"The dramatic wish of Romanians... was to be occupied by Americans, not Russians"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vince278
Actually you are. As I said before, look it up in the Geneva Conventions.

It was a crime as of the 4th Geneva Convention (which was signed in 1929).

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

* Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
* There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
* Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
* Civilians must not be used as hostages.
* Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
* Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
* Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
* Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
* Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

[Vince278]

You must be missing something there, considering all of the bombing on both sides during WWII.
(Otherwise, good job on research)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saras
How is calling somebody a gorilla the same as equating him with a primate? According to which authoritative source?

/me pats Sara on the head

[notyoueither]

Ahem.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950

*cough*

[notyoueither]

Be that as it may. The Conventions adopted to the point of 1939 were not respected by the Germans in many cases. It is unlikely they would have respected this one even had it been signed.

Once Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe got into the situation of escalating retribution against German and British population centres, it would have been very difficult to get them to stop, no matter what had been signed in 1929, or 1919, etc.

British leadership knew that Dresden was wrong, even as it occurred. The action was criticised in the House of Commons while the war was still on. The fact that many contemporaries could comprehend that it was wrong didn't stop Bomber Command from doing it.

[Vince278]

Nice link. I scanned over it and it still looks as I remember. Still don't see anything specifically prohibiting the aerial bombing of cities. I was actually hoping to find that since it would basically make nukes unusable.

[notyoueither]

Nukes go beyond the Conventions. Should anyone use them again the rules, the laws, the whole human race... might as well be held over the trash bin, and dropped.

[Vince278]

The GC could stand for a little re-write.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Vince278
Nice link. I scanned over it and it still looks as I remember. Still don't see anything specifically prohibiting the aerial bombing of cities. I was actually hoping to find that since it would basically make nukes unusable.

That is in Part IV of the 1st Protocol of 1977.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1_2.htm

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

( a ) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

( b ) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

( c ) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

( a ) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

( b ) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

[Vince278]

Thank-you. I was wondering why we emphasized smart weapons so much recently. Article 51 would seem to prohibit nukes as well.

[notyoueither]

Nukes against cities, yes. Very small yield bunker busters maybe not so much.

But again, should the US or Russia start throwing nukes at population centres, what is wriiten on paper is the least of our worries.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


* Urban Ranger pats Sara on the head

Racism isn't something to be proud of. . .oh wait, I guess for racists it is.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahem.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950

*cough*

A later treaty doesn't negate the existence of a previous treaty. The the GCs, many of them reiterate previous treaties.

Now, the point isn't whether or not Germany would or wouldn't have respected those treaties. I think the only one they ever did was the banning of poison gas. It's a question of whether or not the Soviets alone of the allied nations, committed war crimes against German civilians. And as I wrote previously, the nature of the German threat was so great, that I, personally, am willing to over look those crimes. I still acknowledge they happened, but I'm not about to wag my finger at America or Britain over it.

Vince278, if deliberate or indiscriminate attacks are not allowed, aerial bombing is not allowed, unless you can show specific targetting. So the GC makes allowances for trying to hit a military target in a civilian area and missing, but you can't simply just drop a lot of bombs hoping you get something, nor can you just decide to bomb a civilian neighborhood to kill civilians.

[notyoueither]

The Fourth Geneva Convention wasn't signed in 1929. The Third was. The Fourth was signed in 1949.

[notyoueither]

From your site

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.