Post by RichPost by MicheleThus, whether the Germans really were not present inside the abbey is
immaterial.
Thank you for sparing me the time and trouble of replying Michele.
Yes, it is highly unlikely that German troops were in the Abbey.
Yes, it is true that the Allied command became fixated on the "threat"
of the Abbey's position. Yes, the Germans attempted to make it clear
the Abbey was unoccupied. Yes, the Allies didn't believe it.
It was not a criminal act. It was a tragic and unnecessary mistake.
Like Rotterdam, it was a field day for the opposite sides'
propagandists.
My pleasure. I will now try to offer a detailed treatment of the issue.
The key tenets concerning monuments, artworks, cultural landmarks and the
like are actually just two and very simple:
- do not plunder;
- do not cause unnecessary destruction.
These are so obvious that they were part of the customary laws of war before
1907, and since 1907 they were enshrined in the Hague Convention IV 1907 -
of which Germany was a signatory, but naturally we know that Nazi Germany
violated its international commitments wholesale.
Now, as to plunder, we have seen in this thread the preposterous notion that
the Germans moved away artworks in order "to protect them" against the
destruction of war; a blatant lie, easily exposed.
Sure, the Germans sent the stuff to mines, a good place for safeguarding
them from air bombing and battlefield bombardment... and also a good place
for hiding them.
Now, were there no mines in France, Southern Italy, or Poland? Yes, there
were. Yet the Germans, at a time when their military operations suffered
from a shortage of rolling stock, loaded trainloads of artworks and sent
them to _German_ mines.
Sure, they wanted to protect the loot, like any other thief does not want
his loot to be damaged.
The Germans were thieves.
Another argument we have seen is the classic staple of moral equivalence of
Nazi apologists that "everyone did it". Sure, there were individual US
soldiers, as we have been reminded, that stole jewellery or watches or
cameras from enemy POWs or civilians. And, I'll add, probably the US armed
forces were too lax in enforcing their prohibitions against this, and to
lenient in dealing with violations.
All of this does not equate with an armed force that turns stealing into a
structural mission, hierarchically organized. Like the German armed forces
did.
To make a comparison, suppose your cousin lives in your neighborhood, works
for the same company as you, and plays in your bowling club. Suppose your
cousin is a thief. Does this make you, your family, your neighbors, your
work colleagues and your friends at the bowling club all thieves?
No, because the thieving is an individual activity by your cousin; you are
no accomplice of his; and your family, your neighborhood, your company and
your bowling club do not count thieving as part of their everyday,
structural organized activities.
On the contrary, when a full company of German soldiers emptied a museum and
loaded the artworks on a train, acting under regular, official orders from
their battalion HQ, in turn carrying out standard official policies of the
German army and of the German state - that makes all German soldiers
thieves. Just like all the mafiosi in an organized crime outfit are
criminals.
The Germans were thieves.
Now on to destruction. If the enemy is using a place for military purposes,
then that is a legitimate target, your objective being to wage war and win
it. Even bombing an enemy city, and in so doing destroying a monument, can
be a legitimate act of war if you comply with some conditions. Again, the
bottom line is that you are doing that to win the war, and thus the
destruction, however regrettable and barbaric, is not unnecessary.
That applies even to cases when you, in good faith, _believed_ that that was
what you were doing. The Germans believed that Rotterdam had not surrendered
when they bombed it; the bombing was carried out in good faith in order to
wage the war. It was a legitimate operation. The Allies believed that Monte
Cassino was occupied by enemy troops when they bombed it; the bombing was
carried out in good faith in order to wage the war. It was a legitimate
operation.
To contrast this, you have the examples of Belgrade, Warsaw, or the diocesan
archives in Poland.
Belgrade had been declared an open city and the Yugoslavians were not going
to oppose the German entry in that city. Bombing it pursued no military
objective at all; it was not done in order to wage and win the war. It was
done as a _punishment_ for the Yugoslavian population.
Warsaw had surrendered. Continuing the destruction of it served no military
purpose at all; it was not done in order to wage and win the war. It was
done out of a desire for revenge.
The Polish diocesan archives only had a historical value. Destroying them
did not help the German war. They were burned just out of spite. Probably
the Germans disliked the notion that Poland did have a long, rich history of
its own regardless of the wanderings of Teutonic Knights and Prussian
noblemen, so they tried to obliterate that.
All of these are cases of unnecessary destruction, wanton havoc, spoliation.
The Germans were vandalizing hoodlums.