Soldiers of BOTH sides honoured? please help i'm confused:S

Post Reply New Topic

In a world war scenario, who enforces such laws? The combatants only observe them as far as it's in their favour. For example I think it's argued that gas wasn't used extensively during WW2 as it was not in the combatants interests to initiate a tit for tat situation. Game theory explains more how each side behaves than international law.


I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that at a time of conflict and using the best information available, that may not be apparent; or if considered a possibility it may be assessed as unlikely, in other words worth the risk.


What I mean is that if current military operations fail then Obama or Brown will experience only political inconvenience. If this was something like WW2 then failure would likely see them hanged by the opposing side. WW2 leaders had a direct personal interest in the outcome -- their lives and that of their families and friends depended on it. That has a huge impact on the decisions made. Currently, military operations are constrained by how the tabloid coverage will impact on Brown's election chances, rather than being focused on a clear objective.

As for the reasons for us being there in the first place, I'm sure they are complex. I can see the need to have stability in the area considering Pakistan's nuclear capability, but I really don't think they're going about it the right way. They'd have been better off years ago destroying that capability. They argue that "terror" is exported from the region, but securing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants would be a cheaper solution to the problem. Their actions currently seem to be only inflaming the situation. None of us is really fully-enough informed to pass judgment, though. The intelligence that these decisions are based on is obviously classified. We elect governments to take these decisions for us, unfortunately those governments are composed of people that instil little confidence.

I wasn't geting into that, I was responding to you saying that you didn' think there were any rules - which I interpreted literally as you not being aware of any particular treaties etc drawn up to govern warfare. And on gas it might be more to do with it being an outdated and highly inefficient method of warfare compared to fast moving armour/infantry forces backed up with air power, against that kind of mobility it's really a little pointless - especially factoring in the possibility of the wind simply changing direction - rather than international law or game theory.



all considerations which, theoretically at least, are supposed to be put completely to one side in favour of the national interest. Allowing personal considerations to impact on political or military decisions is fairly idiotic, and perhaps only symptomatic of a more immediate problem which would lead to defeat. Perhaps not the same but I recall something about Lincoln losing a son during the US civil war and not even missing a beat. Went on to win the war, abolish slavery and preserve the union.



you really need to get over this immigration thing. you're going to give yourself a stomach ulcer.

Are you not familiar with the Pacific war before the American involvement? Singapore? Burma? Maybe you've never seen "Bridge over the River Kwai"? "Empire of the Sun"? Unfamiliar with Japanese treatment of Commonwealth POWs and civilians? Or maybe you aren't familiar with the Field Service Code of General Tojo (1941) stating : Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you. Thats before Bushido even gets a mention....

The Japanese were well versed in fighting to the death, and treating those who didnt with the utmost disdain and inhumanity without having to be facing angry Americans.

It's a bit interesting with discussions like these how people are quick to defend or offend one country over another.

My grandfather fought over in germany, he said he was just a kid at the time and really had no choice in the matter. There are many horror stories about how Russia treated the Germans and even the liberated Jews just as there are horror stories of how the Germans treated their own people and prisoners of war. Then you have the Japanese you did all kinds of sick things to the Chinese like medical experiences....yet you don't hear about it much. Then of course there is the way the U.S. treated it's own U.S. Japanese citizens most likely because their names and faces were much different than the germans that migrated here who shortened their names and managed to look like the rest of the caucasians living in the U.S.

War no matter which side brings on many levels of violence, ignorance, fear, disdain, and hostility. We can sit here for a long time trying to justify which side had a better cause but I think just from hearing my panpa's stories that in the end it's about survival. However I think WW2 was probably much different than the other wars concerning political movements since let's face it.....Germany probably would've won and the world would've been a much different place had they defeated us and the allies.

Eastern Front: Russia was not a signatory to the Geneva convention, and was thus not (theooretically) bound by it. Also, the Eastern Front descended into a tit-for-tat murderfest because of the ideological plans of Hitler: eradicate the Russian people. Its hardly surprising that the Russian military had a mind for vengeance, and the German public/military knew this full well, hence their attempts to head west at a rapid rate. Without descending into a moral debate about two wrongs not making a right, its quite clear why these particular atrocities took place. They were not unprovoked.

As for carpet-bombing hospitals.. it isnt actually possible to "carpet-bomb" a hospital.. only an area which may or may not have a hospital IN it. European cities arent as neat and tidy as ones in the New World. Industrial areas and residential areas are often so close as to be homogenous, and likewise all the amenties that an residential area needs. I live in an industrial town which was bombed during the war (as a major rail centre/rail production area) and the distance between the various hospitals and streets of the "civilian" areas are quite literally within yards of the "industrial zones". Besides which, unless you have incredibly good reconnaissance if an area, how are you to know that one large building is a hospital, and that another is not?

http://www.investindoncaster.co.uk/Imag ... -54407.jpg

Can you tell if any of these buildings is a hospital? And thats from much lower, in colour, in peacetime, and modern buildings as well, and after an extensive street-widening program etc etc. Look at the distance between the streets on the lower right, and the obvious warehouses in the centre, divided by the large white building between. By WW2 high-level bombing standards thats barely any distance at all.

Simply put, picking individual buildings out, identifying them, and avoiding them from high level, in darkness, whilst under attack from aggressive enemy air defences, in a foreign country is edging into the realms of the impossible.

Secondly, Dresden is an attempt to place modern moraility on a past event. By the Rules of War of the era, the bombing of an industrialised town/city was not a war crime. It was a rail junction, a telephone junction, OKW documents record that it was to be used as a Festung (fortress) area.... it was comparable in most every way to any other city of the period in Europe...

As for the horrific damage.... medieval towns are simply not built to withstand that sort of assault. It was inevitable that when bombed, Dresden would effectively disappear. Denuded air defences were just another one of its problems....

Atrocities happen during war... and especially in the mid-20th century. The technologies of mass-destructoin and mass-construction were in place, which industrialised the conflict.. but the sciences of accuracy were slower to catch up.. only NOW do we have the ability to accurately sink a missile into a specific room of a specific building.

There really shouldnt be much "justifying" which side had a better cause, because its evident that regardless of how the military campaigns were conducted. You mention internment of Japanese civilians in the US as if it is comparable to the "concentration" of Jews and political undesirables in the Reich. It is not. One is an expedience of war.. an attempt to limit espionage/spying etc, and also a good way to protect those civilians against reprisals, as it happens. The other is a deliberate and cynical attempt to eradicate a whole racial group, and any possibility of resistance against the controlling power.

no, i wasn't, but your tone is unnecessary, it was very nice to meet you but I shall have to bid you good day sir.