RAF Bomber Command....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe because unlike Warsaw and Rotterdam, Essen, Berlin and lot´s of other German town were not under siege/attack by ground forces? The Hague Convention is pretty clear that defended means defended by one sides ground forces from the other sides ground forces.

[/I]?

Was London under siege, or any British city for that matter?

You are being very hypocritical.

 

[Kurfürst]

@Kurfürst:

Why do you even react to trolling like Did they have a wall and gates?

Because I believe in the power of a convincing arguement backed by verifiable evidence overtrolling backed by emotions... and probably I have too much spare time on my hand today!

If a few people learn something about bombing in WW2, highly propagandized air raids and their factual and legal background, it already worth it though.

 

[Markus]

Was London under siege, or any British city for that matter?

You are being very hypocritical.

And you did not pay attention to what I wrote!

Maybe because unlike Warsaw and Rotterdam, Essen, Berlin and lot´s of other German town were not under siege/attack by ground forces?

Notice the absence of any british town? That´s why:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Fortress is a legal term to define an enemy place or settlement defended by enemy forces. It is a term used to differentiate from open, ie. undefended cities.

Art. XXV. It is forbidden to attack or to bombard towns, villages, houses, or dwellings which are not defended.

So why all this whining about BC bombing German cities and towns?

See? Milosh, Kurfürst, me, we were refering to two towns that were not british.

 

[bobbysocks]

remind me again what were the atrocious acts of aggression the polish and czechs carried out against germany that warranted hilter had to respond by overrunning their countries? and wasnt belgium neutral?

 

[Kurfürst]

The short answer is that Hitler wanted to (re-)integrate these territories into the Reich.

On the side note I guess he had as much justification for that - meaning: right of the stronger one - as there was for a British Governor in India, or you can start thinking about how did the 13 colonies got attacked at Pearl Harbour and the Philippines. Because the last time I checked, those are not exactly native British or American soil either... to put it bluntly, the Hitler gave up colonizing the Third World, because it was already taken, and colonized Eastern Europe instead. On the second side note, it might be a given for us today that Poland and Czechoslovakia are independent nations, but they were part of the Holy Roman Empire and its before that for centuries.

On the longer note, I suggest you read upon a bit on Polish-German-Russian relations between 1920-1939, or Czechoslovakian state policy towards ethnic minorities of the defeated WW1 powers. You might find interesting things. Poland for one attacked both Germany and Russia after WW1 (got beaten back) and was happily participating in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Speaking of the latter, the Slovaks were quite happy to have their independent state instead of being a Czech-run province under a nice common name.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And you did not pay attention to what I wrote!




Notice the absence of any british town? That´s why:




See? Milosh, Kurfürst, me, we were refering to two towns that were not british.

I understand exactly what you were saying, I was asking again why it is so bad that BC did it, but not that the Germans did it as well (Or the Russian, Italian or Americans for that matter)?

I refer to a much earlier post that I made in which I stated that everyone bombed civilian centers during WW2. It is a terrible fact. No one was innocent from it, but at the same time if they had not done it, they would not have been trying to win the war.

 

[tail end charlie]

The short answer is that Hitler wanted to (re-)integrate these territories into the Reich.

How do you re integrate countries into a reich they were never part of in the first place.

If you read back into German history pre WWI you will find a fine developed civilized and cultured nation.

 

[RCAFson]

Excuse me but who do you want to fool? Warsaw and Rotterdam were fortresses and thus perfectly legal targets by the standards of the time. Take a look at the 1907 Hague convention. SECTION II
HOSTILITIES CHAPTER I Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments, Articles 25 to 27.


With regard to the Baedecker Raids and the V-weapons mentioned by others, that was two to four years after the RAF had started the area bombing of German towns.

So tell me did Hamburg have AA defences? Nightfighters? Did Hitler declare it an open city? Again, the typical argument of an apologist: Hitler carefully observed legality and only the Allies committed atrocities...

The simple facts are that Germany used area bombing of cities as a means to try and force defenceless opponents to surrender and then cried "terror fluger" when they got the same back.

The moral of the story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

 

[tail end charlie]

Kurfurst

You said

"The Hague Convention is pretty clear that defended means defended by one sides ground forces from the other sides ground forces."

What did the hague convention say about execution of prisoners, slave labour, mass execution of minorities and medical experimentation?

and can you explain what you mean by this

"He wasn't, obviously. Speer noted that if attacks on the scale on Hamburg would have continued, Germany would have been forced out of the war. Trouble was that Bomber Command could absolutely positvely incapable of repeating the Hamburg raid and the Germans became aware of this soon.
Without that capability, Hamburg was just another big mass murder on larger scale than usual, without any noticable effect on the German war economy."

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst

You said

Nope.

 

[Kurfürst]

The simple facts are that Germany used area bombing of cities as a means to try and force defenceless opponents to surrender ...

Care to post some detailed examples of such raids, with backing evidence about what were the issued targets?
Like I did when I was asked to do so by Adler?

Otherwise it counts as an opinion, rather than a fact. Opinions are fine. Everyone has them.

 

[tail end charlie]

The shop owner was Gutted but Cod do nothing about it

The owners started to flounder about, the Parrot fell of its perch onto a pike I think the poor mullet needs a sturgeon

 

[Kurfürst]

How do you re integrate countries into a reich they were never part of in the first place.

