It's because of the trial of Admiral Karl Donitz and the attempt by Jackson to paint him a war criminal for issuing unrestricted submarine warfare. Disgusted this was happening, Chester Nimitiz stepped up and provided written testimony that he did the exact same thing in the pacific. With no options left, the judges dismissed the charge.
To avoid further embarrassment in the more numerous but smaller scale trials, Luftwaffe commanders were also granted this immunity for their part in area bombing to avoid the Luftwaffe defense lawyer's from calling up Allied Bomber command commanders to confront them with their acts of criminality had it been them who lost the war.
>>507246 this and the "saying we did it to is no defence" the nuremburg trails aside from the holocaust is complete BS sure germany planned for war and started it. but president rosevelt was baiting for war and itching to go all out. Surely he to should have been branded a warmonger for his behavior as the only thing that kept the USA out of the war for so long was that he wasn't a dictator.
>>507613 Not the anon you're responding to, but it would be ideal. Now can we eliminate all civilian war deaths? No. But bombing an entire town? The US committed many war crimes during WW2 it still has not acknowledged. This is coming from a South Eastern conservative.
I am curious. I always thought Dresden was not considered a war crime because of the concept of strategic bombing back then was to "break the will of the people". Military targets were usually hit but civilians were legitimate targets because it was expedite an ending of the war. With all that said, it isn't that much of a stretch for the bombing of Dresden when there are at least some military targets. I also want to mention that the reason a lot of strategic bombing is given shit now is because after the war, we found that bombing civilians didn't have the desired effect and that a large majority of the bombing had been counter productive.
because the RAF dindu nothing the NAZIs dindu first. It was a shame for the neutral people who weren't really involved or didn't realize hitler was going to be a bitch made nigga using his technology against civilians instead of strategically using it against troops and aircraft.
>>507202 >>507201 >>507400 >Victors write history meme, again Because the Mongols were such great guys because they beat half of Eurasia? Because the trail of tears and is not real and the US didn't rob the natives blind? Because nobody has heard of the British concentration camps of south africa after they won the Boer war? Because the whole world agrees that the Red Chinese line that they did the fighting in World War II and the Nationalists didn't, just because they won? Because there are no historical narratives sympathetic to the Confederate States of America in the modern day? Because parts of Japan aren't still trying to rewrite their textbooks?
"The Victors Write History" is a stupid meme with so many exceptions that it's either too vague to be useful or too narrow to be applicable as a general rule.
>>507595 The incendiary bombs were intended to burn their way to the factories. When you're flying into a city in the middle of the fucking night you're not going to be doing precision bombing.
>>507701 >No. But bombing an entire town? Precision bombing is a nice pretty ideal, but doesn't pan out in World War II. Yes, the norden bombsight was effective (if a tad overrated), but that doesn't change the fact that it requires bomber crews under fire from both the ground and (to a much lesser extent) from the air to fly level protected by a few millimeters of aluminum frame. Preventing crews from dropping their bombs early was already hard enough for the USAAF, getting them to actually try to hit their targets with those nice bombsights was a crapshoot. Setting civilian areas adjacent to the actual military targets is harsh and there's no doubt some excesses were taken, but reducing allied losses and potentially disrupting those major rail depots and factories is a big enough military success for it to be considered reasonable under contemporary (And modern) rules of proportionality.
Remember that while the Germans at Nuremberg were on trial for a number of warcrimes, Goering's war crimes did not include the bombings of the civilian populations of London, Warsaw or Rotterdam or countless other Polish and european cities devastated by bombing. Because all these bore military importance.
>>507194 >40,000 British civilians died in the Bombing of London, deliberately intended to target civilians and induce surrender >not considered a War Crime, Goering never indicted for bombing civilians (his war crimes involved the use of forced labor in the luftwaffe and pursuing a war of aggression) >25,000 German civilians died in the Bombing of Dresden >Waaaaaah this is a war crime because the allies weren't held responsible Grow up.
I can't believe the number of sociopaths sitting behind their computers somehow claiming that the loss of perfectly innocent civilian life isn't something we should do everything in our power to put a stop to.
>>508282 >"The Victors Write History" is a stupid meme with so many exceptions that it's either too vague to be useful or too narrow to be applicable as a general rule.
