ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags war crime charges , winston churchill , World War II history

Reply
Old 11th April 2016, 10:07 AM   #241
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,443
I think it is worth noting that whilst Dresden was on the 13th to 15th February 1945, the V rocket bombing of the UK and in particular London was ongoing until the 28th March 1945. On the 8th of March 110 people were killed by one rocket in London. The V rockets had no strategic objective whatsoever, but it still happened. The reality was bombing was about hate, fear and revenge.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 10:09 AM   #242
Aber
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 955
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, it was possible, since since the beginning of 1943, RAF bombers were equipped with the ground-scanning H2S radar. Which made it possible to bomb with extreme accuracy (for the time) even through fog or smoke or just about anything. Especially large structures like factories were extremely easy to target with H2S radar.
I think you are over-stating the abilities of H2S and Bomber Command.

Firstly, the performance of H2S was good for discriminating between built-up areas and water features (like Hamburg), but not between different types of built-up areas. I don't think I've ever seen anything that said it could discriminate individual factories.

Secondly, not all Bomber Command aircraft were equipped with H2S. Initially it was just Pathfinders who dropped target marker flares.

Thirdly, there is an inherent inaccuracy in bombing from 20,000 feet (even if the bomb-aimer has correctly identified the target in the dark).
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 12:49 PM   #243
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,226
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not aware of any that allow directly and deliberately targeting civilians. But perhaps you'll educate me.

What is permited is essentially colateral damage, if it can't be avoided. But that's a different thing.
"Clauses to the effect of". Of course nobody comes right out and says "it's okay to target civilians if you're fighting a really bad guy."

But permissible collateral damage does include knowingly causing civilian deaths, if the need is great and the harm is proportional to the benefit. The language is carefully chosen, and the justifications are clearly presented, but yes, civilians can be targeted if there is justification.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 12:57 PM   #244
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Clauses to the effect of". Of course nobody comes right out and says "it's okay to target civilians if you're fighting a really bad guy."

But permissible collateral damage does include knowingly causing civilian deaths, if the need is great and the harm is proportional to the benefit. The language is carefully chosen, and the justifications are clearly presented, but yes, civilians can be targeted if there is justification.
Surely collateral damage is the destruction of non-targeted lives. In Harris's case the civilian deaths are not collateral damage; they were intended damage. So unless the rules came right out and say it's okay to target civilians then yes surely Harris broke those rules by clearly and unequivocally making that his aim.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 01:01 PM   #245
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
The reality of ww2 is that it was impossible to target accurately. Maybe if you didn't have to fly at night, in bad weather, with thousands of guns shooting at you, you could give it a shot. But the bombs would fall miles away anyway. Therefore, you either bombed the whole area, or you sent your pilots to die flying too low. You either let the war machine keep cranking out tanks and planes, or you bombed the whole area and hoped for the best. There are many far more horrible facts of war that go unmentioned. When looking for things to feel good about myself, I rarely look at the desperate actions of the allies during WW2. YMMV
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 01:06 PM   #246
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
The reality of an inability to bomb specific things is exampled in the creation of the bouncing bomb. The sheer physics and thought put into it, Good heavens.

The same reason that it would have been stupid to try and blow up German dams from the air without such a weapon is the same reason you have to accept that the bombing style against positions and factories was the only sane one. You either do it, or you don't.

Where are all of the pilot and flight and physics experts calling the allies war criminals? Good luck with that.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 04:04 PM   #247
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Clauses to the effect of". Of course nobody comes right out and says "it's okay to target civilians if you're fighting a really bad guy."
Which kinda makes my point that there is no such thing, innit?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But permissible collateral damage does include knowingly causing civilian deaths, if the need is great and the harm is proportional to the benefit. The language is carefully chosen, and the justifications are clearly presented, but yes, civilians can be targeted if there is justification.
Actually, you'll find that directly targeting civilians is explicitly a war crime. Knowing collateral damage happens is NOT the same thing as it being the INTENDED damage.

