Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Rotterdam. What do you think.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
On the 14th May it will be 66 years ago that the German Luftwaffe bombed the Dutch city of Rotterdam, and one could raise the question if the raid in itself was a glaring infringement of the Geneva Convention.
Although Dutch and Allied sources usually say it was, one could find just limited infringements of the Convention articles in relation to this kind of military operation.
Rotterdam was a defended city and therefore the enemy was entitled to have his airforce intervene. Also, the civil and military authorities were presented an ultimatum.
To the latter one could add that the grace period between presentation and execution of the operation was to short, which in fact it was.
Still, the Dutch had not chosen themselves to evacuate the city during the first four days of the war, although they were determined to defend the city to the bitter end.
Last but not least, the city was the one place where the Germans had not been able to break the Dutch opposition.
They were unable to push through, thus maybe a large scale tactical bombardment, probably also with devastating effect for much of the town centre, would have made more sense than the execution of an all out bombardment.
Still - in comparison to Allied raids against cities as Dresden and Hamburg in 1945 [that were plain war crimes] the raid on Rotterdam was not an all out infringement of the Geneva Convention.
The human tragedy however, had been enormous, and the final result of the raid was that 800-900 people got killed, over 80.000 people lost their homes and more than 25.000 houses and buildings had been destroyed.
Bearing in mind that the city was to be defended ( actually bitter and hard fighting was taking place) and the German Army command had presented the Dutch with an ultimatum, should the question be answered with a "no"? -
Message 2
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
...should the question be answered with a "no"?
Ìý
What was the question? -
Message 3
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
...should the question be answered with a "no"?
Ìý
What was the question?Ìý
..........and one could raise the question if the raid in itself was a glaring infringement of the Geneva Convention.......... -
Message 4
Posted by dutchess (U3969437) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Hi Dirk,
I do think that it was a infringement of the GC. Although like you say the city was as strongly defended as the Dutch could, as far as I know (I am not an expert in WW2, therefor I visit this Â鶹ԼÅÄ site to learn more) not only military objects were bombed but the bombs were without doubt thrown on civilian houses.
I cannot speak from own experience about the bombing (I'm born in 1962) but I looked on the internet and on a Dutch site it said that the ultimatum was handed to the mayor of Rotterdam in de morning of the 14th of May. Since this ultimatum wasn't signed the Mayor sent it back and later it arrived with a German signature. However before the Mayor had a chance to reply to the ultimatum, the bombs were falling at about 14.00 hrs. So far for having an ultimatum huh ?
On your comment that the Dutch didn't choose to evacuate the city in the four previous days I think that is not realistic. How were they to know in advance that the city were to be destroyed ?? Then the Dutch might have evacuated Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and all other big cities at the same time.
But all honour to the Dutch soldiers who fought in Rotterdam an uneven fight with German paratroopers.
From reading one of your other messages I understand you are Dutch, but live elsewhere now. Might I be so bold to ask if you have lived in Nederland during WW2 ? Would be interesting to learn about your experiences.
cheers. -
Message 5
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Hi Dirk,
Pity I curently don't have the time, because you've raised an issue that is starting to interest me greatly. IRRC, but I could be wrong, in 1940 the Geneva Convention didn't really have that much to say about civilian casualties - shamefully not because this was such a new problem.
On the other hand, the Netherlands were a neutral country, weren't they? And surely it is every citzen's right and obligation to defend his/her own country or city? So shouldn't the lawyers first ask what Germany was doing invading Holland in the first place?
And even if, for argument's sake, there were a valid reason for invasion, what military justification was there in destroying Rotterdam in the general scheme of things? This is a question I don't have the answer to because I currently don't have the time to find out. The devil's in the detail and I don't know what is and what isn't true about the surrender negotiations. It's just my hunch that the Nazi command were all too eager to wreak terror on a civilian population. The real issue isn't whether or not it was against contemporary laws; it's really about whether or not it should be considered a heinous crime in international law. This issue was crucial then and it's even more crucial now when our killing abilities are that much greater.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 6
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
dutchess,
Part of your post read;<<<<>>>
Yes indeed I am Dutch and yes lived in Holland during World War2.