The real truth is whoever is in power now writes history, not the winners. Since our current government has been subverted, we now have had a revision of many events that the American public agreed with at the time. Henry Ford's The International Jew and the large minority that supported German policy is one of those things. I believe the numbers were up to 30% at times before the war. There was certainly no will to fight Germany, even after France capitulated. So, yes, people in power do write the history. It isn't a meme.
As for all those examples you listed: the emotional energy is gone. No one has strong sentiments regarding the Mongols anymore. Even the Trail of Tears was supported at the time by the vast majority of the public. You know how terrorists are presented now? Native Americans were presented very similarly. Retaliatory scalpings exonerated them from any scruples they might have had. So, the entire Native American genocide is a revision, and it only goes to prove the point that the people who perpetrated it are no longer preponderant. I wonder who changed it? I wonder why they haven't applied the same genocidal guidelines to Palestine? The dogma was the exact same: We have the right to kill you and take your shit. You're terrorists and we are just trying to live in peace.
>>508437 >The question was why weren't they considered war crimes, not were they. See >>508333 Even today, civilian casualties are excusable if there is a proportional military advantage (yes, it's a very arbitrary term) that can be gained from their deaths. >Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).
>>508445 >So, yes, people in power do write the history. They do, and the rest of the world ignores them, so it is a meme. >There was certainly no will to fight Germany, even after France capitulated. That must be why gallup polls of both Wilkie and FDR supporters in the 1940 election would prefer supporting Britain to staying out of the war.
>Even the Trail of Tears was supported at the time by the vast majority of the public. And now it is decried throughout the american public education system from first grade to high school graduation. >So, the entire Native American genocide is a revision Silly argument, nobody argued that history is constant. The argument is that those in power are often incapable of controlling those revisions. >and it only goes to prove the point that the people who perpetrated it are no longer preponderant. The same government and the descendants of the same people are present. >I wonder why they haven't applied the same genocidal guidelines to Palestine? Because you have no idea what "genocide" entails and the current Israeli policy on Palestine, while draconian, does not constitute "genocide" by any means? >The dogma was the exact same: We have the right to kill you and take your shit. You're terrorists and we are just trying to live in peace. Here you go again with a statement so vague it is either so broadly applicable as to be pointless, or so limited in scope as to be useless.
>>508445 >The real truth is whoever is in power now writes history, not the winners. They try. They are unsuccessful so often that the argument holds no water. The Abe government's attempts at revisionism have been hotly contested, and he remains in power. No matter who is in power in the United States, the causes of the civil war continue to be a topic that has found no consensus. Your point about Palestine and Israel proves my point--even as the government of Israel holds a vicegrip over the Palestinian population and it stands alongside the United States of America, its narrative of the whole crisis is also rejected by a vast majority of those that hold the least power in the international community. Nobody has ever "held power" securely, and many attempts by those who are supposedly in power are abject failures.
>>508484 >They do, and the rest of the world ignores them, so it is a meme
They are only ignored if there is a political rivalry, and even then it is less about the veracity of the history and more about the implications.
>That must be why gallup polls of both Wilkie and FDR supporters in the 1940 election would prefer supporting Britain to staying out of the war.
Yeah, I'm not getting into this. How big was the sample size, who oversaw it, etc.? There are many ways that polls can be inaccurate, or outright deceptive. Yes, this applies to my example, as well.
>And now it is decried throughout the american public education system from first grade to high school graduation.
So is everything white people have ever done. White people are quickly becoming a numeric and financial minority in this country. I wonder why white people would push for their own demise so vehemently?
>Silly argument, nobody argued that history is constant. The argument is that those in power are often incapable of controlling those revisions.
That's not true: the American public believes exactly what it's supposed to. It isn't those evil Soviets that are hated, it's those evil Nazis. Try wearing a Soviet shirt down the street, and no one will care; wear a Nazi shirt and you'll be verbally assaulted. That is a revision, because as I've said, prior to the war Germany had many sympathizers in Europe and North America.
>Because you have no idea what "genocide" entails and the current Israeli policy on Palestine, while draconian, does not constitute "genocide" by any means?
It was the same thing, if not by definition than by results—the only true measure of a moral policy. I don't really care if what Israel is doing is in compliance with the Geneva convention or not. It's still genocide, even if you murder civilians in a certain "legitimate" way. What are you saying? If America would have murdered the Native Americans by some book, it would have been okay?