Look, we all know that war is messy and dangerous business. S__t happens. You overshoot your artillery and hit a hospital behind the lines. You drop a ton of bombs on a strategic railway node, and some of them fall on the houses around it. You bomb a military factory, and a bunch of civilian workers die. Etc. That's collateral damage.

It happens, and most of the time there's no way to avoid it. We know it, the other guys know it, and the Hague tribunal knows it. You're not required to refrain from attacking a legitimate target, because you might also cause some collateral damage.

But INTENDING to cause as many non-combatant casualties as possible is a whole other thing, and can get you tried and hanged in Hague at this time. Then it's no longer just collateral damage.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 04:13 PM   #248
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
The most effective way to destroy Germany's industrial capacity and ability to wage war would have been a dozen raids with a similar effects to Hamburg.

The scale of the destruction at Hamburg in July 1943 was vast; it was comparable to an atomic bomb (though without the radiation and requiring a far larger number of aircraft and bombs). Hamburg shocked the German leadership; recorded comments from some top persons in the Reich made it clear that had Bomber Command been able to repeat that scale of destruction on another half-dozen or so cities in short order it could very well have knocked Germany out of the war.

But firestorms could not be created on command, and so that possibility of winning the war slipped away.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, it was possible, since since the beginning of 1943, RAF bombers were equipped with the ground-scanning H2S radar. Which made it possible to bomb with extreme accuracy (for the time) even through fog or smoke or just about anything.

Please define "extreme accuracy".

The accuracy achieved by Bomber Command in raids on transportation targets over occupied Europe in the first half of 1944 is very different from raids into the heart of Germany. The former benefited from lack of German defences, which allowed for lower bombing altitudes to be used, as well as greater effectiveness of the various electronic navigational aids; the latter meant flying at high altitudes into the teeth of the German air defences. (And, as always, weather was a major factor—the further one flew the less likely the weather forecasts were to be correct.)

The standard measure of accuracy for bombing in Bomber Command was the percentage of bombs landing within three miles of the aiming point. (A circle with a three-mile radius has an area of 28 square miles.) The percentage varied considerably, but over the course of the war the general trend was upwards. Towards the end it was able to put as much as 90% of the bombs dropped within that three-mile radius.

For the USAAF, post-war examination found that bombing visually was on average able to put 25% of the bombs dropped within 1,000 feet—one-fifth of a mile—of the aiming point. If bombing non-visually, just 2% of bombs dropped fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point.


Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What about Churchill's very similar poison gas proposal mentioned above? Was it in your view unfortunate that the Warriors and parsons objected to it, causing its cancellation?

In regards to the use of chemical weapons, both sides were afraid of the other using them in retaliation, so neither was willing to make the first use.

In the Pacific, one of the ways Japanese cave/underground fortifications could have been eliminated with a minimum of U.S. casualties would have been to pour poison gas into the ventilator shafts. But this idea was nixed from higher up, so the fortifications had to be cleared manually, incurring many more casualties. (One alternative to poison gas employed was to pour gasoline down the ventilator shafts and then ignite it.)


Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The reality was bombing was about hate, fear and revenge.

This statement is not correct insofar as strategic bombing is concerned. The effects on the German economy from the bombing were well-documented from both German records and testimony from relevant German authorities.


Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Secondly, not all Bomber Command aircraft were equipped with H2S. Initially it was just Pathfinders who dropped target marker flares.

Thirdly, there is an inherent inaccuracy in bombing from 20,000 feet (even if the bomb-aimer has correctly identified the target in the dark).

There were also some simple countermeasures: decoy flare markers were laid out to try and fool some of the bombers to aim at these instead of the true markers; decoy fires were lit away from the target area to try and draw bombers away. Both these tactics were occasionally successful.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Last edited by Corsair 115; 11th April 2016 at 04:15 PM.
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 04:28 PM   #249
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
The reality of an inability to bomb specific things is exampled in the creation of the bouncing bomb. The sheer physics and thought put into it, Good heavens.

