This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Published on February 12, 2010 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

Each war faught during the course of this century of "extremes" as one prominent historian put is has had its own unique features. The horrendous bloodletting in the trenches during World War I, captured so evocatively by Remarque in All Quiet on the Western Front, the large scale destruction of cities and civillian life and property at Dresseden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to forget the Japanese atrocities at Shanghai and Nanking, the Nazi genocide planned and executed by the state, are all unique features of twentieth century history.  The Black Book of Communism published recently by Harvard University Press has documented in some detail the civillian cost of ideologically inspired mass killing. So we are not being overly sensitive to the fact that the War on Terror unleashed by President Bush and carried out with great alacrity by President Obama seems to carry on the glorious traditions of the last century.

Warfare is ugly and more so when the enemy real or imagined is unseen and undetected. In all the rules of warfare in place until now the civillians could not be the direct target. Even when the US atom bombed Japan it was done on the pretext that the Japanese war machinery utilised the industries located in and around the two cities and the fire bombing of Dressden was sold to an unsuspecting public as an attack on the war machine of the Germans. All international conventions to which USA and its NATO allies are party to prohibit the intentional targetting of civillians.

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan the USA has been using unmanned drones carrying leathal bombs to target al-qaeda and taliban leaders. No one will be concerned if the drones kill their purported targets. Often the targets are chosen on the basis of rumours and gossip, malicious rumours that are spread by tribal rivalries and are picked up by US plants and relayed to the CIA headquarters and the order to strike given. In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks have become the single most important factor in fuelling anti US propaganda.

In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed and in certain instances not a single militant was on the spot. It appears that the US is relying on motivated information in order to launch drone attacks. Apart from the sheer scale of the drone attacks and tney are becoming more and more frequent by the week, the widespread use of drone raises questions about US commitment to the conventions it has signed. I am not calling for a moratorium on the use of drones, as I do realise that such attacks are useful and to an extent necessary. I am simply saying that proper and judicious care must be taken to whet what is touted as "actionable intelligence".


Comments (Page 3)
9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Feb 14, 2010

If Iran and Israel went to war tomorrow and they set off a nuke in Tel Aviv would you still contend they all deserved to die, even if Israel pre-emptively started the war? They voted for Israel's leaders right? Somehow I think not.

I didn't say the people of Dresden deserved to die. I said that they were among those who created the situation they were in. In contrast to the people of London who did nothing to create the situation.

And no, Iran and Israel are already at war BECAUSE Iran in 1979 decided to start a war and they had Hizbullah and other organisations fight it for them. An Israeli strike against Iran would not be a war "pre-emptively started" it would be a war continued to be fought. (And neither were Iran's attacks "pre-emptive" since Israel never ever had any plans to attack Iran.)

The allies bombed Dresden because Germany started a war and the allies wanted to end it.

If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, Iran would merely fight the war Iran started. It's not the same situation at all.

Israelis did not create the situation they are in. The Iranian regime made it up.

As we can see (and as Obama ignores) the Iranian people are not supporting their regime. If there had been huge demonstrations all over Germany, I would have accepted the fact that the Germans didn't support their leadership.

But there weren't.

I don't think you understood my point at all.

I didn't say the people of Dresden deserved to die because they participated in a war.

I said they did die because they started one.

 

on Feb 14, 2010

If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, Iran would merely fight the war Iran started. It's not the same situation at all.

Iran and Israel are already at war

That's fine, but my friend I seriously doubt the rest of the world would see it that way. The Germans in the 1930's thought they were righting the wrongs of WWI, apparently an similar opinion you share with present day Israel. History gives the start of WWII in 1939. The Vietnam War started long before US involvement (for the Vietnamese), and most folks could care less. I doubt if the US and Soviet Union had a hot war in the 1980's that it would have been said to have started in the 1940's by anyone other than historians. So while I agree events leading up to a hot war may be significant, the majority of people rarely consider anything before the shells start flying. 

In contrast to the people of London who did nothing to create the situation.

The allies bombed Dresden because Germany started a war and the allies wanted to end it.

By the logic you used earlier it would have been England's fault (in part). Could they have not stopped Hitler early on instead of appeasing him? You didn't say the residents of Dresden deserved to die, you just implied they cast their lot 11 years prior. Didn't England do the same? Their lack of resolve as early as 1936 is directly related to the start of the war. In fact, the conditions left to Germany from the end of WWI provided the breeding ground for Hitler to rise in power...a direct correlation. Some might say that started the war. I'm not trying to argue your right to your opinion, I'm just stating that you can't fairly give a pass on one group of cities, due to time and place, while condemning others. It is apples and apples.

on Feb 14, 2010

That's fine, but my friend I seriously doubt the rest of the world would see it that way.

