Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bombs Make No Moral Distinctions Where They Fall
To Mannheim for its annual film festival and I am gripped by Armadillo, a documentary on a Danish NATO unit in Afghanistan, real bullets whizzing past one of the bravest directors of photography in the world, real soldiers falling wounded, one with a Wilfred Owen pallour of death on his face.
But he survives. Others don't. After storming a Taliban position, the Danes find at least three Afghans, apparently still alive. There is a crack of gunfire and they are dead. "We eliminated them in the most humane way possible," one of the Danes says afterwards, right there on the soundtrack.
I am stunned. The words "war crimes" are in my mind. Then I stumble out into the cold afternoon to walk back to my hotel past the back of the 19th-century Kunstalle and there are shrapnel gashes up the red stone walls, deep wounds in the brickwork of the school next door, a slash in the basement window casing. Was this from the British fire raid of 1940, or the first attempt to raze the city on 16 April 1943, or the American raids of 1944? Well protected with underground bunkers, only 1,700 Germans were killed here, a mere 0.6 per cent of its residents. War crimes?
I find a small bookshop in a bleak, freezing street - the 1950s block architecture proves how much of this city much we destroyed - and I ask for a history of Mannheim in the Second World War. My request is received without emotion by a stooped, middle-aged man who brings me two beautifully produced volumes - "the last we have," he says - and I buy them at once: Mannheim under the Dictator and Mannheim in the Second World War, both produced with photographs and documents from state and city archives. I flip open the second book and there is a nurse bending over a carbonised corpse. Three women lie on their backs, all in coats; obviously caught in the open, perhaps during the great raid of 5-6 September 1943, in which 414 residents were killed. Two of them are elderly, one of them a much younger woman with high cheekbones and closed eyes.
Opposite is a page of death notices in the Neue Mannheimer Zeitung - like all papers in Germany, controlled by the Nazi party - printed a few days after the raid. Heinz Laubenstein was five when he was killed, his sister Ruth was 17, their father and mother, Hans and Bienchen, were 36 and 35. Katherina Witwe was 68, Berta Werle was 29. Anna Schindler was 56, her husband Anton eight years older. A victim of the 1944 bombing, a gaunt woman - her face like a skull - staring wildly, helped by a civil defence worker and a man who may be her husband clutching a ragged child, stands amid rubble. The Nazis liked to emphasise their own civilian suffering; and they gloated over their enemies. An amateur photograph shows two captured Allied fliers hiding their faces from the camera, trailed by two grinning schoolboys on bicycles; another shows a smouldering British Hereford bomber that has crashed plumb into the middle of a street across the Rhine in Ludwigshafen.
I prowl through the pages, searching for the faces of wartime Mannheim. I try to guess whether they are Nazi party members or not before reading the captions and - amazingly - I always get it right. The smug, fat, dark - yes, sinister - faces all turn out to be Nazis. The gentler, more intelligent faces are always those of old Social Democrats, of Jews and Communists. But I almost make one mistake. There is a photo of a young schoolboy in the 1920s, Gustav Adolf Scheel, again with bicycle, a pleasant but unsmiling face, harmless enough,dressed in a double-breasted jacket. Then I flip the page, add 20 years, and sitting in front of me is a mean-faced bully of a man in uniform, eagle and death's head on his cap, high leather boots. Pleasant young Gustav has turned into an SS officer in the Alpenland.
Hour after hour I read these books, and this has a strange effect. There is Hitler arriving at the small Mannheim airport that I passed in the tram yesterday. There is Goebbels in the opera house near the water tower where I have coffee every morning. There is the very same tower draped with a mighty Swastika. And there is a photograph of a dignified Jewish businessman confronting a bespectacled Nazi officer, whole family pictures of doomed Jews, sitting round a table, many of the pictures horribly torn and crushed. The Mannheim history books duck nothing. There is a whole chapter on the Holocaust.
There was even a baby resistance in Mannheim. A Gestapo photograph shows the tiled wall of a public lavatory on which someone has scribbled in a plaster join the words: "Hitler Shuft" - "Hitler is a gangster." And there is one, most moving letter from a Mannheim communist, whose childish roneo-published anti-Nazi tracts earned him a death sentence. Thirty-six year old Jakob Faulhaber was allowed a last letter, hitherto untranslated into English, to his wife Emma at their home at No 34 Hubenstrasse. "My loved ones," he writes on 14 September 1942, "now the decision has been taken, and everything we tried to do has failed. Our appeal has been denied and all our hope is at an end. When I think back on my life, it was a little too short - but it was worth it to have lived such a life. You all know that I always lived for my ideals and I'm a strong enough person to die for them ... Last greetings to all who were close to me in my life. What is it to live?" Jakob Faulhaber was hanged next day in Stuttgart.
