Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:31:36 -0600
From:         drummond andrew <adrummon@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Presidents who studied abroad
Comments: To: HISTORY@psuvm.bitnet

(Before commenting, I think we probably ought to change the subject line
for this topic...  I don't know how to make the machine here do what I want
so I can't also include a draft of Lenny's set of questions.)

Lenny has asked if LBJ did anything which was truly illegal.  He then went on
to ask "Is it OK to bomb civilians of countries with which you ARE at war?
Were not some Germans adjudged to be war criminals for the blitz?

"How do we reconcile the bombing of Laos, the blitz, and the bombing of
Dresden?  Who were the criminals?  WERE THERE criminals?"

Lenny, responses to your questions revolve around the question of, and perhaps
doctrine of, "military necessity".  If you check various treaties on the
subject (I'm thinking specifically of various HAGUE conventions and GENEVA
conventions from the first half of this century, to which the United States
is a signatory (thus making those treaties the law of the land)), you'll find
that almost any action is excusable in wartime provided that it is deemed
militarily necessary.

     "Necessary" also brings along the idea of "unnecessary" which is what
we're actually discussing here: "Which actions were unnecessarily taken?"
Personally, I don't think we can hold people responsible (for unnecessary
actions) if they "tried hard" to limit the unnecessary destruction caused by
their actions.  We can hold people accountable for errors of judgement, and
for the actual consequences of their actions, but not for the intent to cause
unnecessary pain and suffering.  In other words: were any of the actions
you question "spiteful"?  Did the firebombing of Dresdon serve any military
purpose or was it just the slaughter of thousands without any goal besides
killing thousands?  In bombing Laos, was the force bombing Laos pursuing any
military objectives?  (Declarations of war aside for now.)  Did the blitz aim
at the military destruction of Britain or merely at killing British subjects
and destroying their property?
      As for killing enemy civilians in wartime, the same sorts of
 considerations
apply.  In the recent Persian Gulf war-thing, for example, I recall hearing
people complain about the slaughter of poor, innocent Iraqi soldiers.  Soldiers
under arms are not innocent by any reasonable standard, even if we weren't
killing them face to face, man to man in trenches or on a battlefield.  I'm
afraid, though, that that point is a bit off track.  Consider, though, any
civilians located in areas near where large amounts of fighting took place:
the concept of "collateral" damage (death and destruction) does apply; their
deaths were not intended.  It would be criminal, however, to place military
intstallations/troops near collections of civilians, or to place numbers of
civilians near military installations because that would be unnecessarily
endagering the lives of those civilians/noncombatants.  It is not criminal,
however, to destroy facilities which provide weapons to enemies; food is
a questionable target, but obvious military supplies are legitimate targets.
(Think CONTRABAND in another of its traditional senses).
      I think I may have rambled on here a little widely, and without too
much of a focus, but there you have my thoughts on the subject, for now.

      Andrew Drummond.
      <adrummon@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU