Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Modern warfare is the annihilation of an entire group of people both combatants and civilians by every means available. It is the absolute breakdown of civilized behavior and breaks every concept of morality and religion. Thus the idea of war crimes trials for the victor is an absolute paradox and nothing more than a primal instinct for revenge.
I could not disagree more.
International treaties have attempted to regulate the most barbaric aspects of war for a hundred years or more. Nerve gas was not used in World War II because a treaty after World War I forbade it. Allied prisoners of war were--on the whole--treated humanely by the Germans because of the Hague Convention which specified minimal standards that the countries who held them prisoner had to treat them. The same was true for German prisoners of war held by the allies. The fact that Japan did not sign such a treaty and treated Allied prisoners in a horrific manner is testimony to what the absence of such treaties mean. The same could be said for German treatment of Russian prisoners (Russia did not sign the Hague Convention).
There is (or at least should be) honor even in war. Troops should understand you don't shoot prisoners of war or unarmed civilians. There are limits you don't go beyond.
The Nuremberg Trials were imperfect for sure, but they did address things that had to be addressed. Countries cannot be allowed to set up concentration camps and massacre entire races of people. Waging aggressive warfare is a complex idea because the country accused of doing it will always point to the actions of another nation. However, there are bright lines. It was Japan that attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor without warning. Poland did not provoke Nazi Germany into waging war against it. The Germans made the decision to launch a blitzkrieg on Poland even though this country posed no threat to it. An international court can try to sort through these kinds of messes.
Most importantly, some mechanism needs to exist to hold the individuals who are responsible for the above acts accountable. This is the only hope of preventing such things in the future.
We now have a truly international court in the Hague that sorts through these things. Its better and less subject to the claims of "revenge" or "victor's justice" that the Nuremberg Tribunal was subject too.
Acts like bombing cities need to be more closely regulated and all sides need to be held accountable. The fact that allied powers did this during World War II is a cause to consider hypocrisy. It is not a cause to tolerate genocide, the deliberate murder of civilians, murder of POWs, or the use of nerve gas.
Modern warfare is the annihilation of an entire group of people both combatants and civilians by every means available. It is the absolute breakdown of civilized behavior and breaks every concept of morality and religion. Thus the idea of war crimes trials for the victor is an absolute paradox and nothing more than a primal instinct for revenge.
No, i strongly disagree. There is a defining difference. In total war all the resources of a country are considered to be dedicated to the war and thus are subject to destruction. This includes civilians. That was the brutal reality of WW2. As brutal as it was, strategic warfare during WW2, i.e. - the bombing of civilians population centers, was never considered a war crime under any article of war (Hague, Geneva, etc.) because it was considered to be part of a legitimate military objective - destroy the enemies industry and demoralize the enemy.
And the big difference with Nazi Germany (Holocaust), Japan (Rape of Nanking and other various acts of brutality), and the instance that was mentioned with the OP? Murder to surrendered soldiers, massacres to surrender civilians, rape and pillage in occupied territories where the population has layed down arms - those are war crimes. These aren't acts of war with military objectives, but act of peace for purposes of vengeance, ethnic cleansing, or for the pure pleasure of violence.
Understood, the allies (particularly Soviet forces in Berlin) are guilty in some cases as well, and justice may have never been served when committed by the victor. It doesn't mean we should dismiss these crimes. In this case those guilty had there fair day in court and the sentence appears justified.
There’s a quote attributed to General Curtis Lemay who commanded the forces that fire and atom bombed Japan that if the enemy won and he fell into their hands he would be tried as a war criminal. Victors justice.
Understood, the allies (particularly Soviet forces in Berlin) are guilty in some cases as well,
With over 27m Soviets dead, and rising as they do some more counting, what the Red Army did in Berlin is not worth talking about. At any time the Germans could have surrendered. No one made them continue fighting when they knew they could not win.
With over 27m Soviets dead, and rising as they do some more counting, what the Red Army did in Berlin is not worth talking about. At any time the Germans could have surrendered. No one made them continue fighting when they knew they could not win.