The same reason that it would have been stupid to try and blow up German dams from the air without such a weapon is the same reason you have to accept that the bombing style against positions and factories was the only sane one. You either do it, or you don't.
Nobody protests the bombing of factories. That's a red herring at best and a strawman at worst. The issue discussed is deliberately fire-bombing civilian houses. Not as collateral damage while bombing factories, but ignoring the factories and just taking it out on civilians.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Where are all of the pilot and flight and physics experts calling the allies war criminals? Good luck with that.
You'll find that Article 56 of Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Convention puts restrictions on blowing up dams, nuclear power stations and such, if the loss of civilian life would be severe or disproportionate compared to the military goals of targeting them.

Whether the 1600+ lives lost in Operation Chastise, including slightly over 1000 slave workers is worth the minor inconvenience it caused Germany (it took a whole of about 10 days to repair the damage, and diverted about 7000 construction workers total for that)... well, let's just say it's not very hard to debate that.

On the whole, the whole thing was about on par with the Germans' shooting rockets at London. It killed a bunch of people, and the only real lasting effect was allowing a bit of propaganda to cause a bit of morale boost in the country doing the bombing. So I guess if you don't think the Germans were dicks for doing that, well, I suppose you can grant the same exemption to the Brits for Operation Chastise
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 04:32 PM   #250
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, you'll find that directly targeting civilians is explicitly a war crime.

My dispute is with the whole idea of the civilian/solider split, at least as it pertains to the industrialized scale of warfare seen in WWII. I submit that such a split is illusory. For an industrialized nation-state, the soldier cannot exist with the civilian. In which case, to argue the civilian is a wholly innocent bystander is nonsense. They bear some measure of responsibility for the war, as without their effort the industrialized war could not have continued.

Once again, who was it who worked in the armaments factories building the ships, tanks, artillery, rifles, bullets, bombs, torpedoes, submarines, and aircraft? The civilian. Who was it who worked in the steel mills producing the steel to make all those weapons? The civilian. Who was it who grew the food that fed the military? The civilian. Who was it who mined the coal which powered the railways and factories? The civilian. Who was it who ran the trains which moved the raw resources to the factories, and the end products from the factories to the military? The civilian. Who was it who worked in the chemical factories, electrical plants, oil refineries, electronics manufacturers, and the multitude of factories large and small which built the myriad of vital subcomponents without which military arms could not function? The civilian. From whose ranks were replacement soldiers, sailors, submariners, and airmen drawn? The civilian.

The civilian was absolutely indispensable to the war effort. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 04:42 PM   #251
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Nobody protests the bombing of factories. That's a red herring at best and a strawman at worst. The issue discussed is deliberately fire-bombing civilian houses.

Factories, manufacturing plants, industrial shops, and the like could be found throughout a city back then (this was especially true for Japanese cities). One must also recall the vast array of subcomponents that were crucial in the production of military arms—these could be produced at smaller, localized subsidiary firms.

And, once more, blocking city streets with debris, wrecking water mains, breaking gasworks, downing power lines, etc., all are damage that must be repaired as it hinders normal economic activity. Such repairs siphon off industrial and construction effort that might have gone to more direct war work
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 05:29 PM   #252
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Nobody protests the bombing of factories. That's a red herring at best and a strawman at worst. The issue discussed is deliberately fire-bombing civilian houses. Not as collateral damage while bombing factories, but ignoring the factories and just taking it out on civilians.
This is stupid.

"At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories. An investigation revealed that just one in five aircraft was succeeding in dropping its bombs within five miles of its target. Under such circumstances, the bombing offensive could only be effective if it was directed at targets as big as cities. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...mbing_01.shtml

Super deep debate we're having here.

My point stands. They either bombed and it killed everyone or they didn't bomb at all.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 11th April 2016 at 05:30 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 09:14 PM   #253
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
This is stupid.

"At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories. An investigation revealed that just one in five aircraft was succeeding in dropping its bombs within five miles of its target. Under such circumstances, the bombing offensive could only be effective if it was directed at targets as big as cities. "

Yes, that's the Butt Report of 1941. The report was the catalyst for the many changes Bomber Command initiated to improve the results of its bombing efforts.