I was 8 years old when Germany attacked Holland on May 10th, 1940 and at that time lived in a place called Meppel.
We left there in 1941 and then lived in a place called Sneek (Friesland) where on April 15th 1945 we were liberated by units of the Canadian army.
Thus I lived through the German cooupation as a child and I am honest in saying that for a child it was an excitable time which, with hindsight, I would not, repeat not, have liked to miss.
Maybe that statement comes as a surprise to you but it is the truth.
Any further questions? Feel free to ask. -
Message 7
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Hiya Jozef,
Pity you have not much time, but Jozef come back on thjis issue any time in future when you have some more time.
The bombing of Rotterdam has always been a point of debate.
The Dutch and Allies blame the Germans and the Germans blame the Dutch.
Hope you will come back .
Regards -
Message 8
Posted by dutchess (U3969437) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Hi Dirk,
Well, I have heared before that some people have found it an exciting time. The father of an old schoolfriend lived in Dordrecht and he sometimes told about how he and his friend made little pranks on German soldiers. It was their way of resistance, f.i. when a soldier asked the way, they would point him in the wrong direction.
He also didn't think that everything was terrible. For me I'm interested in to know of how the ordinary people coped with the occupation. Because besides war, there still was an 'ordinary' life to live. Unfortunately I cannot ask my grandparents anymore because they died and neither can I ask my parents any longer.
(PS you have the same age as my mother
she was also 8 when the war started)
Is there a way on this forum to send private messages ? -
Message 9
Posted by dutchess (U3969437) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
The Germans blamed the Dutch ?? That's the first time I heared that. Why did they blame the Dutch ??
-
Message 10
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
dutchess,
If you click on this link:
and go to the links on top of the page click there on Tuesday 14th May another page will open and look for Rotterdam and click on that.
You will find all the info including the messages send by the German command to the mayor and defence command of Rotterdam.
Also coming back to the orginal link all the pages dealing with war over Holland is worth reading. -
Message 11
Posted by dutchess (U3969437) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
hi Dirk,
These are some very good links (also the one to Oranjehotel).
Thanks very much ! -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 15th May 2006
A Little off topic but a good story any way. When I was a child my parents new a dutch bloke who had been called up forhis national service in thedutch army prior to the german invasion. He decked a corpral and was jailed pending a court martial. the Germans invaded and in the confusion his cell was left unlocked. He walked out and grabbed a rifle and tin hat off a rack so he didnt look out of place and was promptly ordered onto the back of a truck. he climbed up and after the truck started rolling asked the corpral where they were going. It was at this point he found out that he'd volunteered for a last man, last round defence of Rotterdam!
-
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 28th May 2006
Dirk,
my Dutch born friend that I know already that long on the boards, I learn everytime a new aspect of your life as now the excitement of a young boy in the war.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. I will reply to the Dutch Dutchess in her "Women in the resisitance..." -
Message 14
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 29th May 2006
The bombing of Rotterdam on 14 May 1940 was one of many war crimes committed in the context of the wider war crime of initiating war in Europe that was carried out by Hitler and his minions with the complicity of the High Command of the German Armed Forces. It was a terror bombing, solely designed to cow the civilian population into surrendering and had no military purpose. It was not the first time that German bombers had attacked an undefended civilian target.
This dates back to 26 April 1937 when 43 German bombers from the so-called "Condor Legion" supporting General Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War reduced the town of Guernica, 20 miles from Bilboa, to rubble. Further attacks were made on Madrid and Barcelona until the war ended in March 1939. Polish cities, most notably Warsaw beginning with the Jewish quarter on 7 September 1939, were the subject of constant aerial attack throughout the three-week campaign that resulted in Poland's surrender.
