Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- From: kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:54:11 -0500
In article <PM00047A6434922B72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
marlockenator@xxxxxxxxx (Marlock) wrote:
what is Hague saying?
Compare that to Pearl Harbor if you will.
The Hague Treaty contains nothing that forbids the bombing of
civilians. It does forbid the bombing of undefended cities, towns or
buildings and the destruction of cultural artifacts. In the latter case
the defender is supposed to distinguish the cultural artifact so any
attacker can tell what it is. Now you may claim that Japanese cities
were undefended but that actually meant cities with no military presence
at all.
Now post war there was some revulsion against strategic bombing with
the result that Bomber Command never got the recognition it deserved for
the courage of it's crews. That revulsion and political considerations
caused a lot of dispute about the Japanese A-bombing but that dispute
has always been about whether the bombing was required to force Japanese
surrender not whether or not it was illegal.
On the other hand Hague did require formal declarations of war on the
part of an attacker prior to an attack.
Ken Young
.
- References:
- Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- From: Marlock
- Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- Prev by Date: Re: Japan, US, Russians
- Next by Date: Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- Previous by thread: Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- Next by thread: Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|