To slightly correct my earlier statement, it was the percentage of sorties to the primary target bombing within three miles of the aiming point (on raids for which photographic evidence was available). This percentage could vary widely up or down from month to month, but from early 1942 onward the general trend was upwards. In June 1942 the figure was about 20%; in Dec. 1944 it was over 90%. But that three-mile radius encompasses a 28-square mile area.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 12:00 AM   #254
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
My dispute is with the whole idea of the civilian/solider split, at least as it pertains to the industrialized scale of warfare seen in WWII. I submit that such a split is illusory. For an industrialized nation-state, the soldier cannot exist with the civilian. In which case, to argue the civilian is a wholly innocent bystander is nonsense. They bear some measure of responsibility for the war, as without their effort the industrialized war could not have continued.

Once again, who was it who worked in the armaments factories building the ships, tanks, artillery, rifles, bullets, bombs, torpedoes, submarines, and aircraft? The civilian. Who was it who worked in the steel mills producing the steel to make all those weapons? The civilian. Who was it who grew the food that fed the military? The civilian. Who was it who mined the coal which powered the railways and factories? The civilian. Who was it who ran the trains which moved the raw resources to the factories, and the end products from the factories to the military? The civilian. Who was it who worked in the chemical factories, electrical plants, oil refineries, electronics manufacturers, and the multitude of factories large and small which built the myriad of vital subcomponents without which military arms could not function? The civilian. From whose ranks were replacement soldiers, sailors, submariners, and airmen drawn? The civilian.

The civilian was absolutely indispensable to the war effort. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
This is stupid.

"At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories. An investigation revealed that just one in five aircraft was succeeding in dropping its bombs within five miles of its target. Under such circumstances, the bombing offensive could only be effective if it was directed at targets as big as cities. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...mbing_01.shtml

Super deep debate we're having here.

My point stands. They either bombed and it killed everyone or they didn't bomb at all.
These are, of course, two distinct positions.

1.) Corsair appears to be biting the bullet on this by saying that yes, civilians were indeed the intended target and that killing as many of them as possible insofar as it hindered the German war effort, was desirable. As far as I can see this is also what Bomber Harris called for, and that he really wasn't interested in precision bombing or making the targeting of the military a primary aim. This, of course, undermines the piffle about Rules of War etc... which are considered irrelevant under this view.

However, may I ask a question about this. Under this scenario would there still be any form of warfare, or any form of bombing of civilians that would be unacceptable?

Just off the top of my head, would it be permissible to target an orphanage with poison gas to kill off children that might assist in making fire breaks in a city, for example?

2.) Joey McGee seems to be saying that civilians would have been spared it had been possible, but that it wasn't so, que sera sera, whatever the collateral damage will be will be. I think there may have been some in the allied bombing decision-making that agreed with this, and this is not really so relevant because most people accept that some deaths of civilians could occur, alas, during bombing raids when visibility was low.

However, again, are there any types of bombing which could be considered unacceptable? For instance, if there were any towns without armament-producing capacity or strategic position that were nonetheless bombed to perhaps placate Stalin, would this still be acceptable? I would think no, according to the way that you have phrased this because you are diminishing the role of choice in who was targeted, but I would be interested in what you think anyway.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 12:46 AM   #255
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
I think there were a small minority of times when the bombing was questionable., but a war crime? Hell no. Let's look at the official view.

Quote:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e...llains/g1/cs1/

In early 1945, German troops were moving through Dresden. This may have been to fight the advancing Soviet Army or to reinforce fighting elsewhere. Dresden was a key transport junction. To Churchill and his war cabinet, this made Dresden a strategic target. Bombing the city might halt the flow of German troops and speed the advance of the Soviet army into Germany. Bombing Dresden might help the Russian war effort.