Were some of the other Mannheimers "just like us", decent men and women who risked life for freedom, who responded to daily bombing in a way remarkably similar to that of Londoners in the 1940-41 Blitz, who wrote "Business as usual" on their shops? There is a snapshot of massive ruins in Mannheim and a hoarding which says: "...and despite all! Mannheim is a still a living city." But it was put there by the Nazis. The people, the Volk - and you can see them walking to work between smashed tenements - did not erect posters; they wrote their names and addresses on their ruined homes so that when their husbands and brothers and lovers came back from the front - if they did come back - they could find their families. Some of these men were war criminals in a most deliberate way, decimating entire peoples. But they also killed wounded soldiers, just as we did in Normandy. And in Afghanistan. And we knew, of course, when we bombed Mannheim, that we would kill a Heinz, a Ruth, a Berta and an Anna amid the destruction of the city's factories.
War crimes? Of course, we can all make moral assessments. Eliminated in the most humane way... The Taliban are not as bad as the Nazis. But they are much worse than the Danes. Isn't that right? What is this life?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


29 Comments so far
Show AllAm reading the Great War for Civilization right now. A massive book, and I strongly recommend reading it for yourself. It's a book that I'll be reading for a while, not because I'm a slow reader, but because the contents are maddening. Have got to the midpoint in the chapter about the Armenian Genocide, the story of the Iran-Iraq war was an eye opener for sure.
[War crimes? Of course, we can all make moral assessments. Eliminated in the most humane way... The Taliban are not as bad as the Nazis. But they are much worse than the Danes. Isn't that right? What is this life?]
The article and this quote are well worth reading again.
Colonial/Imperial wars are fought without any scruples about moral distinctions, "laws of war", etc. Just to name 2 figures, John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville—towering figures of humane liberalism—advocated the most Draconian punishment and suspension of legal niceties when it came to dealing with the "barbaric races":
Richard Seymour's 'Liberal Defense of Murder' is a good source on the "secret" history of the phenomenon and it's enduring popularity among people who pride themselves on their scorn of the Bushes and Cheneys of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUWhfuMAWvg
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Defence-Murder-Richard-Seymour/dp/1844672409
I surf; don't we all? 'Restrepo' on the Nat Geo channel stops me.
Sebastian Junger of 'Perfect Storm' fame, made the documentary; days in the life of one platoon in Afghanistan.
It records danger, coping, destruction, and death. It is horribly riveting. It brought this war into my TV room like the weekly pictures of dead soldiers on 'The News Hour' have done for all these years.
When a bullet takes out their respected mate Restrepo, the platoon has a score to settle. They set-up an FOB above an insurgent camp. From their vantage point, they can take dead-aim through the rifle's powerful scope and pick-off someone, anyone. When one shot wounds and another kills someone below in the insurgent camp, a horrible deed is done; a score partly settled. A watching soldier with binocs says (paraphrase) 'did you see the body parts fly? You really nailed it!'
One down and only an untold number left to take-out.
The platoon waits out its final days in the field. Finally the day comes when they can leave for some R&R, as we called it during the Vietnam War.
There are no heros in war. That's a myth created by the military. There are only men and women trying to stay alive mentally and physically any way they can. Some don't make it either way. In Grand Ledge MI, a family recently had a community memorial service for their young son who died after a short time in Afghanistan. In another nearby community, a veteran recently returned from the war went bonkers, waving a rifle threatening to kill anyone. Fortunately, he was stopped before he could; but faces criminal charges. Two cases repeated over and over and over again all over the USA!
This so-called war on terror, like all such failures, will haunt and haunt us for decades to come. The state of insanity the last administration launched knowingly after 9/11 is continued by the present one; it will go on and on.
How do we stop it? Too many good men and women on both sides have been killed, maimed, or mentally impaired. For what?
It is always thus when humans fail at the most fundamental level and become savages again; unable to understand, persuaded by the twisted egos of their national leaders that they have something at stake, unable to forget, unable to forgive, we the people pay the big price.
During the Vietnam War, the lies were revealed by 'The Pentagon Papers'. The nightly network news ran newsreels of the napalm attacks, destroyed rice fields and villages, and dead bodies. The mainstream news magazines carried correspondent's stories about the failed strategy and pictures of destruction and death. At long last in 1975, after 20+ years of US involvement in Vietnam, the helicopter lifted-off the embassy roof.
The powerful military elites learned important lessons from that war. There will be no such information made easily available to the people, who may decide after seeing it that the war must end and another way to conduct this nation in the affairs of the world must be tried.
Watch 'Restrepo'. See the absurdity of this war up-close and personal. I did and I say this war must be ended; or, we will read on some future day a book titled 'The World at War Against Terror'. It will be terribly, terribly sad just like the one about Mannheim.
Robert, you make your point very powerfully.