However the bombing of Rotterdam was seen as raising warfare to new levels of frightfulness and created revulsion amongst public opinion in Britain and, more particularly, in the United States. In that regard it was the equivalent (although considerably ratcheted up in intensity) of the ground bombardment of the mediaeval town of Louvain by German forces in 1914. Churchill immediately ordered the then small and under-resourced Bomber Command to begin bombing targets inside Germany. In the words of the official history of Bomber Command in WWII:
"Thus began the Bomber Command strategic air offensive against Germany."
Churchill was to use the Nazis' deployment of terror bombing to justify his own use of aerial bombardment against German cities. In a speech given in July 1941 he said:
"You [Hitler] have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw in the very few first days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre of Belgrade..."
There was consequently a common thread leading from Guernica and Warsaw and Rotterdam to Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That thread was begun by the Nazis.
The Netherlands posed no threat to Germany in 1940. They had been consistently neutral and had refused every overture from the Allies prior to 1939 to draw up a plan for common defence in the event of a German attack, preferring to rely on their own self-defence. Even the Kaiser had respected Dutch neutrality (although not that of Belgium & Luxembourg) in 1914 and the Schlieffen Plan had had to be revised so as to exclude Holland altogether from the plan of attack.
The only excuse for attacking Holland was as part of a wider strategic plan for defeating Britain and France who had declared war on Germany but whose forces had largely remained inert for 8 months whilst Poland was butchered, carved up and digested by the Fuhrer.
However Holland did not prove to be the pushover that the Wehrmacht thought it would be. In the early morning of the fifth day of operations against Holland (14 May- the day Rotterdam was bombed), Adolf Hitler issued his "Weisung" Nr. 11. Concerning the Dutch theatre of operations he says the following:
"The resistance capability of the Dutch army has proved to be stronger than expected. Political as well as military reasons demand that this resistance is broken as soon as possible. It is the task of the army to capture Fortress Holland by committing enough forces from the south, combined with an attack on the east front. In addition to that the air force must, while weakening the forces that up till now have supported the 6th Army, facilitate the rapid fall of Fortress Holland."
This was a clear indication for terror bombing to take place to intimidate Holland into surrender. Was there any reason for military operations to have taken place against Rotterdam at all? The answer must be no as the Dutch Army had largely evacuated the city which was generally undefended. In fact the reason the Germans gave for operations against the city was not the presence of Dutch forces but that of a phantom British one:
"On May 14th, the attack on Rotterdam started. The Germans used the excuse for such an attack that British troops had landed by the Maas River, thus endangering German troops based in the area. No such landing had taken place by the British."
In fact the BEF got no farther than Belgium where it was almost cut off and surrounded by German forces.
As far as the events surrounding the German bombing I can do no better than quote the account of the Dutch military historian, Lt Col Eppo H. Brongers, (for which I shall leave a link):
General Von Küchler, commander of the 18th Army, sent out the following order: "Resistance in Rotterdam must be broken with all possible means. The city must be threatened with annihilation that must be carried out if necessary." Unlike the precision bombing that was intended by General Student, the annihilation of the town was completely contrary to the rules of war. The order was of a criminal nature. In accordance with Von Küchler's order a German delegation appeared on the river bridge, equipped with white flags, under the command op Captain Hoerst, who carried an ultimatum requiring the surrender of the town. The captain pointed out that an air raid could be expected if the town didn't surrender within two hours. He also said that Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Haarlem would share the fate of Rotterdam if we didn't surrender. The letter was not signed and didn't mention name or rank of the sender. Was it a ruse of war? When this distrust became clear on the German side, a new ultimatum was presented that complied with the Dutch demands. It was signed by General Schmidt, the commander of the German 39th Army Corps and had to be replied to, before 20 past 4 in the afternoon. At half past one already, a long time before the expiration of the ultimatum, the well known and terrible bombing of Rotterdam started. Indescribable was the suffering that was inflicted on the civilian population. It was not an attack on the defensive positions along the river - they were not hit - but on the centre of town. Later on the Germans explained that they couldn't stop the bombers because the communications with the squadrons were jammed again and again. As a last resort the German Generals Student and Schmidt had tried to check the danger by firing red signal flares. But it only resulted in being noticed by a squadron coming from the south. It turned away but not before the first 3 planes had dropped their bomb load. A moment later, Göring, the commander of the German air force, would give an example of his monstrous thinking. Now that some planes had returned from Rotterdam without having dropped all their bombs, he reacted furiously. He didn't care a rap for surrender negotiation and ordered General Kesselring to repeat the bombardment. Kesselring sent the following order: "Field-Marshal orders breakthrough this very day without taking into account capitulation."