>>508514 >Nobody has ever "held power" securely, and many attempts by those who are supposedly in power are abject failures.
Same guy. That's not true. Look at the Catholic Church or any other religious institution that is paramount in a region: their authority is absolute. The Civil War isn't as emotionally charged as you think it is. WWII is quite obviously still full of sentiment. We still aren't able to look at it in a detached manner conducive of actual analysis.
IIRC from a German documentary I recently saw in ZDF, the allies excluded bombings and such from the Nuremburg trials altogether. They did not charge Germans for the bombings of London etc. with the intention to not give them the opportunity to defend themselves on a 'tu quoque' basis by bringing in evidence of the more devastating allied bombings on civilian targets like Dresden/Hiroshima etc.
So, yeah, a prime example of how victors manipulate history in their favor.
use google translate or something, I don't have time to translate, sorry. been up for 30 hours.
I know you guys probably frown on wikipedia as a source, but do your own research if it really interests you. I am not a historian so I don't know how to efficiently find more academic resources on the topic.
>>508561 I wasn't the one who brought it up, I was simply addressing the other poster's concern that it was something entirely different.
>>508570 >They are only ignored if there is a political rivalry Again, the problem with this kind of statement is that you can easily construe a "political rivalry" from anything.
>So is everything white people have ever done. blatantly untrue. That same primary school curriculum focuses heavily on greco-roman culture, the great significance of the renaissance and the enlightenment.
>That's not true: the American public believes exactly what it's supposed to. It isn't those evil Soviets that are hated, it's those evil Nazis. This is what the American public is "supposed to believe" as decided by whom, and by what logic are you arguing that this was the result of purely governmental action? >That is a revision, because as I've said, prior to the war Germany had many sympathizers in Europe and North America. Prior to the war Germany also didn't invade a great many sovereign nations and manage to anger the vast majority of the populace of those sovereign nations.
>It's still genocide, even if you murder civilians in a certain "legitimate" way. >It's still genocide, even if it doesn't fit the definition of genocide
>If America would have murdered the Native Americans by some book, it would have been okay? It would not have been okay, but it certainly isn't genocide.
>Look at the Catholic Church or any other religious institution that is paramount in a region: their authority is absolute. But it hasn't been. The Church's authority depended during much of the medieval era on the consent of the local nobility, many of the clergy being local nobility themselves. Even then, it was constantly challenged by what it would deem heresies within christianity and opposition without.
Continuing with the stuff about the catholic church, the idea that it was a powerful monolithic entity is definitely incorrect. The Hussites, the Arians, the gnostics, the cathars, the protestants, there has always been resistance to the power of the church, as well as reformers within the church. Power struggles within the catholic church itself were equally problematic, with antipopes and of course the whole "babylonian captivity" in Avignon.
And the Roman Catholic Church was the most powerful of these institutions--the Islamic caliph collapsed with the sunni-shia split, and prior to that there were also struggle between arabs, seljuk turks, and persian muslims for ultimate cultural ascendance.
>The Civil War isn't as emotionally charged as you think it is. please, make a thread on /his/ about whether the Civil War was fought over slavery, wait an hour, and repeat that to me with a straight face.
>>508647 >One side's actions don't constitute a war crime >The other side's actions don't constitute a war crime under the same rules >THEY'RE MANIPULATING HISTORY IN THEIR FAVOR How does make any sense if they are both judged and absolved on equal merits? The 1907 Hague Convention already codified that >This Convention is permeated by the concept of military necessity, which is closely related to proportionality. The Luftwaffe, Royal Air Force and USAAF could all have provided a military justification for the bombing of major cities and so charges were pressed. Denying Goering the right to defend themselves doesn't fucking matter if there's nothing worth attacking to begin with.
Even IF the allies followed your mindset in avoiding prosecution, how is this at all a case of victors manipulating history in their favor when both the victor were loser were judged upon the same premises and absolved for the same crime?
>>508434 >The West German Government estimated in 1956 that 126,000 German Civilians (out of a total of 635,000) were killed in air raids all over Germany after January 31, 1945 >hundreds of thousands of German civilians died in the bombing of Dresden >More German civilians died in a single city over three days of bombing in February than the entirety of the German civilians who died from the end of January to May okay buddy.
