A major component of Raeder's indictment had to do with "crimes against peace", which pertained to his being the one who persuaded Hitler to attack Norway and Denmark and then designing those campaigns for Hitler. As well, he was cited by the Americans for playing a major role in persuading the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. The naval aspects of his indictment are quite secondary, though that is where his "war crimes" charges reside.
Erich Raeder
- Thread starter nonconformist
- Start date
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
That wasn't really my point, I was just expressing the belief that in a perfect world, I'd much rather have seen a fair few others tried than Raeder, who in comparison was not that bad. I'd have swapped him or Doenitz for Von Braun or Barbie any day of the week. Of course the world's not perfect, hence why some grevious criminals escaped and charges fell on those with much less brutal war records.
And?
That still leaves a whole load of very blatant war criminals either handed new lives in other countries or pretty much not chased down that much like Degrelle.So in essence, they were more tried for being representatives of a evil regime than actual criminals themselves. The charges therefore in hindsight are those that could be levelled at the allies, specifically Russia.
The defenition of agressive war interests me though, so in essence, invading your lesser neighbours is legally justifiable if you declare war first? So had the Axis not launched invasions without war declarations they could not be charged with either of those crimes?
I'm not sure I would have, in my experience his main fault was to order in writing what the allies just allowed to happen in the main. It just particularly sickens me that we had the gall to employ some criminals and imprison others.
Oh they deserve some punishment, but in some cases they quite obviously screwed the verdict up.
I'm 99% sure it was based on that article
No offense, but like... no sh*t
like I don't know the ends justifies the means.... However some of the actions the allies did had no real purpose or where done with dubious reasons sometimes, say had Churchill got his way about the V weapons. A thorn in the British side, but hardly justifies gassing an area of an occupied country does it? (I grant you he didn't, just using a ready example). On the other hand say the atom bomb, that did. Some actions taken by the allies though should rightly have brought both condemnation and investigation as they did nothing to further the war effort.Hmm with the possible exception of the Russians who could pass for the other team
nonconformist
Miserable
But is not killing civilians not a war crime? Yes, the Luftwaffe would certainly be guilty, but so would the R.A.F and U.S.A.A.F if not more so. People like 'Bomber Harris' did they not order these crimes to be perpetrated? No attack on innocent civilians can be justified, this is drwing people who should not be a part of the combat into the horror and violence with almost no way out.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Depends on the intention behind the raids for example if the sole and stated aim of the raids was to kill civilians in order to reduce morale then I object to that. Not only did it quite blatantly not work, it's deliberately targetting non-combatants as you say. On the other hand raids who's targets were specifically millitary or industrial I have no problem with. Then the unfortunate side effect naturally is civilian losses, but in total war that is pretty inevitable.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
What he said.
Raeder was in on all of Hitler's top secret plans to make war on Germany's neighbors.
On a side note, he was in fact one of Nazi Germany's greatest strategists. If Hitler had listened to Raeder more often, it is entirely possible that England could have been knocked out of the war.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Maybe, but it served another purpose in the long term.
As early as World War I, the Germans used terror-bombing against civilians in France and Great Britain. It started with the Zeppelin raids and naval forces shelling coastal towns.
In WWII, the Luftwaffe destroyed many European cities outside of Germany like Warsaw, Crackow, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Belgrade and on and on...
The German people as a whole never got a taste of what their armed forces were doing to other peoples until 1943 when Hamburg and other German cities became the target of massive Allied bomber missions.
These raids damaged infrastructure, industry, transportation and also caused widespread homelessness, which sucked alot of resources away from the fighting fronts.
It was brutal, and by today's standards a war crime. But in WWII it was necessary.
I'm sorry to say this, but the Germans needed to be given a wake up call. They visited all these horrors onto other peoples, all the while sitting safely in their towns and cities untouched by the war they started.
Much like the Japanese, they finaly got a taste of the death and destruction they were dishing out and decided they didn't like it.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
First Case the definition of an agresssive war is very soften. We do have a law which penals that, but it was never practical nor will it be. Some German law professors say it is against the constitution because it is too soft.
The bombings of civilians were war crimes even in that times. The difference between German and allied bombings is German bombings had as target (mostly, some exceptions like Rotterdam which was a tragical accident) industry. Unfortunately the homings of the worker were inside the factories.
Slaughter Harris on the other hand made civilian targets as main objective (exception: Essen). The Germans should have been wakened up. But this goal was never achieved. The German morale was never broken. Throwing papers which show the KZ and infos about the Nazi terrorism would have been much more effective. So this bombings were not justifiable and never neccessary.
