Thanks to Dr. K. for telling me about this little news nugget.
Page A1 of the Globe and Mail on August 29, 2007 has a story about a controversy at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
The dispute is between historians and a veteran's group. The topic is the bombing and fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities towards the end of World War II. Margaret MacMillan is one of the historians on the four-person panel assembled to review the wording.
'The fight over the 67-word panel, titled An Enduring Controversy, erupted shortly after the Canadian War Museum opened in May, 2005. A group of veterans objected to its saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and to its contrasting 600,000 dead with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war." '
One of the bomber veterans responded by saying that, "I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."
Yes, and the precision of the bombing runs is amply documented. bwahahahaha
Dresden burned to the ground. Firebombing is not something that can be targeted. It's a fire for heaven's sake. Total destruction. The same tactic was used in Japan, before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Firebombing is just about as effective when the city is made of wood - as cities tended to be in 1945. Estimates for the number of people killed in the firebombing of Dresden range from 35,000 to 100,000.
It's a war crime. Specifically, under Principle VI(b) of the Nuremberg Principles: "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" or maybe targeting civilians, item (c).
I got into a fight with my first IR prof earlier this summer over the topic of post-modernism. One of the other students asked if it was impossible for us to fairly judge the war crimes of others when we were imposing our own moral code on them and that in a post-modernist system their morality might well be completely different. I argued that "Yes, it is incorrect to assume that *our* morals are the correct morals and moreover that we are incredibly hypocritical because we will accuse others of war crimes but that if we the imperial, capitalist powers commit an act it is 'good' but that if someone else does it, it is 'bad'.
We may not be able to impose our moral standards on others but we should at least try to follow them ourselves.
Funnily enough, this issue was first brought to my attention by The West Wing. Leo is trying to figure out why the U.S. does not agree to the jurisdiction of the World Court and one of his commanders from Vietnam explains that Leo himself committed war crimes as a bomber pilot. If the U.S. agreed to abide by international law, they could then be charged. So, while America insists that others are brought to justice, it neatly sidesteps any charges against itself.
We could do the same except that we have already ratified the International Criminal Code and acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, "Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into its national laws when it adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on June 24, 2000. Canada was then able to ratify the Rome Statute on July 9, 2000."
Our soldiers and leaders could be charged with war crimes.
Maybe we should remember that when we are following the U.S. into battle.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Amazing Ms. MacMillan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I blogged on this subject over a year ago.
Is it justice to condemn someone's actions based on legal codes that did not exist when they perpetrated those actions? Can the Allied bombing campaign of 1943-45 be judged according to rules that were not put in place until well after the war's conclusion? It's true Nazi war criminals were condemned under the same rules at Nuremberg, but many contemporary commentators (including members of the U.S. Supreme Court) regarded Nuremberg as a kangaroo court:
US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."
The notion that Dresden was not a legitimate military target is erroneous anyway; this review of Frederick Taylor's book casts aspersions on the common myths of the Dresden bombing.
Let's look at it this way: if the Allies hadn't won the war, there wouldn't even be such a thing as "crimes against humanity".
I personally hold Britain and France partly responsible for the rise of National Socialism, but once the Nazis seized power in Germany, they had to be stopped. Much like, Western actions in the Middle East and Central Asia are partly responsible for the existence of Al-Qaeda; doesn't mean Osama bin Laden shouldn't be shot in the street like the rabid dog he is.
Post a Comment