I doubt that too. The world will obviously see it as Israel's fault (why the heck are Middle-Eastern Jews still alive anyway???) and will do nothing if the Jews die and then wake up and regret the Holocaust. But none of that has anything to do with my judgment of the situation. I will still blame whoever made the decision to use violence and imposed that decision on everybody else.

I was a student at U Haifa when Hizbullah fired Iranian rockets at me. What do you want me to do to prove that there is a war going on?

 

The Germans in the 1930's thought they were righting the wrongs of WWI, apparently an similar opinion you share with present day Israel. History gives the start of WWII in 1939. The Vietnam War started long before US involvement (for the Vietnamese), and most folks could care less. I doubt if the US and Soviet Union had a hot war in the 1980's that it would have been said to have started in the 1940's by anyone other than historians. So while I agree events leading up to a hot war may be significant, the majority of people rarely consider anything before the shells start flying. 

The anti-war crowd seem to consider it. Their mistake is that they ignore whether shots are already fired when they try to "stop" the war from happening.

 

By the logic you used earlier it would have been England's fault (in part). Could they have not stopped Hitler early on instead of appeasing him?  You didn't say the residents of Dresden deserved to die, you just implied they cast their lot 11 years prior. Didn't England do the same? 

It wasn't England's responsibility to stop Germany. It was Germany's.

England made a mistake, but England was not responsible for what Germany did.

I do not blame the fireman when an arsonists burns down a building that the firemen could have watched. At some point responsibility has to fall on the person who made the decision to act and not the person who failed to stop him.

 

In fact, the conditions left to Germany from the end of WWI provided the breeding ground for Hitler to rise in power...a direct correlation. Some might say that started the war. I'm not trying to argue your right to your opinion, I'm just stating that you can't fairly give a pass on one group of cities, due to time and place, while condemning others. It is apples and apples.

The conditions imposed on Germany were an injustice done to Germany, but it was as a situation not worse than what other countries found themselves in. World War I left many countries in poverty but not all of them decided to start another war.

 

on Feb 14, 2010

What do you want me to do to prove that there is a war going on?

Oh I hear you. I just don't believe it would matter much to the rest of the world, concerning Israel or anywhere else for that matter. I'd have to say that history backs me up on that. I'm not suggesting whether it's right or wrong.

It wasn't England's responsibility to stop Germany. It was Germany's.

I'm not denying Germany's complicity that is first and foremost, but yes I do believe both the UK and France had a responsibility in the prevention of the war. Your fireman analogy is a poor one. What fireman would sit by idly, not even phoning the police, while an arsonist in plane sight lights a fire (I'm glad I don't live in your neck of the woods)? Germany was in England and Frances "plain sight", they knew an escalation would fall on them to remedy, yet they did nothing.

Lets update the example to an issue I've seen you passionately discuss: the Kurds. By your logic, the Kurds, as Iraqis, should have dealt with Saddam on their own. In regards to the Kurds, using your words above with some slight changes, "It wasn't the US's responsibility to stop Iraq. It was Iraq's". That issue didn't even spill over outside Iraqi borders as WWII did. Now I don't believe you would feel this way about the Kurdish situation, yet you do for pre-war Germany. Interesting. 

World War I left many countries in poverty but not all of them decided to start another war.

True, however, I don't believe that Germany was looking for a war, initially anyway. After being handed the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, and finally Czechoslovakia on a silver platter, why not Poland too? I'm sure war was consideration for them, but most bullies get what they want by intimidation. Hitler didn't believe the French and English would die for the Poles, they didn't for the Czechs.

Yes Germany was impoverished after WWI, but more importantly they were humiliated in the eyes of the world. This was not some back-water, third world nation, it was a nation that had seen itself on par with any other major world power, and they had their nose rubbed in it. Say what you want about Hitler, but not only did he bring Germany out of depression, he made them feel good about being German again. The "hope" and "change" of the day if you will. This has happened numerous times throughout history.

on Feb 14, 2010

Just this morning 12 Afghan civilians were killed in the assault on Majrah.