O RLY? Show me Czechoslovakia or Poland on the map please in say, 1850. Or in 1798. Or in 1914.

If you read back into German history pre WWI you will find a fine developed civilized and cultured nation.

That's flattering. Then the British Empire declared war on them, and they all the sudden ceased to be such a fine developed and cultured nation, and become the barbaric Huns, right?

 

[BombTaxi]

The short answer is that Hitler wanted to (re-)integrate these territories into the Reich.

On the side note I guess he had as much justification for that - meaning: right of the stronger one - as there was for a British Governor in India, or you can start thinking about how did the 13 colonies got attacked at Pearl Harbour and the Philippines. Because the last time I checked, those are not exactly native British or American soil either... to put it bluntly, the Hitler gave up colonizing the Third World, because it was already taken, and colonized Eastern Europe instead. On the second side note, it might be a given for us today that Poland and Czechoslovakia are independent nations, but they were part of the Holy Roman Empire and its before that for centuries.

On the longer note, I suggest you read upon a bit on Polish-German-Russian relations between 1920-1939, or Czechoslovakian state policy towards ethnic minorities of the defeated WW1 powers. You might find interesting things. Poland for one attacked both Germany and Russia after WW1 (got beaten back) and was happily participating in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Speaking of the latter, the Slovaks were quite happy to have their independent state instead of being a Czech-run province under a nice common name.

Oh, please.

To echo other posters, this wasn't re-integration because those countries were never part of the Third Reich to start with - and please do not go down the 'ethnic Germans' route, it will merely confirm me in Adler's belief that you are a sympathizer.

I am not particularly proud of my country's colonial past, but how dare you compare the British Empire to the Third Reich? We may not have treated native populations with the respect they deserved, but we never organised systematic and industrialised ethnic cleansing of occupied territories. That is the difference and do not try to pretend otherwise.

As for Polish relations with their neighbours, and former membership of the HRE, what has that got to do with 1938-39? NOTHING. If Britain invaded Germany now because Germany fought Britain in 1945, would that be justified? Of course not. And are you seriously suggesting that because the Czechs treated former Austro-Hungarians badly, what the Germans did to thier country was OK? I suspect you are merely trying to cover for the actions of your favourite dictator...

 

[RCAFson]

Care to post some detailed examples of such raids, with backing evidence about what were the issued targets?
Like I did when I was asked to do so by Adler?

Otherwise it counts as an opinion, rather than a fact. Opinions are fine. Everyone has them.

At the onset of World War II began the tactic was used on Warsaw and other Polish cities (September 1939). One historian writes, "The bombing of Warsaw early in the war made it clear to the Allies how Hitler intended to fight his war. What he threatened the Czechs with he carried out on the Poles. It was to be Schrecklichkeit ('frightfulness') with no regard for the civilian population."

Luftwaffe Terror Raids : Warsaw

I'm dying to hear your explanation as to how it was legal for Germany to bomb Warsaw and not legal for the Allies to bomb Hamburg.

 

[BombTaxi]

O RLY? Show me Czechoslovakia or Poland on the map please in say, 1850. Or in 1798. Or in 1914.



That's flattering. Then the British Empire declared war on them, and they all the sudden ceased to be such a fine developed and cultured nation, and become the barbaric Huns, right?

Germany didn't exist in 1850 or 1798, so how could Poland or Czechslovakia belong to it? And the HRE wasn't Germany, nor did the Germany of 1871-1914 have any claim to former lands of the HRE, so forget about that argument.

Adolf Hitler stopped Germany being a fine and cultured nation. Period. Please deal with it and move on.

 

[Markus]

So tell me, was the British Army at the gates of Hamburg? Had Monty his artillery trained at the Wehrmacht troops dug in inside the town? Again, the typical argument of an apologist, who deliberately misinterprets the relevant passages of the Hague Convention.

The simple fact is that BC began large scale area bombing of cities with attacks on Berlin in August 1940. A policy planned by the RAF during the many years before the war. With the possible exception of Frampol nothing of what the LW did so far qualifiy as BC-style area bombing.

The moral of the story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Indeed!

 

[Markus]

*double post*

 

[BombTaxi]

So tell me, was the British Army at the gates of Hamburg? Had Monty his artillery trained at the Wehrmacht troops dug in inside the town? Again, the typical argument of an apologist, who deliberately misinterprets the relevant passages of the Hague Convention.

The simple fact is that BC began large scale area bombing of cities with attacks on Berlin in August 1940. A policy planned by the RAF during the many years before the war. With the possible exception of Frampol nothing of what the LW did so far qualifiy as BC-style area bombing.

The moral of the story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Was the Final Solution valid under the Hague conventions? Or the Commissar Order? Or the Katyn Massacre? In fact, by your own admission, the Baedecker raids, although made in retaliaition, were also against the Hague Convention, as they were terror raids. So get off your high horse and join an intelligent devbate...

 

[fastmongrel]

This topic is getting really offensive to me. I havent taken part in the discussion because I have nothing to add to it I dont indulge in rascism nor do I denigrate dead people who have no means of defending themselves. I wont bother visiting this topic again because it will only upset me further. Some people on this forum seem to have no problem defending the indefensible, grow up.