Quote:
Originally Posted by Bewolf
Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standard setting process applicable to all, or mere winners justice?
|
Yes, but 'following orders' isn't the point I'm trying to make. Harris was not the only individual responsible for the mass killing of civilians, but is the only individual on the Allied side to receive these accusations of 'War Criminal'.
I didn't say he was 'following orders', I said his actions were sanctioned and approved by the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.
If you accuse Harris, you must accuse Churchill, Eaker, Doolittle, Eisenhower, Tedder, LeMay and many others who sanctioned and approved the bombing of cities wherever it occured during the whole conflict.
But people don't. They just point the finger at Harris and shout 'Witch!' 'Heretic!' 'Burn Him!'.
He
has become the scapegoat for the entire 'Strategic Bombing Campaign' in Europe.
No-one mentions Eaker or Doolittle. No-one seems to wish to discuss LeMay's actions in Japan, a man who holds the world record for the mass killing of civilians with 'conventional weapons', as they prefer to focus their attentions on Harris or the A-Bombs. Was Trueman a 'War Criminal'?
Which brings me to Nuremburg. Of course the Trials were necessary, but I doubt that all of the outcomes were 'Just'. Some were found guilty who most probably weren't - Kesselring being the most obvious to me. Some seemed to get off lightly such as von Braun and Speer, along with SS veterans who still during interviews express both their pride in being selected and their admiration for Hitler without any detectable regret or remorse. Again, my opinion.
So yes, it was 'Standard Setting' but also in some instances 'Winners Justice', but also in some cases didn't go far enough. But then any number of miscarriages of justice can be pointed at in modern times, so in this Nuremburg was by no means unique.