 

on Feb 14, 2010

Yes I read about that in the news. It was a mistake, not deliberate.  War is violent and innocent people die, even if everything humanely possible is done to avoid it. After all, the goal of the mission is to free that region and the city and to hold it so that the government can establish its control there - rather conventional warfare come to think of it - plus the goal of minimizing civilian losses to almost zero if at all possible. They need the population on their side and not against them so any accidents like that are tragedies but probably didn't happen out of carelessness or callousness.

on Feb 15, 2010

Oh I hear you. I just don't believe it would matter much to the rest of the world, concerning Israel or anywhere else for that matter. I'd have to say that history backs me up on that. I'm not suggesting whether it's right or wrong.

Israel is a special case because circumstances won't matter. The world will blame Israel until six million die. And then the world will cry and claim that nobody saw it coming.

My favourite author, Ephraim Kishon, wrote that Israel missed a chance in 1967. If Israel had lost, the world's sympathies would have been with the Jews rather than with the attackers.

 

Lets update the example to an issue I've seen you passionately discuss: the Kurds. By your logic, the Kurds, as Iraqis, should have dealt with Saddam on their own. In regards to the Kurds, using your words above with some slight changes, "It wasn't the US's responsibility to stop Iraq. It was Iraq's". That issue didn't even spill over outside Iraqi borders as WWII did. Now I don't believe you would feel this way about the Kurdish situation, yet you do for pre-war Germany. Interesting.

The Kurds didn't bring Saddam to power and Saddam was no Kurd. They never wanted him, never supported him and they fought him from the beginning.

It was neither their nor the US' responsibility to stop Saddam, but it was their right to try and it was good that they (both) ultimately did.

I think there are two levels of responsibility here which shouldn't be confused, and maybe we are talking about different levels.

We all have a responsibility to help others and thus stop people like Saddam. But none of us have a special responsibility to do so unless we assume the responsibility. Perhaps England's claim to be a world power creates a responsibility for them to be world police even outside their own empire. I can agree with that.

But responsibility for evil lies with the people who commit the crime, not the people who for whatever reason failed to stop them.

England was responsible for the act of not stopping Hitler but not for the acts that Hitler committed.

 

True, however, I don't believe that Germany was looking for a war, initially anyway. After being handed the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, and finally Czechoslovakia on a silver platter, why not Poland too? I'm sure war was consideration for them, but most bullies get what they want by intimidation. Hitler didn't believe the French and English would die for the Poles, they didn't for the Czechs.

Hitler wanted war. It was clear from his rhetoric, his "book", his attitude towards other Nazis who actually did disagree (Ernst Roehm), and his ideology. He was in fact reported to have been furious that England didn't give him a chance to start a war there and then. He believed he would win a war and thus wanted to fight one.

So, yes, appeasement works. It can delay a war and make it bloodier.

 

Yes Germany was impoverished after WWI, but more importantly they were humiliated in the eyes of the world. This was not some back-water, third world nation, it was a nation that had seen itself on par with any other major world power, and they had their nose rubbed in it. Say what you want about Hitler, but not only did he bring Germany out of depression, he made them feel good about being German again. The "hope" and "change" of the day if you will. This has happened numerous times throughout history.

What the Germans feel they ought to have and don't is of no concern to me.

And Hitler did neither of the things you say.

He didn't bring Germany out of the depression, he merely shifted resources and impoverished Germany in the long run to get some quick results. Any politician could have done that. The trick with a depression is to recover for longer than a dozen years.

And he didn't make people feel good about being German again, he merely redefined what being German is. What used to be a nation of thinkers became a nation defined by blood. Instead of making Germany feel good about being thinkers (what "German" used to mean) he made Germany feel good about something of no importance which every other nation also had: a blood line.

Of course he ultimately lost Germany her eastern territories and her standing in the world as a beacon of science and philosophy. Because of him the greatest scientists emmigrated to America and Germany became a symbol of evil.

I want my recovery from depression to have better results 20 years after than the country losing 1/3 of her territory, the vast majority of her scientists, many millions of her population, and all the money she still had.

 

on Feb 15, 2010

Leauki, you still simplify too much. While you're right on many issues, especially with the consequences regarding being a german, things are complex there as well. I researched allied war crime trials the after the end of WW2, the policies adopted by the allied forces council and why an astonishingly large group recieved clemency or had their sentence drasticalyl reduced - all in the years 45-49. I puzzled me to no end and I wanted to know why so many barbaric people (or so they seemed to me) would be let off the hook so easily. But the cold war was going on and the western integration of Germany had become a priority.  This affected the so called Denazification of the allies as well, and the US military command in the american sector was pressured by Washington to finish quickly. The policy that had been adopted in this process was to sift through the simple and smalltime people first as you needed a cleared name to be able to be employed and it was really bad for economy to not have workers. After those the bigger nazis  had been planned as the next category. But it was a huge bureaucratic effort and by 1946/7 Washington wanted the whole thing to finish quickly - also because there was an election in the US - and so they hurried the process up and many Nazis that did commit crimes slipped through the cracks and were never held accountable for what they did.