There may have been another reason for choosing Dresden as a target. Bombing was believed to have an effect on morale. The idea was that civilians would be so traumatised by the continual threat to their lives, that they would stop believing they could win the war and would lose the will to fight. (This had been practised on both sides already. Attacks on places such as London in 1940-41, Coventry in 1941 and Hamburg in 1941 actually made the local people more determined.)
But there is a reason that Dresden is talked of so often to the exclusion of the thousands of other days in WW2. Most of the time, before the last days of the war, this wasn't a choice they were making. In general, they did what they had to do if they wanted to win the war.

If terrorizing and bombing citizens for terror was really the idea, they would have been slaughtering citizens with Howitzers and Thompsons when they first rolled into Germany, how often did that happen?

I feel bad when I piss on the seat. God knows how I would feel partaking in bombing raids. Let's look at the politics of the people involved here. This has less to do with what a moral person would do, and more with in general discrediting the halls of power... am I right?

Last edited by Joey McGee; 12th April 2016 at 12:49 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 01:13 AM   #256
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
I think there were a small minority of times when the bombing was questionable., but a war crime? Hell no. Let's look at the official view.



But there is a reason that Dresden is talked of so often to the exclusion of the thousands of other days in WW2. Most of the time, before the last days of the war, this wasn't a choice they were making. In general, they did what they had to do if they wanted to win the war.

If terrorizing and bombing citizens for terror was really the idea, they would have been slaughtering citizens with Howitzers and Thompsons when they first rolled into Germany, how often did that happen?

I feel bad when I piss on the seat. God knows how I would feel partaking in bombing raids. Let's look at the politics of the people involved here. This has less to do with what a moral person would do, and more with in general discrediting the halls of power... am I right?
If you consider those to be my motives then you are wrong. I'm simply interested in taking seriously the views of some well-known historians such as Richard Evans, Richard Overy and Max Hastings, as well as A.C Grayling. If you think I am relying on a grab bag of views from people like Noam Chomsky, David Irving and Howard Whatsisface then you are not correct.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 01:37 AM   #257
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
If you consider those to be my motives then you are wrong. I'm simply interested in taking seriously the views of some well-known historians such as Richard Evans, Richard Overy and Max Hastings, as well as A.C Grayling. If you think I am relying on a grab bag of views from people like Noam Chomsky, David Irving and Howard Whatsisface then you are not correct.
You should know I wasn't speaking to you as if I think you're a loon. I think my post both lends respect to the arguments of Grayling and also discredits the people who want to make hay with the event and says nothing about what I think of your views.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 01:53 AM   #258
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
You should know I wasn't speaking to you as if I think you're a loon. I think my post both lends respect to the arguments of Grayling and also discredits the people who want to make hay with the event and says nothing about what I think of your views.
Cheers. I hoped that you were speaking generally, and in that case I can agree with you that some commentators such as those I mentioned hardly have the purest motives in discussing these things. However, my own position is one hundred percent pure and unbiased.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 06:25 AM   #259
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Main considerations, will it help us win the war, and is it legal?

Moral considerations would only come in when it was clear that the war was won; before then they are subordinated to making sure that you will win.
When did that become clear? When did victory become sure?
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
I'm not sure that you posted the context; which was at the start of the expected V1 and V2 campaign. At that point Churchill did not know how bad it was going to get - IIRC some of the more alarmist predictions were that it would make London unlivable. In that context looking at all possibilities is what a political leader has to do. It was cancelled because it was shown that it would not be effective in ending the war faster.
I posted Churchill's reference to V1 launching sites.

The "parsons" who resisted Churchill adduced moral considerations. The "warriors" used the argument you employ, with which I don't really disagree. My very point is that Harris's programme underlying the Strategic Bombing csmpaign was flawed. It didn't work, so the "warriors'" argument against poison gas applies to carpet bombing too, in my view. Thus, myriads of lives were destroyed to no purpose.