From the last sentence it is clear that the bombing of Rotterdam was a war crime carried out on Goering's personal order.
Holland was to be cruelly abused for the rest of the war. Her Jewish population was to be more or less extinguished, her male adult population used as slave labour and above all the desperate privations of the winter of 1944-5 she was forced to endure when Holland was deliberately starved of food and fuel as a punishment for the failed Allied attempt to seize the Rhine bridges in September 1944 in an effort to shorten the war. The only favourable thing that can be said about the invasion of Holland in 1940 and the valiant, if ultimately futile, resistance put up by the brave but woefully ill-equipped Dutch forces was the destruction brought about of the Luftwaffe's transport planes which probably affected operations later in the war including a possible invasion of Britain. In the words of a German staff report on the invasion, "Der Einsatz der Luftlandetruppen im Westen" (The Paratroop Operation in the West):
"The high losses in men and material, that made the action around The Hague a failure, warned the Army Command against too ambitious designs during later intended operations, like Seelöwe (the invasion of England), Malta and Gibraltar."
After 1945 the Dutch Government and its people learned the lesson that it had so signally failed to heed from its neighbours in the Low Countries after 1918 that neutrality and passivity in the face of an imminent threat afford no defence and Holland has been a valuable member of the Western Alliance ever since. If every nation, big or small, were to take that lesson on board then that dreadful afternoon of suffering and horror for the people of Rotterdam on 14 May 1940 will not have been in vain.
-
Message 15
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Monday, 29th May 2006
Allan D,
Thanks for coming into the discussion .
But have a read on this link which actually comes from the same pages as grebbeberg, difference is that this deals with Rotterdam.
Link is:
-
Message 16
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Monday, 29th May 2006
My apologies Allan D , I did give you the wrong link.
Proper link is :
And then on the left side click on Rotterdam. -
Message 17
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Monday, 29th May 2006
Allan, I am still mucking about .
Go to link but then click on 14th May right on top of page, and when that link comes up click Rotterdam.
Sorry giving you all thiese problems. -
Message 18
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 29th May 2006
Dear Dirk, with all due respect, the website you've given me fails to deal with the points I've made and which Colonel Brongers makes in his piece on the German campaign in Holland, far more eloquently and knowledgeably than I could ever hope to do despite the occasional infelicitous translation.
1) Germany had no reason to invade Holland at all in 1940. Holland had been strictly neutral and had kept out of all conflict since the defeat of Napoleon (under whom Holland had been part of Metropolitan France for a while).
2) Hitler's directive, issued on the morning of 14 May, clearly showed his impatience with the way the campaign was going and indicates that the Luftwaffe should not just be used in support of the army on the ground, as classic blitzkrieg tactics would indicate, but to bring about a decisive end to the campaign:
"...the air force must, while weakening the forces that up till now have supported the 6th Army, facilitate the rapid fall of Fortress Holland."
3) The reason the Germans gave for launching military operations against Rotterdam in the first place was totally specious:
"On May 14th, the attack on Rotterdam started. The Germans used the excuse for such an attack that British troops had landed by the Maas River, thus endangering German troops based in the area. No such landing had taken place by the British."
