Feldgrau.net

Hi Paddy, The Adenauer statement is easily dealt with. Nurenberg condemned the Waffen-SS as a criminal institution but specifically ruled that mere membership was not of itself criminal. As most W-SS men probably never killed anyone in combat, let alone in a war crime, this formulation makes emminen...

Hi Paddy, The Wiking, as has been discussed here many times, was involved in so many crimes that it drew multiple criticism from its own side - a Finnish diarist in its own ranks, the Slovak Generals Turanec and Malar, (who served beside it in the winter of 1941/42), the Austrian General Eglseer who...

Hi Uncle Joe,

You are not comparing like with like.

Oradour was the illegal slaughter of civilians in the custody of the W-SS at no risk to themselves.

Tokyo, horrible though it was, was not illegal as the Hague Rules of Air Warfare of 1923 were never adopted.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi AAA, I think it is pretty redundant to ask about the excceptionalism of the Waffen-SS on Feldgrau. It has a separate section on the W-SS. A central thesis of Feldgrau is that the W-SS is exceptional. (Not something I particularly agree with on the military level, but that is another story.) The W...

Hi Rolf, Butler's books are sensationalist, derivative and unreliable. If I remember correctly, there was a mutiny by a unit of the division training in France in 1943. This isn't my area of expertise, but I think the conflict was essentially between the mutinous Bosnians and the Germans. I don't re...

Has anyone noticed the startling similarity between attacks on this book and those on "The Myth of the Eastern Front" and Westermeier's book on Jochen Peiper? In all three cases the attackers, often the same posters, hadn't read the book when first posting and preferred to attack the autho...

I was participating in a thread on Dresden yesterday, but it has disappeared today.

Can anyone tell me where it has gone?

Cheers,

Sid.

Thanks,

Sid.

Might I suggest a treaties and diplomacy section?

These don't seem to fit comfortably into any of the sections Feldgrau provides, but were fundamental to the causes, courses and conduct of Germany's wars.

Cheers,

Sid.

What the hell.... here are some of the relevant provisions of the Hague Rules of Air Warare, 1923: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ARTICLE XXII Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging privat...

Hi Tom, I don't think so. Both the provisions of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare and the events at Dresden, Guernica, Belgrad and Tokyo are pretty clear. The former would undoubtedly have made the latter operations illegal. If you can guarantee that they will not be removed again, I will happily put ...

Hi Phylo, Why? The Hague Rules of Air Warfare of 1923 seem never to have been ratified and, as I posted, "all powers eventually declined to follow" them. I did post the Hague Rules for Air Warfare, 1923, on Feldgrau yesterday so that everybody could see them, but for some incomprehensible ...

It has become apparent that some moderators are shutting down some threads placed in the wrong category, rather than transferring them to the appropriate part of the forum. Could I ask that moderators move misplaced threads to the appropriate area rather than simply shutting them? Otherwise it might...

I posted the following elsewhere and thought it might be useful here in filling in some of the backround and precedents that helped form the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and explain why the French were far more hard-nosed about its imposition than were the British or Americans: There is an arti...

Hi Guys,

Try Googling Hague Rules of Air Warfare 1923.

This gives the non-binding legislation that all powers eventually declined to follow.

Cheers,

Sid.