What I arguing against there was a wrong application of the notion that "total" war was necessary in fighting an enemy employing that principle. That's right, but "total" war doesn't necessarily imply maximum destruction of civilian lives (as Goebbels believed), but the most effective use of the maximum available resources for the purpose of defeating the enemy. It is this principle that the Strategic Bombing campaign infringes, I have been arguing. If "totality" was the only consideration, then anyone who resisted the gas proposal could be accused of being pacifists, objectively on the side of fascism and so on, as has been the fate of some people on this thread.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 07:23 AM   #260
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Main considerations, will it help us win the war, and is it legal?
Moral considerations would only come in when it was clear that the war was won; before then they are subordinated to making sure that you will win.

I'm not sure that you posted the context; which was at the start of the expected V1 and V2 campaign. At that point Churchill did not know how bad it was going to get - IIRC some of the more alarmist predictions were that it would make London unlivable. In that context looking at all possibilities is what a political leader has to do. It was cancelled because it was shown that it would not be effective in ending the war faster.
Was the use of chemical weapons to "drench" cities legal in 1944?
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 07:32 AM   #261
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Please define "extreme accuracy".

The accuracy achieved by Bomber Command in raids on transportation targets over occupied Europe in the first half of 1944 is very different from raids into the heart of Germany. The former benefited from lack of German defences, which allowed for lower bombing altitudes to be used, as well as greater effectiveness of the various electronic navigational aids; the latter meant flying at high altitudes into the teeth of the German air defences. (And, as always, weather was a major factor—the further one flew the less likely the weather forecasts were to be correct.)

The standard measure of accuracy for bombing in Bomber Command was the percentage of bombs landing within three miles of the aiming point. (A circle with a three-mile radius has an area of 28 square miles.) The percentage varied considerably, but over the course of the war the general trend was upwards. Towards the end it was able to put as much as 90% of the bombs dropped within that three-mile radius.
90% is about 1.65 sigma, which would indicate a standard deviation of about 1.8 miles. So a bit over 68% would fall into a 10 square mile area, quite a bit less than the 28 for the whole big circle.

It's not ideal, of course, but it's at the point where yes you can start targeting industry instead of just taking it out on the civilians.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 07:33 AM   #262
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Was the use of chemical weapons to "drench" cities legal in 1944?
It was banned at the 1925 Geneva Protocol, so...
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 08:28 AM   #263
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It was banned at the 1925 Geneva Protocol
Yes.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 09:26 AM   #264
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,443
Imagine Churchill had announced Dresden would not be bombed because there was a high risk of a high number of civilian deaths. The British public would have turned against him and the Nazi leadership would have thought he had gone soft.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 09:34 AM   #265
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,629
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Are you saying that this wordsmithing is 'ass'?

"If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
- Orwell.


Or, were you referring to me? (I thought I was, at most, merely subjectively an ass).
Indeed. See Hans and Sophie Scholl, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_and_Sophie_Scholl
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 09:55 AM   #266
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Imagine Churchill had announced Dresden would not be bombed because there was a high risk of a high number of civilian deaths. The British public would have turned against him and the Nazi leadership would have thought he had gone soft.
Suppose he had merely abstained from bombing it without making any announcement.

Is your post a joke? If so, forgive me for responding as I did.

Goebbels thinks I'm a big softie!
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:10 AM   #267
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,143
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
When did that become clear? When did victory become sure? I posted Churchill's reference to V1 launching sites.

The "parsons" who resisted Churchill adduced moral considerations. The "warriors" used the argument you employ, with which I don't really disagree. My very point is that Harris's programme underlying the Strategic Bombing csmpaign was flawed. It didn't work, so the "warriors'" argument against poison gas applies to carpet bombing too, in my view. Thus, myriads of lives were destroyed to no purpose.

What I arguing against there was a wrong application of the notion that "total" war was necessary in fighting an enemy employing that principle. That's right, but "total" war doesn't necessarily imply maximum destruction of civilian lives (as Goebbels believed), but the most effective use of the maximum available resources for the purpose of defeating the enemy. It is this principle that the Strategic Bombing campaign infringes, I have been arguing. If "totality" was the only consideration, then anyone who resisted the gas proposal could be accused of being pacifists, objectively on the side of fascism and so on, as has been the fate of some people on this thread.
The trouble is that you are basing that on information which wasn't available to the Allies at the time.