Thank you.
http://warisacrime.org/
Great piece from one of the best -- if not *the* best -- English-speaking journalists in the world.
If you don't read the article, why are you bothering to comment at all?
Don't feed a troll. He doesn't belong here.
As trolls go, spam spam wasn't that bad. you'll notice his post is gone, I'm actually kind of sad about that. I'm open to having my beliefs challenged, and open to mocking people who say foolish things. In turn you're quite welcome to say whatever you like to me, especially when I say something that's foolish.
jonabark
I found Jacob Faulhaber's story particularly compelling . I Had to look up roneo, which I had only ever heard called a mimeograph machine and yes I remember them. We assume freedom of speech is our right until it is gone. But how many will speak when speech may well cost one's life.
The "leaders" he denounced with his roneo were weaklings who could not handle truth, and found all their strength in a mythic Identity, well equipped with hired bullies and an impressively engineered industrial death machine.
As The Pentagon Papers and now wikileaks reveals, nothing that will not bear the light of truth deserves loyalty. As Howard Zinn said, "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
THIS IS THE YEAR. War is over if you want it.
With due respect for Mr Zinn, who are the innocent people? In a small city in northern lower Michigan, people work for a company that has a defense contract. They sew padding into Kevlar vests. In St Paul MN, employees at Lockheed-Martin make parts for drone aircraft.
When a nation goes on a rampage, declaring total war on everyone anywhere in the world that they don't like, it is hard to distinguish the "innocent people" from the "enemy combatants".
Many citizens of the USA still haven't been told and possibly wouldn't understand the reason why the World Trade Center was a prime target.
When a declaration of war passed by the citizen's elected representatives is no longer required to prosecute total war and citizens follow along like sheep, are they innocent?
If citizens are lied to by their government, are they responsible for the actions it takes in their name?
It is a complex world. There aren't any simple answers. Or are there?
War is simply wrong. It is a consequence of failure. There are no victors. There is no end to it. Unless the people finally understand that they have the power to say 'War is Over'.
I fully understand your point. However, in answer to your question, the innocent people tend to be children like Heinz Laubenstein, who was five when his life was ended by an Allied air raid in Mannheim. I fear that in modern warfare, the Heinz Laubensteins increasingly outnumber even the little Eichmanns making parts for drones, for whom the question of guilt or innocence is indeed complex.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell
jonabark, If there is a better description of the leadership of the USA for the past few generations than...'weaklings who could not handle the truth, and found all of their strength in a mythic identity, well equipped with hired bullies and an impressively engineered industrial death machine..' I haven't seen it.
"But they also killed wounded soldiers, just as we did in Normandy. And in Afghanistan. And we knew, of course, when we bombed Mannheim, that we would kill a Heinz, a Ruth, a Berta and an Anna amid the destruction of the city's factories.
War crimes? Of course, we can all make moral assessments."
But the international law, Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Principles etc, is much strengthened since WWII on what war crime is. What is illegal now in Afghanstan was not in WWII.
While Fisk's comparison is compassionate, it is not correct in relation to legality. Morally Fisk's kind of right (though should we blame WWII soldiers for killings that weren't illegal then?). But judicially he's - for once - wrong.
In his irony, Fisk's point is a little unclear ("The Taliban are ... much worse than the Danes. Isn't that right?"). But bringing in the metaphysical aspect of "What is war crimes?" only muddles the Danish soldiers' responsibilities for their war crime of killing wounded soldiers.
The proper punctuation for Fisk's topic "war crimes" is not a question mark but an exclamation mark (!)
In a semantics kind of way, you are right. War is wasteful, inefficient, polluting, family destroying, PTSD producing and sometimes bankrupts an empire BUT, since a CRIME is technically something that only happens when someone breaks a LAW, then whether something is a war crime or not or even if war itself is a crime against humanity, is open to endless hair splitting.
It can be argued that humans have natural laws about killing humans which, of course, enters into the area of morals.
It's wrong to kill anyone unless it is in self defense. Is that a law? No, because right and wrong are moral concepts.
It's a crime to kill anyone unless it is in self defense. Is that a law? It is for most of us unless we work for the CIA or the military (in the USA, that is).
There is a fellow who just wrote a book stating that war itself is a crime. The corollary is that those who participated are war criminals. 'War Crime' is, according to him, a redundancy. I agree.
His web site is http://warisacrime.org/
What? You don't know what you're talking about do you?
Killing civilians and non-combatants has been a 'crime of war' for centuries. Albeit one that is so rarely prosecuted that it's not a real crime at all. Every nation damns those who kill the civilians of their side in a war. From Shakespeare's Henry V
Act 4, Scene 7
Enter FLUELLEN and GOWER
FLUELLEN
Kill the boys and the luggage! 'Tis expressly against the law of arms. 'Tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be offert, in your conscience now, is it not?
GOWER
'Tis certain there’s not a boy left alive, and the cowardly rascals that ran from the battle ha' done this slaughter. Besides, they have burned and carried away all that was in the king’s tent, wherefore the king, most worthily, hath caused every soldier to cut his prisoner’s throat. Oh, ’tis a gallant king!
End quote.
As for killing the wounded, well, Canada just convicted an officer in the Canadian Forces for doing exactly what the Danish Soldiers did. But it's not a common thing to see at all. 'Mercy' killing has long been considered to be murder, unless ordered by the winning King...
That which is illegal in Afghanistan was indeed illegal during WWII. Heck, did you know that Turkey actually put 3 of those responsible for the Armenian massacre during the WWI on trial, and even convicted them. But they smartened up after that and have since denied that any such genocide happened at all. They're so good at denial that even Shimon Peres (one of Israel's former leaders) agreed that the Armenian genocide wasn't one and shouldn't be talked about at a conference that discussed genocides in Israel a few years ago...
The thing that Fisk is highlighting is that we humans have a very bad habit of being selective in what we consider to be a crime of war. To highlight another example, the USA and it's puppet government in Iraq recently hanged Saddam Hussein for the heinous crime of gassing his own countrymen. But did they mention the fact that Saddam gassed a thousand times more Iranians using those chemicals? Did the US Government admit guilt or express remorse that they were responsible for supplying those chemicals to Saddam's regime?
us and them......."ask not for whom the bell tolls,...it tolls for thee"
> ...even Shimon Peres (one of Israel's former leaders) agreed that the Armenian genocide wasn't one and shouldn't be talked about at a conference that discussed genocides in Israel a few years ago.
---
When it suits and when it doesn't
One of the key reasons the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide, as reported by Mark Mazower (LRB, 8 April), was that it was vigorously championed by Jewish members of Congress. In the past, they might have had reservations about offending Turkey, Israel's closest ally in the region. For years, the Israel lobby has argued vehemently against recognition, and prominent members of the lobby, such as Eli Wiesel, have done their best to minimize discussion of the Armenian question. In 1982, for example, Wiesel stepped down as chair of a conference on genocide in Jerusalem under pressure from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which was anxious that the presence of Armenian panellists would damage Israeli-Turkish relations; he then implored Yehuda Bauer, a leading Holocaust historian, to boycott the event. American-Jewish politicians have tended to be more responsive than the lobby to Armenian concerns—particularly those in states with large Armenian populations, like California.
Still, there have always been hesitations. The last time a resolution was passed, in 2007, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the late Tom Lantos, declined to sponsor the bill, though he ended up voting for it, and a number of the other Jews who voted for it did so 'with a heavy heart', in the words of Eliot Engel. Lantos's successor as chairman, Howard Berman, is no less staunch a Zionist, but he hasn't agonized at all about the current resolution, which he co-sponsored. The reason is simple: Turkish-Israeli relations have dramatically deteriorated since the Gaza war. Recep Tayyip Erdogan's denunciation of Israel's war crimes at Davos in the presence of Shimon Peres raised accusations of demagoguery, but he was very much reflecting the sentiments of the people who elected him. More recently he has also dared to make noises about Israel's (undeclared) nuclear monopoly in the region, leading Netanyahu to pull out of the nuclear security summit in Washington. Once an embarrassment for Israel, the Armenian genocide is now a useful way to prod the authorities in Ankara, and not a single major Jewish group in Washington has lobbied against recognition.
David Weiss
New York
---
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/letters#letter1
"Bombs Make No Moral Distinctions Where They Fall"
what?
not even smart bombs?
The author mentioned Wilfrid Owen, and that made me think - where are today's shell-shocked poets and tortured wordsmiths to shame us into action?
Where are the songsters and the dreamers and the long-haired champions to paint our sorry tale?
We obsess with celebrity gossip and starlet crotch-shots.
I think to be a great poet you have to bleed inside, and that's why there are no new great poets - we are numbed by mass media. Dead in our soul. Blind to life. Always believing the old men's lie - dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.
The people who drop the bombs do pick their targets however, and it was America which chose civilian targets when they dropped the bombs that killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in 1945. War crime is a matter of government policy - especially since the very act of going to war is a crime. Make that decision (as the US, Israel and probably the UK intend with regard to Iran) and you commit the crime that makes possible all the other crimes.
The Germans KNEW the invasion would come at Calais because no one would kill so many civilians by bombing as we did just for a diversion.
See, it was a successful diversion.
What is this life? What is that death? Who refrains from weeping?
Not to belittle the article at all, but
"Bombs Make No Moral Distinctions Where They Fall"
Sure they do. The organizers - the ones with real power - nearly never have to live where the bombs fall, they can buy other places to live.