And speaking of invading neutral countries the British wanted to invade Norway. Everything was ready when Germany started first. And Iran was also occupied. So also these deeds could be aggressive wars.
The whole war was barbaric on each side. Only the fightings in Africa were Gentlemen´s warfare.
Adler
The bombings of civilians were war crimes even in that times. The difference between German and allied bombings is German bombings had as target (mostly, some exceptions like Rotterdam which was a tragical accident) industry. Unfortunately the homings of the worker were inside the factories.
Slaughter Harris on the other hand made civilian targets as main objective (exception: Essen). The Germans should have been wakened up. But this goal was never achieved. The German morale was never broken. Throwing papers which show the KZ and infos about the Nazi terrorism would have been much more effective. So this bombings were not justifiable and never neccessary.
And speaking of invading neutral countries the British wanted to invade Norway. Everything was ready when Germany started first. And Iran was also occupied. So also these deeds could be aggressive wars.
The whole war was barbaric on each side. Only the fightings in Africa were Gentlemen´s warfare.
Adler
Case
The horror, the horror
While the British had plans to invade Norway, everything most certainly wasn't ready when the Germans invaded. That explains why the British intervention in Norway was a complete cock-up.Sure. But those actions were motivated by the need to defeat a nation which was
Sure, the Invasion of Iran (which was the Western Allies only clear-cut act of agression) was a bad thing. However, it was done to hasten the defeat of a nation which was trying to carve out a barbaric empire. Unlike what the Germans got up to, the Allied occupation of Iran was mild, and the Allies left almost as soon as the war ended (something the Germans would never have considered doing). As I said before, there's no point in using moral relativism to charge the Western Allies with hypocracy: they did what they had to do to defeat unspeakable evil and safeguard their own countries.
rilnator
Emperor
The main difference between Allied and German bombing was numbers and bomber capabilities. No way could Germany mount thousand bomber raids like the British did. they would have if they could. Look at the pounding Leningrad copped during the seige.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
What a big nonsense!From september 1940, it were Hitler's specific orders to bomb London civilians. Bombing civilians is a German invention, not an English one.
Bombing German cities, regardless of industry or civilians, was done after Hitler had created the idea of 'totalen Krieg'.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
The first two (especially the first) existed under Anglo-saxon justice. 'Conspiracy to wage aggresive war' did not exist under French or Russian (or German for that matter) law.
Since Germany declared war to the US, we could argue it was fair to try German nazi topshots under American law.
Apart from that you are right about the victor's justice. But I don't think there was another way. Times were different.
nonconformist
Miserable
I agree with Adler17. Any attack directly targeting civilians as a target should be considered a war crime. It has become a moral, and criminal injustice to attac "illegitimate" targets such as civilians and surrendered troops. There are other unofficial moral standards in the military.
The difference between German and allied bombings is German bombings had as target (mostly, some exceptions like Rotterdam which was a tragical accident) industry.
I really didn't want to wade into this again, but this is a blatant falsehood. Sticking with Western Europe for a moment, as both Joe and Stapel pointed out it was the Germans who first introduced aerial bombing in World War I, and their targets were overwhelmingly civilian. The first use of an aerial bomb in war in fact was the German zeppelin attack on the Doplhin Tavern on Red Lion Street in London in 1915, killing 3 patrons and destroying the pub. (You can still see the original clock at the re-built pub today, stopped at 10.40.)
The Germans once again initiated aerial bombing in World War II, bombing targets all across Britain. In fact, a critical flaw in Hitler's strategy was exactly that he did concentrate on bombing civilian targets in Britain, leaving many military targets - especially the critical radar sites - unmolested.
In fact, before World War II the Germans also showed a willingness to target civilians; One word: Guernica.
Now let's move to my part of Europe. At 4.30 a.m. (15 minutes ahead of schedule, actually) on 01.September 1939, the Luftwaffe launched raids across Poland. From the very first hours of the German bombing campaign, civilian targets were included and after only a few days the Luftwaffe switched its focus from military to almost excuslively civilian targets. Poland brims with reports of German Stuka divebombers and various other aircraft bombing or strafing civilian buildings and structures, and most infamously long columns of very obviously civilian refugees in rural areas with their oxcarts. I already gave you the littany of how the Germans managed to kill almost a quarter of the Polish civilian population, but this was re-created all over Europe, especially (but not exclusively) Eastern Europe. Immediately after the coup in Yugoslavia that nullified the pact with Berlin, German Stuka bombers attacked residential areas of Belgrade (on Easter night, 1941) killing 17,000 civilians. The Luftwaffe committed similar attrocities in the German drive across the Soviet Union, restrained only by increasing pilot and aircraft shortages.