At the time, the thinking was that it was working.

Upthread, someone mentioned Operation Chastise. Although the direct costs of the mission were quite possibly more for the RAF than the Germans, it did result in tying up significant resources for a long time afterwards in trying to prevent a repeat attempt.

Keeping the Russians onside and in the war was vital. Every fighter that was defending Germany from the RAF was not defending Germany from the USAAF (night fighters being less-well suited to day fighting). Every fighter that was defending Germany from the USAAF was not defending Germany from the RAF, and neither were providing air cover for German forces fighting the Russians (or later, the Western Allies). Every 88-mm flak gun in Germany was one that was also needed on the Eastern (and later, Western) Front (probably as an anti-tank gun).

The Luftwaffe was mainly destroyed trying to defend Germany from air attack.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:26 AM   #268
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The Luftwaffe was mainly destroyed trying to defend Germany from air attack.
It was destroyed responding to what the Allies were doing. If they had been doing something else the Luftwaffe would have been destroyed responding to that. Also, I read here that
The turn in the Luftwaffe's fortunes came during Big Week in which the U.S. Eighth Air Force flying from bases in Britain, and Fifteenth Air Force flying from bases in Southern Italy, carried out raids against German aviation industry throughout Europe.
That presumably wasn't carpet bombing of cities for the purpose of killing civilians.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:29 AM   #269
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,443
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Suppose he had merely abstained from bombing it without making any announcement.

Is your post a joke? If so, forgive me for responding as I did.

Goebbels thinks I'm a big softie!
I think that when the UK was still being bombed it would have been odd not to bomb Dresden.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:44 AM   #270
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Suppose he had merely abstained from bombing it without making any announcement.

Is your post a joke? If so, forgive me for responding as I did.

Goebbels thinks I'm a big softie!
Would he tell the RAF to abstain from bombing any city?

What would he say to the Cabinet or even the House of Commons when they asked about this new policy of not bombing the enemy?

He would have been an ex PM in no time at all.

I don't think any of the pseudo pacifists in this thread have any idea about the totality of WW2.
Everyone was part of the war effort.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 12th April 2016 at 10:58 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:48 AM   #271
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think that when the UK was still being bombed it would have been odd not to bomb Dresden.
Soft? Odd? These are unusual words to use to describe this. But I see you're not in fact joking. On the bombing, this gives some useful info. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb...n_World_War_II

ETA My source quotes Churchill in terms which make the soft and odd descriptions less than appropriate.
Churchill subsequently distanced himself from the bombing. On 28 March, in a memo sent by telegram to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, he wrote:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
I don't think he was worried in March 1945 that Goebbels might think him soft.

Last edited by Craig B; 12th April 2016 at 10:52 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 10:54 AM   #272
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Dup post deleted

Last edited by Craig B; 12th April 2016 at 10:58 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 11:00 AM   #273
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Would he tell the RAF to abstain from bombing any city?

What would he say to the Cabinet or even the House of Commons when they asked about this new policy of not bombing the enemy?

He would have been an ex PM in no time at all.

I don't think any of the pseudo pacifists in this thread have any idea about the totality of WW2.
Everyone was part of the war effort.
That is all nonsense. Now we're "pseudo-pacifists" What on earth are you on about? See my Churchill quote above.

Last edited by Craig B; 12th April 2016 at 11:01 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 11:35 AM   #274
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That is all nonsense. Now we're "pseudo-pacifists" What on earth are you on about? See my Churchill quote above.
Churchill if you notice was concerned with material damage not killing Germans.
Killing Germans was a good thing, the more the better and at the time quite right.