You can't dismiss the interest and political influence big industry - they reluctantky supported Hitler in the beginning because they thought if they supported him they could influence economic interests in the long run. But the moderate or should I call them econonmically sane politicians were pushed out of power and bad decisions lead to the conclusion to some that war would be the only way out of the economic crisis - cheap slave labour. Or at least that is one theory. It wasn't just Hitler alone - many different factors came together in the worst possible way.


on Feb 15, 2010



Leauki, you still simplify too much.

I just don't think that the world is really so complicated.




It wasn't just Hitler alone - many different factors came together in the worst possible way.



I never said it was him alone. In fact I blame pretty much all Germans. If anything I blamed too many people and was far from blaming just one person.

 

Incidentally:

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Who said this?

A: Adolph Hitler in "Mein Kampf"?

B: Ishmael Haniye, prime minister of Gaza, in a propaganda film on Palestinian television?

C: The "king" of Saudi Arabia in a letter to leading clerics who questioned his support for Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war?

D: Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah, in a speech to the Lebanese parliament?

It's hard to tell, isn't it?

How difficult is it to disagree with the sentence quoted and not support whomever said it?

 

 

 

 

 

on Feb 15, 2010

It was neither just one person nor everybody that is guilty. It was a few people in the wrong powerful (or right) position, coupled with external conditions that rewarded ruthlessness, Hitler's racial hateideology spurring them on. And the implicit sharing and distributing of the blame by involving  whole sections of society in the nationasocialist society and merging it all into a sort of collective identity.

(most) People, societies and cultures are by definition complex. Even Saudi Arabia is probably more complex than a simple "they're all fundamental muslim that hate Isreal with all their guts and want to erase it from the map".

on Feb 15, 2010



It was neither just one person nor everybody that is guilty. It was a few people in the wrong powerful (or right) position, coupled with external conditions that rewarded ruthlessness, Hitler's racial hateideology spurring them on. And the implicit sharing and distributing of the blame by involving  whole sections of society in the nationasocialist society and merging it all into a sort of collective identity.



Whoever feels wrongfully accused is free to speak up against the Nazis.

It's not like the world ran out of the bad people leaving the innocent with no chance to make clear their position.




(most) People, societies and cultures are by definition complex. Even Saudi Arabia is probably more complex than a simple "they're all fundamental muslim that hate Isreal with all their guts and want to erase it from the map".



I am sure Saudi-Arabia is more complex than that. But if Saudi-Arabia attacked Israel (again) tomorrow and won, it would leave me with the impression that the people of Saudi-Arabia failed to stop their mad king and I would blame them for it.

on Feb 15, 2010

He didn't bring Germany out of the depression, he merely shifted resources and impoverished Germany in the long run to get some quick results. Any politician could have done that. The trick with a depression is to recover for longer than a dozen years.

And he didn't make people feel good about being German again, he merely redefined what being German is. What used to be a nation of thinkers became a nation defined by blood. Instead of making Germany feel good about being thinkers (what "German" used to mean) he made Germany feel good about something of no importance which every other nation also had: a blood line.

We will have to disagree here. Germans were going back to work, whether it was making Heinkels or Hummel's, it matters not, the economy improved over the Wiemar Republic. The people didn't know what was going to happen in 12 years even the rotten ones.

Hitler did want to expand, I don't deny this, it is in Mien Kampf, but from what I've read it always appeared to be East. He even had delusions that England might join him. But to the man on the street (in Dresden) it is beyond his knowledge as far as I know Hitlers book wasn't mandatory reading for adults.

I do believe after the defeat in WWI Germans felt proud again. There were plenty of Germans still alive from well before WWI and I'm sure recalled those glory days. There were still plenty of thinkers, but the squeaky wheel gets the most attention. I'd venture to say most Germans in uniform fought less for Hitler than for the fatherland.

 

on Feb 15, 2010

We will have to disagree here. Germans were going back to work, whether it was making Heinkels or Hummel's, it matters not, the economy improved over the Wiemar Republic. The people didn't know what was going to happen in 12 years even the rotten ones.

The economy improved after the depression. Hitler didn't do what other leaders didn't also manage to do in other countries even without stealing money from Jews and other undesirables and funding short-term projects with it.