The Germans knew full well that the Dutch Army was in headlong retreat and was not planning a last-ditch defence in Rotterdam and any other Dutch city so they couldn't use that as an excuse. They equally knew that the reason they gave was also false as they had total control of Dutch airspace and any foreign troops entering Holland would have been clearly spotted.
4) The order Von Kuchler issued, clearly in response to Hitler's directive of the same day, showed that the Germans were never interested in the outcome of any ultimatum or any negotiation but simply wanted to make an example of Rotterdam to encourage the rest of Holland to surrender:
"Resistance in Rotterdam must be broken with all possible means. The city must be threatened with annihilation that must be carried out if necessary."
As Brongers rightly states, this was a criminal order and by itself convicts the Nazis of a war crime.
5) The negotiations over the capitulation of Rotterdam were, quite simply put, farcical, as the Germans never intended to honour any conditions they made and they advanced conditions that were quite clearly contrary to the accepted rules of warfare. As Brongers describes the negotiations:
"The captain [Hoerst] pointed out that an air raid could be expected if the town didn't surrender within two hours. He also said that Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Haarlem would share the fate of Rotterdam if we didn't surrender."
Consequently the citizens of Rotterdam were not only being held responsible for their own fate but the fate of four other Dutch cities too, a quite ludicrous demand. This shows clearly that the bombing had nothing whatsoever to do with the military situation in that particular sector but with a desire to bring about the surrender of Holland as a whole.
6) Not only had the (revised) ultimatum not expired but it had been barely delivered and the German negotiating party was on their way back when they saw the bombers overhead on their way to attack the city. This shows there was no connection between the demand to surrender the city and the bombing would have gone ahead even if the Dutch had surrendered on the spot. The Germans could not use the argument Oliver Cromwell had done in his speech to the House of Commons following the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649 that the garrisons had deliberately refused to surrender when offered terms (even he only killed the soldiers, he didn't kill the civilians).
7) The attack was not aimed against military targets but against the undefended centre of the town where the Germans knew there were a lot of wooden buildings and where civilian casualties would be at their maximum and the bombers had been deliberately loaded with incendaries to facilitate this.
8) Although, to their credit, Student and Schmidt endeavoured to signal the second wave of bombers back when they realised their mistake they were overridden by the highest authority. According to Brongers again:
"Now that some planes had returned from Rotterdam without having dropped all their bombs, he [Goering] reacted furiously. He didn't care a rap for surrender negotiation and ordered General Kesselring to repeat the bombardment."
This proves to me, at least, that the bombing of Rotterdam was without any military significance whatever and was simply designed to terrorise the Dutch people into submission.
As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned I think it's a rather pedantic argument as the Nazis never gave a fig for the Geneva Convention, certainly as regards the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. In my view, for what it's worth, the bombing of Rotterdam was a breach of the Geneva Convention as it amounts to the deliberate waging of war on civilians and had no military value as I have tried to point out above. I regard the Second World War itself as a war crime as neither Germany nor Japan had any legitimate excuse for waging aggressive war and the responsibility for everything that was entailed in that conflict whether it was the fire-bombing of Tokyo in February 1945, the bombing of Dresden in March 1945 or the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki must ultimately lie with those who initiated it. I share Churchill's view, expressed at the beginning of his war memoirs, that WWII was "The Unnecessary War".
Hitler remained a fan of indiscriminate bombing right until the end, despite the whirlwind of destruction that was unleashed on German cities by the British and American air forces, as witnessed by his V1 and V2 assaults against Britain and Antwerp which continued until March 1945 when the launch sites were finally captured and destroyed.