I am old enough to know plenty of people both veterans and civilians who lived and fought through WW2.
I had an uncle in the RAF, two others in the RN, a grandparent in the Army and another too old for frontline service in WW2 ( He was a WW1 vet) He manned an AA gun at Skinningrove Steel Works.
I have aunts and uncles who lived through WW2 as civilians.
I have friends from school, I know their parents, they served or lived through the war.
I know and knew other WW2 vets (My old CO, 1st Ltnt and several other officers and WOs from my Cadet days were all WW2 Vets)

Not one of them had any doubt thst the bombing of German cities was right and as many Germans as possible killed.
They were bombed by Germany and bombed them back.
They knew that everyone was on the front line. I was a Total War, a fight for national survival.
For some of them it was the second war in their lifetime against Germany.

Germany had to be smashed and finished forever. Anything available to take the war to them and destroy their capacity to fight in the shortest time had to be used. WW2 was an industrialised total war, every part of the economy of the combatant nations was dedicated to fighting the war including the whole of the population.

It makes me puke to see posters trying to apply some hand wringing modern sensibility to the desperate situation of the war against Germany Japan.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 12th April 2016 at 11:36 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 11:45 AM   #275
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Killing Germans was a good thing, the more the better and at the time quite right.
bombing of German cities was right and as many Germans as possible killed.

It makes me puke to see posters trying to apply some hand wringing modern sensibility to the desperate situation of the war against Germany Japan.
So there are some things that you find distasteful? That's nice.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 11:54 AM   #276
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Churchill if you notice was concerned with material damage not killing Germans.
Killing Germans was a good thing, the more the better and at the time quite right.

I am old enough to know plenty of people both veterans and civilians who lived and fought through WW2.
I had an uncle in the RAF, two others in the RN, a grandparent in the Army and another too old for frontline service in WW2 ( He was a WW1 vet) He manned an AA gun at Skinningrove Steel Works.
I have aunts and uncles who lived through WW2 as civilians.
I have friends from school, I know their parents, they served or lived through the war.
I know and knew other WW2 vets (My old CO, 1st Ltnt and several other officers and WOs from my Cadet days were all WW2 Vets)

Not one of them had any doubt thst the bombing of German cities was right and as many Germans as possible killed.
They were bombed by Germany and bombed them back.
They knew that everyone was on the front line. I was a Total War, a fight for national survival.
For some of them it was the second war in their lifetime against Germany.

Germany had to be smashed and finished forever. Anything available to take the war to them and destroy their capacity to fight in the shortest time had to be used. WW2 was an industrialised total war, every part of the economy of the combatant nations was dedicated to fighting the war including the whole of the population.

It makes me puke to see posters trying to apply some hand wringing modern sensibility to the desperate situation of the war against Germany Japan.
You can puke all you like. Just about everyone from the UK had just as many relatives as you in WWII. Who doesn't or didn't have friends, parents or grandparents in the war, many of whom knowing things which weren't actually true such as "bombed by Germany so they bombed Germany back". In fact it was the reverse, not that it really matters except to show the fallibility of memory perhaps.

But you seem to be conceding one argument that has been made here for another. If it is the case that total extermination was the aim, and an accepted one, then this robs the force from the arguments some posters have made that the bombing was supposed to be aimed at distinctly military targets.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 11:56 AM   #277
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Everything was a military target. You just don't get it.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 12:02 PM   #278
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,201
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Everything was a military target. You just don't get it.
That's not actually true. Even the planners made distinctions as we have seen from what they themselves said. Why did the Americans begin with precision daytime bombing? I have also read contemporary quotes from Roosevelt who objected to British area bombing. To begin with anyway. I think it is you who is making broad brush assumptions about people in WWII.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 12:03 PM   #279
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Everything was a military target. You just don't get it.
People do get it, and they have been discussing the point for many pages. You dismiss all this as hand wringing that makes you puke. Fine, if that's how you feel. Nobody can argue with that.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2016, 12:20 PM   #280
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,443
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Everything was a military target. You just don't get it.
Schools and hospitals were never military targets. But there is a case to be made for everything became acceptable collateral damage.

At least with bombing raids there was an attempt to target the bombs. The rockets were just fired in the general direction.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.