But they weren't both judged. It was a trial against Germans. If anyone would have been charged for the bombings, it would have been the Germans (if their defense failed), the worst thing the Allies could get in the Nuremberg Trials was a PR disaster (if the German defense was successful).
And this is where the manipulation kicks in, because they only pressed charges against the Germans where they assumed the Germans would look worse than the Allies.
They tried it with submarine warfare first, as >>507246 pointed out, but when they realized they would look as equally bad or even worse, they refrained from charging the Germans.
>>507194 Because air bombings weren't considered war crimes, and it was specifically because the allies knew if they did they would be opening themselves up to counter charges. So they stuck to trying people for plotting to engage in offensive war, conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity
>>511356 >And this is where the manipulation kicks in, because they only pressed charges against the Germans where they assumed the Germans would look worse than the Allies. I get what you're saying with submarine warfare, but inaction can ever be conclusive proof of intentional manipulation, because by that logic everything except what the Nuremberg prosecution indicted the defendants for can be construed as proof of intentional manipulation.
If the mere failure to indict Goering for bombing London is proof of manipulation of history, then you could argue, with the exact same logic, that failure to indict the Nazi leadership for something mundane as picking their nose is proof of the manipulation of history.
Of course, that's an extreme example, but the silliness of it illustrates my point--that they failed to indict either side does not necessarily mean that a war crime, or any crime, occurred. It is only justifiable to say that this constitutes manipulation if there is clear evidence that the prosecution was both aware that both Luftwaffe and USAAF actions were clearly war crimes, and that charges were not pressed against Goering under the knowledge that the USAAF was equally guilty. If neither sides' actions count as a war crime under contemporary laws of proportionality, failing to indict Goering for something that wasn't a crime is no different than failing to indict him for picking his nose.
So ultimately, the question goes back to "was firebombing dresden an indisputible war crime?" And under the laws of proportionality, there's sufficient evidence of military value in the city to say that there is strong evidence that Allied goals were proportional to the civilian casualties they planned to inflict.
>failure to indict the Nazi leadership for something mundane as picking their nose is proof of the manipulation of history
Last time I checked nose picking was not covered by the Hague Conventions of 1907, but protection of civilians was.
Therefore any deliberate attack on civilians constituted a war crime. The Nazi bombing of London was a war crime. Dresden, Hiroshima etc. were war crimes. And imo this has nothing to do with:
>contemporary laws of proportionality
How would the Allies have been able to argue that their bombings were proportional, when neither the Germans nor the Japanese were able to conduct civilian air strikes at the time Dresden and Hiroshima occurred? I don't think it is sufficient to say that 'they did it too 3 years ago when they bombed London or Pearl Harbour' therefore it was proportional when we did it when they were no longer a threat to our civilians.
The Allies knew this argument would have been flawed and because they would have never charged themselves with war crimes and did not want to look like blatant hypocrites, they avoided the topic altogether by never charging the Germans for these specific and undeniable war crimes in the first place.
>military value in the city
Yes, there is military value in carpet bombing civilians (demoralization of the enemy), there is also military value in torture (obtaining intelligence), genocide and ethnic cleansing (not having to fear resistance and gaining undisputed territory) but that's why we have conventions, so that Generals do not pull off every inhumane shit that has military value.
>>512513 >Therefore any deliberate attack on civilians constituted a war crime. For the last time, no, it doesn't. See >>509412 Civilian casualties are considered acceptable if they are for a clear military purpose and are not clearly excessive. >And imo You don't get to dismiss international conventions on war based on your opinions. >How would the Allies have been able to argue that their bombings were proportional, when neither the Germans nor the Japanese were able to conduct civilian air strikes at the time Dresden and Hiroshima occurred? I see why you're making this silly argument, because you have no idea what proportionality means. See >>508463 The principle of Proportionality has literally nothing to do with whether the enemy is capable of doing the same thing, so the rest of your argument is invalid. Proportionality is based on what tangible military benefit can be derived from the potential death of civilians, see >http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=cilj
>The Allies knew this argument would have been flawed (etc.) You clearly didn't read my previous post about trying to base evidence on a negative.
>there is also military value in torture (obtaining intelligence) >genocide and ethnic cleansing (not having to fear resistance and gaining undisputed territory) Unlike these two, civilian deaths are not explicitly forbidden by the Hague, Geneva or Rome conventions. See >>508463 again. >Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.