 

Hitler did want to expand, I don't deny this, it is in Mien Kampf, but from what I've read it always appeared to be East. He even had delusions that England might join him. But to the man on the street (in Dresden) it is beyond his knowledge as far as I know Hitlers book wasn't mandatory reading for adults.

As far as I know Hitler's book was mandatory reading.

So yes, the people of Dresden didn't think (or possibly support) that Hitler wanted a war with England. But expanding to the east is also a declaration of war which the German people did support.

When Hitler invaded Poland the people of Germany did not rise up and stop him. They should have.

This is in contrast to Iran today. The people of Iran are clearly trying to stop their regime.

 

I do believe after the defeat in WWI Germans felt proud again. There were plenty of Germans still alive from well before WWI and I'm sure recalled those glory days. There were still plenty of thinkers, but the squeaky wheel gets the most attention. I'd venture to say most Germans in uniform fought less for Hitler than for the fatherland.

Hitler made it clear that they were fighting for him. That's why Stauffenberg had planned to kill Hitler. Hitler needed to be eliminated because it was expected that the soldiers would stand with him rather than the fatherland.

It was expected that the average soldier, if he had to decide between loyalty to officers from the old nobility and Hitler, he would decide for loyalty to Hitler.

I don't think Hitler, after a mere ten years and in the middle of a lost war personified Germany more than Stauffenberg did.

For me Stauffenberg is Germany and Hitler is not. And if Germans back then thought differently (and Stauffenberg thought that most did), I can blame them for that.

 

 

 

on Feb 16, 2010

You pretend that decisions and consequenes are always clear cut, and that the blame is always clear cut as well. If you were to read some of the litereature you might start to notice that it isn't.

For example Stauffenberg.. he was seen as a traitor, not a hero, after the war. He betrayed his country - if you looked at what he did without context. I can't tell you the exact numbers, but I do know that there was vehement resistance against naming public places and buildings after him. "Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1947-1955" is a collection of public oppinion polls on different issues. It is raw data and allows insight into what people thought/felt and what the general mood was like.

I would have thought that after the true dimension of Hitlers crimes became public knowlede that the people would cheer for someone who had tried to fight against such evil. But that didn't happen and the reason for that isn't "because all Germans were die hard Nazis". I don't really have a good answer either, it is a mixture of shame and guilt and avoiding the whole issue by repressing the last 12 years. How collective memory works is a very interesting field of study - not just for Germany.

on Feb 16, 2010



You pretend that decisions and consequenes are always clear cut, and that the blame is always clear cut as well. If you were to read some of the litereature you might start to notice that it isn't.



I do not "pretend that decisions and consequenes are always clear cut". I am saying that in some cases they are.

If, for example, some dude comes to you and claims that all X (X being some people) are evil and belong exterminated, you have a choice and it is easy to see what's good and what's evil. This is not a question of interpretation. Genocide is evil.

I don't need to read literature to understand that.




For example Stauffenberg.. he was seen as a traitor, not a hero, after the war. He betrayed his country - if you looked at what he did without context. I can't tell you the exact numbers, but I do know that there was vehement resistance against naming public places and buildings after him. "Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1947-1955" is a collection of public oppinion polls on different issues. It is raw data and allows insight into what people thought/felt and what the general mood was like.



And that doesn't tell you that perhaps there was German support for Hitler???

You are basically telling me that I am wrong about German support for Hitler because even after the war Germans were still upset with people who fought him?

For me Stauffenberg is a hero who died for Germany, trying to save a great country from a totalitarian regime.




I would have thought that after the true dimension of Hitlers crimes became public knowledge that the people would cheer for someone who had tried to fight against such evil.



Some did.

But most didn't. And that was my point.

Even when it was COMPLETELY SAFE to speak up, after the war, people still didn't.




But that didn't happen and the reason for that isn't "because all Germans were die hard Nazis". I don't really have a good answer either, it is a mixture of shame and guilt and avoiding the whole issue by repressing the last 12 years. How collective memory works is a very interesting field of study - not just for Germany.



"because all Germans were die hard Nazis"

Don't put it in quotes, I didn't say it.

I said Germans were quiet supporters and can be blamed for that. And yes, it's an easy decision to make: support the mass murderer, and you are EVIL. And if bombs should hit you because of what your mass murderer did, it's YOUR FAULT.

There were innocent victims in Dresden. But they were the minority and they were victims of the majority of Nazi supporters, NOT victims of the allied attack which happened SOLELY and ONLY because of what the Nazis did.

9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last