Perhaps as time goes on we can look back and wonder about some of the acts committed with more objectivity, and mourn the losses - but that is not to say they are regretted. I think there is wisdom is what Joe wrote:
I'm sorry to say this, but the Germans needed to be given a wake up call. They visited all these horrors onto other peoples, all the while sitting safely in their towns and cities untouched by the war they started.
Much like the Japanese, they finaly got a taste of the death and destruction they were dishing out and decided they didn't like it.
To the peoples of Eastern Europe, terrorized and slaughtered by the Germans in two World Wars, the only moral question about the Dresden bombing was "Why aren't there more like this?" Modern Germans pacifism was born of the horrors they experienced in the World War, so perhaps at least something good came of this.
I really didn't want to wade into this again, but this is a blatant falsehood. Sticking with Western Europe for a moment, as both Joe and Stapel pointed out it was the Germans who first introduced aerial bombing in World War I, and their targets were overwhelmingly civilian. The first use of an aerial bomb in war in fact was the German zeppelin attack on the Doplhin Tavern on Red Lion Street in London in 1915, killing 3 patrons and destroying the pub. (You can still see the original clock at the re-built pub today, stopped at 10.40.)
The Germans once again initiated aerial bombing in World War II, bombing targets all across Britain. In fact, a critical flaw in Hitler's strategy was exactly that he did concentrate on bombing civilian targets in Britain, leaving many military targets - especially the critical radar sites - unmolested.
In fact, before World War II the Germans also showed a willingness to target civilians; One word: Guernica.
Now let's move to my part of Europe. At 4.30 a.m. (15 minutes ahead of schedule, actually) on 01.September 1939, the Luftwaffe launched raids across Poland. From the very first hours of the German bombing campaign, civilian targets were included and after only a few days the Luftwaffe switched its focus from military to almost excuslively civilian targets. Poland brims with reports of German Stuka divebombers and various other aircraft bombing or strafing civilian buildings and structures, and most infamously long columns of very obviously civilian refugees in rural areas with their oxcarts. I already gave you the littany of how the Germans managed to kill almost a quarter of the Polish civilian population, but this was re-created all over Europe, especially (but not exclusively) Eastern Europe. Immediately after the coup in Yugoslavia that nullified the pact with Berlin, German Stuka bombers attacked residential areas of Belgrade (on Easter night, 1941) killing 17,000 civilians. The Luftwaffe committed similar attrocities in the German drive across the Soviet Union, restrained only by increasing pilot and aircraft shortages.
Perhaps as time goes on we can look back and wonder about some of the acts committed with more objectivity, and mourn the losses - but that is not to say they are regretted. I think there is wisdom is what Joe wrote:
I'm sorry to say this, but the Germans needed to be given a wake up call. They visited all these horrors onto other peoples, all the while sitting safely in their towns and cities untouched by the war they started.
Much like the Japanese, they finaly got a taste of the death and destruction they were dishing out and decided they didn't like it.
To the peoples of Eastern Europe, terrorized and slaughtered by the Germans in two World Wars, the only moral question about the Dresden bombing was "Why aren't there more like this?" Modern Germans pacifism was born of the horrors they experienced in the World War, so perhaps at least something good came of this.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, indeed also German bombers bombed after this scheme. I want to stay in ww2. But IIRC the Germans bombed civilian target only after the British raided Berlin. This costed Germany the victory in the BoB. Nevertheless also these attacks were war crimes. But until this point most targets were of industrial or military origin.
The war at the East was very barbaric on each side. There were terror bombings by Germans and Soviets. Mostly ideology played a big part in such actions. The two baddest ideologies of history were involved: Nazism and Stalinism. So there war crimes en masse happened. Many were never tried for their deeds there.
Nevertheless there is NOTHING good that came out of this. Only perhaps the lesson to do it never again. Vrylakas, I can understand the thinking of your people in one way but Dresden was perhaps the biggest single war crime in Europe. Dresden was defenseless. There was not a single FlaK and the few night fighter were unfortunately only 3 times successfull. In Dresden were many Silesian refugees hoping to escape the Russians. And there was no military or industrial target. So only the morale should be broken. It was useless terror. The British pilots were perhaps the last ones to be guilty of that crime. They did only their duty as well as German pilots who tried to shoot them down. But the man after this awfull strategy, Harris, got a memorial in London a few years ago instead being hung in Nürnberg.