The bombing of Rotterdam strengthened the new British PM, Winston Churchill, both with public opinion and within his Cabinet in his "no surrender" policy and increased sympathy for the Allied cause in the US. More importantly, it encouraged the British (and later the Americans when they entered the war) to take the gloves off and commence the bombing of urban targets within Germany directly as a result of the attack on Rotterdam. As Churchill said again in his 1941 speech:
"...we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, that they have meted out to us..."
It was to be a promise that was to be effectively and, from the point of view of the German people, tragically kept. -
Message 19
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 29th May 2006
Alan, from what I know I can only agree with almost everything you say. Dirk, sorry, perhaps the most laughable comment in the link you gave us is in reference to the ultimatum the Germans gave to Rotterdam:
<quote/>To the Commander of Rotterdam
To the Mayor and aldermen and the Governmental Authorities of Rotterdam
The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price. As a token of agreement I request you to send us an authorised negotiator by return. Should within two hours after the hand-over of this ultimatum no official reply be received, I will be forced to execute the most extreme measures of destruction.
The commander of the German troops.
The fact that the Germans addressed both the military and the civil authorities was in full accordance with the Geneva Convention. It showed that Schmidt was a decent officer and gentlemen.</quote></quote>
More like it showed the Germans were following their criminal tactic of terror bombing started at Guernica and then also applied in 1939 in Poland on Warsaw, and before that, before the Schleweig Holstein opened fire on Westerplatte, (of course before war was declared because Hitler never declared wars) on the town of Wielun.
The only points were I might disagree with Alan (and Churchill
) is that it was an unnecessary war. I was, but it should have started at least a year earlier. Oh and I don't think Germany and Japans quite unjustified aggression entirely absolves the Allies for the firebombing of cities like Tokyo or Dresden.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 20
Posted by dutchess (U3969437) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Hi Alan,
Because I haven't figured out yet how to quote parts from a message, I copied this bit here :
"Holland had been strictly neutral and had kept out of all conflict since the defeat of Napoleon (under whom Holland had been part of Metropolitan France for a while)."
I don't think this is entirely true. We had another conflict, what about the 1830-1831 battles in Belgium which was fighting for their independance ? Or is that counted as a interior conflict ?
cheers -
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
No, I'm sure you're right and it was my mistake but, in my defence, I meant that the Dutch had kept out of general European conflict since the Napoleonic Wars (although I think it was the threat of outside intervention that persuaded them to grant independence Belgium in 1839 by an international treaty- "the scrap of paper- that was ironically to be the cause of British intervention in WWI) and would have kept out of WWII had Germany not invaded.
-
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Hi Dirk,
Those so called war crimes on Dresden and Hamburg were an overall part of liberating your occupied country. It's real easy sixty years later sitting at our computers bad mouthing our greatest generation. If those raids shortened the war by one day, as far as I am concerned they were worth it.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 23
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Hi Dirk,
Those so called war crimes on Dresden and Hamburg were an overall part of liberating your occupied country. It's real easy sixty years later sitting at our computers bad mouthing our greatest generation. If those raids shortened the war by one day, as far as I am concerned they were worth it.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Buckskinz,
I never mentioned anything about Dresden or Hamburg,
Never ever said that they were war crimes, neither did I ever said that they wer legitimate targets.
As as I am concerned war is a dirty racket, it is the women children and elderly people who eventually are teh victims , but as it is said so often war is war and every individual looks after himself/herself and believe me , you cannot blame them. -
Message 24
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Message 1 - posted by Dirk Marinus**, Mar 30, 2006
Still - in comparison to Allied raids against cities as Dresden and Hamburg in 1945 [that were plain war crimes] the raid on Rotterdam was not an all out infringement of the Geneva Convention. Ìý
You want to take another look? -
Message 25
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Yes Buckskinz,
I hold up my hands on that one .
That should not have been in that particular post and should have been differently worded.
I made quite a big mistake on that one.
Trouble is that I should double check before submitting post. -
Message 26
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
No biggie Dirk
clink -
Message 27
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Buckskinz,
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.