 3 army divisions.
You're basically proving my point here. You view huge casualties amongst civilians as acceptable, so long as there is a military advantage to be gained. However, would you say the same if an individual commander decided to slaughter an entire village because he knows there are insurgents amongst he civilians, much like My Lai? Probably not, so I am asking what your logic is for supporting the first, but condemning the second.
Wallach is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
crimes, evil, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evil and "Evil" Kids in Ancient History MAGolding Ancient History 5 April 21st, 2016 04:46 AM
Evil and "Evil" Kids in History MAGolding General History 30 April 20th, 2016 02:00 AM
Which is worse, ordering evil to be done or committing evil personally? Cmyers1980 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 36 January 12th, 2016 05:10 AM
War Crimes okamido War and Military History 29 May 8th, 2012 05:37 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.