Nürnberg was not only victor justice but in some trials it was. I remember the fact in Anglo Saxon law such a crime existed. So should it be used? Only when it was common sense in international law you can take a law as international law. French, Russian and German law didn´t know such a law penalising aggressive wars (what about Bush ?). Only the US and the UK knew it. So it wasn´t common sense and not a law which was justified to be used since most of the other states didn´t know it, too. Only because of politacal reasons this was made. Nevertheless I think this was missing in these laws since it was no common sense, no international law and because of nulla poena sine lege it was never justified to be used since it should be an international and not US or British court.
Because of that Nürnberg has an ambivalent taste for me: On this side these errors on the other hand the good trials against some of the biggest criminals in German history. But also another point: They were never tried because of the crimes they did in Germany: Murderers, traitors, ...
Hopefully the new International criminal court makes a better work, but since the US don´t ratice it I have doubts in the effectiveness of this court.
Adler
The war at the East was very barbaric on each side. There were terror bombings by Germans and Soviets. Mostly ideology played a big part in such actions. The two baddest ideologies of history were involved: Nazism and Stalinism. So there war crimes en masse happened. Many were never tried for their deeds there.
Nevertheless there is NOTHING good that came out of this. Only perhaps the lesson to do it never again. Vrylakas, I can understand the thinking of your people in one way but Dresden was perhaps the biggest single war crime in Europe. Dresden was defenseless. There was not a single FlaK and the few night fighter were unfortunately only 3 times successfull. In Dresden were many Silesian refugees hoping to escape the Russians. And there was no military or industrial target. So only the morale should be broken. It was useless terror. The British pilots were perhaps the last ones to be guilty of that crime. They did only their duty as well as German pilots who tried to shoot them down. But the man after this awfull strategy, Harris, got a memorial in London a few years ago instead being hung in Nürnberg.
Nürnberg was not only victor justice but in some trials it was. I remember the fact in Anglo Saxon law such a crime existed. So should it be used? Only when it was common sense in international law you can take a law as international law. French, Russian and German law didn´t know such a law penalising aggressive wars (what about Bush
?). Only the US and the UK knew it. So it wasn´t common sense and not a law which was justified to be used since most of the other states didn´t know it, too. Only because of politacal reasons this was made. Nevertheless I think this was missing in these laws since it was no common sense, no international law and because of nulla poena sine lege it was never justified to be used since it should be an international and not US or British court.Because of that Nürnberg has an ambivalent taste for me: On this side these errors on the other hand the good trials against some of the biggest criminals in German history. But also another point: They were never tried because of the crimes they did in Germany: Murderers, traitors, ...
Hopefully the new International criminal court makes a better work, but since the US don´t ratice it I have doubts in the effectiveness of this court.
Adler
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Adler, you are way off.
Hitler's Luftwaffe terror-bombed Warsaw and Krackow, amognst other Polish cities. They also strafed columns of fleeing civilians to spread panic in the Polish rear areas.
Once Poland was occupied, state sanctioned mass murder began all across the country. Millions of Poles were murdered in cold blood. Usualy just because they were prominent citizens, clergy or intelligencia. Total barbarism.
During the invasion of Norway, the Luftwaffe mercilessly destroyed the town of Nybergsund in an attempt to kill the King of Norway. They dropped high explosives and incinderary bombs at low altitudes then machine gunned the survivors.
Once the attack in the west began, the same terror continued. On May 14th, while surrender negotiations were going on between a Dutch officer and the staff of the German 39th Corps, the Luftwaffe bombed the heart of Rotterdam killing 800 civilians, wounding thousands, leaving 78,000 people homeless. Sheer and unecessary treachery. Barbarism.
After the fall of France, Operation Eagle commenced in August. At first, it was limited to military targets. One night in the beginning of September, German planes bombed residential areas in London, even though they had orders not to do this.
The following night, the RAF bombed Berlin in retaliation. This was a tremendous propoganda victory for the British, after Goering had claimed such a thing was impossible.
Then a fundamental change in strategy emerged in Berlin.
Massive terror-bombing of English cities began around the clock. London, Coventry, Manchester, Portmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Birmingham, Hull, Exeter and many other cities were bombed with the intent to kill civilians and weaken British morale. The RAF raids on Berlin were but tiny pinpricks compared to what the Luftwaffe was doing to English cities.
This was ultimately the undoing of Sea Lion, since it gave the RAF Fighter Command time to regroup.
In 1941, after the coup in Yugoslavia, Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to 'destroy Belgrade from the air, wipe it off the map'. During three days of low level bombing (the Yugoslavs had no AA guns), Belgrade was reduced to a smoking ruin. Thousands of innocent people were massacred.
So again I say, the Germans were the ones who brought destruction upon themselves. So did the Japanese. After slaughtering millions of innocent people in Europe and Asia while making aggressive war against their peacefull neighbors.
Dresden and Hiroshima were horrible, but not uninvited.
Hitler's Luftwaffe terror-bombed Warsaw and Krackow, amognst other Polish cities. They also strafed columns of fleeing civilians to spread panic in the Polish rear areas.
Once Poland was occupied, state sanctioned mass murder began all across the country. Millions of Poles were murdered in cold blood. Usualy just because they were prominent citizens, clergy or intelligencia. Total barbarism.
During the invasion of Norway, the Luftwaffe mercilessly destroyed the town of Nybergsund in an attempt to kill the King of Norway. They dropped high explosives and incinderary bombs at low altitudes then machine gunned the survivors.
Once the attack in the west began, the same terror continued. On May 14th, while surrender negotiations were going on between a Dutch officer and the staff of the German 39th Corps, the Luftwaffe bombed the heart of Rotterdam killing 800 civilians, wounding thousands, leaving 78,000 people homeless. Sheer and unecessary treachery. Barbarism.
After the fall of France, Operation Eagle commenced in August. At first, it was limited to military targets. One night in the beginning of September, German planes bombed residential areas in London, even though they had orders not to do this.
The following night, the RAF bombed Berlin in retaliation. This was a tremendous propoganda victory for the British, after Goering had claimed such a thing was impossible.
Then a fundamental change in strategy emerged in Berlin.
Massive terror-bombing of English cities began around the clock. London, Coventry, Manchester, Portmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Birmingham, Hull, Exeter and many other cities were bombed with the intent to kill civilians and weaken British morale. The RAF raids on Berlin were but tiny pinpricks compared to what the Luftwaffe was doing to English cities.
This was ultimately the undoing of Sea Lion, since it gave the RAF Fighter Command time to regroup.
In 1941, after the coup in Yugoslavia, Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to 'destroy Belgrade from the air, wipe it off the map'. During three days of low level bombing (the Yugoslavs had no AA guns), Belgrade was reduced to a smoking ruin. Thousands of innocent people were massacred.
So again I say, the Germans were the ones who brought destruction upon themselves. So did the Japanese. After slaughtering millions of innocent people in Europe and Asia while making aggressive war against their peacefull neighbors.
Dresden and Hiroshima were horrible, but not uninvited.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
For the record, Admiral Raeder was very much in favor of using terror-bombing against the British because he was not happy about the prospect of defending against the British Fleet during a cross-channel invasion.
Raeder urged Hitler several times to consider terror-bombing London during the month of August 1940.
Raeder urged Hitler several times to consider terror-bombing London during the month of August 1940.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Any bombing of a city, no matter what are attacking, can be called a terror bombing. Ther first instance of a residential district in Britain bieng bomber was during a night raid when a single German bober got lost and hit the wrong place. An accident.
The first instance of German civilians being bombed was the next day when the British ordered a retaliatory strick on German civilain targets thinking the previous days attack was on purpose. They succeeded in blowing up a full school. THAT is deliberate targeting.
One of the prime goals of the Allied air campaign was to "kill workers" ie civilians. It is a war crime. There is no excuse to use 1000 bombers to kill a factory. At that scale the factory was the "excuse" target. The meant to destroy the city.
The first instance of German civilians being bombed was the next day when the British ordered a retaliatory strick on German civilain targets thinking the previous days attack was on purpose. They succeeded in blowing up a full school. THAT is deliberate targeting.
One of the prime goals of the Allied air campaign was to "kill workers" ie civilians. It is a war crime. There is no excuse to use 1000 bombers to kill a factory. At that scale the factory was the "excuse" target. The meant to destroy the city.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Name me one war crime by a German U-boat, and not picking up the survivors is not one of them. Attacking nuetral ships carring belligernt supplies is not one (Brazil). Did the Allied bomber crew land and pick up wounded before flying home? The very nature of war in various theatres, say the freezing North Atlantic, removes and expectation for quarter. Now if the Germans surfaced and raked the shipwrecked with machinegun fire, then you have a case. But despite so many movies depicting this, it never actually happened.
Add Iceland to your list of invaded nuetrals. And since the Russians were an "allied" power add Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Not a declaration of war for any of them (Finland's was after the fact)
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
This has gotten really stupid now.
rilnator
Emperor
How can you suggest Russia was an allied power at that time? Britain and France were preparing to go and fight along side the Finns against the Russians. Allies don't fight each other.