Again, we are talking about when Germany surrendered, not the actual battle. The Red Army exacted it's vengeance against the population of Berlin. Very well documented in Anthony Beever's "Fall of Berlin".
But agree, the Russian front in WW2 was a dirty war, massacres were committed on both sides that pale in comparison with what happened in Berlin.
There’s a quote attributed to General Curtis Lemay who commanded the forces that fire and atom bombed Japan that if the enemy won and he fell into their hands he would be tried as a war criminal. Victors justice.
Once again - no.
Lemay would not have been tried, he would most likely simply been summarily executed as Japan did with many captured airmen. There were no trials in Japan, that's not the way they worked.
Regardless, once again - victors justice does not apply in this case - there was no international law at the time in regards to strategic bombing, and we did not try any of the Axis powers for bombing population centers (the blitz, V2, or any other axis bombing campaigns). Those were not within the scope of of any war crimes hearings.
Regardless, once again - victors justice does not apply in this case - there was no international law at the time in regards to strategic bombing, and we did not try any of the Axis powers for bombing population centers (the blitz, V2, or any other axis bombing campaigns). Those were not within the scope of of any war crimes hearings.
While you are correct that neither the Hague Conference of 1899 & 1907 nor the supplemental Geneva Conventions of 1928-29 contained specific prohibitions with respect to aerial warfare/bombing, there were Articles within which could be used as a possible basis for bringing war crimes charges against a belligerent nation. To start, Section II, Chapter I, Article 22, of the Hague states “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited”. Article 23 lists activities which are “especially forbidden”. Two of those are “to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering” and “to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”. Lastly, Article 27 says “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes”.
With those in mind, I think it fair to say one could legitimately make the case that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians does cross the line with respect to the means a belligerent can adopt to “injure the enemy”. Dropping incendiary bombs on cities to burn people alive or drive them out of their homes seems to qualify as using “material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”. When the British bombed Lubeck, a city which Air Marshal Harris himself said “was not a vital target”, then obviously its destruction was not “imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”. Finally, by bombing in the manner they did, the British made no attempt to “spare” any type of buildings at all. In fact, the aim point for British bombers was always the center of a city and the tallest structure located there, which was usually a church. So, even though no war crimes charges were ever brought against individuals on the Allied side over the so-called “strategic bombing campaign” and it is unclear how successfully such a case could have been prosecuted under the existing law, it does not mean there were no grounds in existence for doing so or that no war crimes were actually committed.
As far as Nuremberg goes, again, you are right that the defendants were not prosecuted specifically for any aerial bombings that targeted civilians and so on. But, the charges brought against them were purposely made very broad in scope and nature. Contained within the “War Crimes” category one such crime listed was the “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity”. With respect to “Crimes Against Peace” you had “waging a war of aggression”. Thus, either one of the categories more than adequately covered such things as the Blitz, bombing of Rotterdam, etc., whether they were actually mentioned in the indictments or at trial.
Once again - no.
Lemay would not have been tried, he would most likely simply been summarily executed as Japan did with many captured airmen. There were no trials in Japan, that's not the way they worked.
Regardless, once again - victors justice does not apply in this case - there was no international law at the time in regards to strategic bombing, and we did not try any of the Axis powers for bombing population centers (the blitz, V2, or any other axis bombing campaigns). Those were not within the scope of of any war crimes hearings.
The allies killed their share of civilians. Here is France alone...…….many did not need to be killed...….
Yet Vietnam veterans are painted as baby killers...….
The defining context and difference, in regards to the OPs thread, was detailed in post #12. Obviously the allies purpose and objective was not to kill it's own allies civilians.
Casualties from friendly fire is an entirely different discussion.
Although I remember a scene from the movie Catch-22, an otherwise extremely liberal and anti-war movie based on Joseph Heller's book. In it there was an Italian civilian that was having a discussion with a US airman. This Italian civilian (perhaps a prostitute) was maimed not from German action, but from allied bombardment. The airman looked on in shame, but the prostitute explained that it made her hate the nazis and fascists even more. The motivation was obvious - the necessity for bombardment on her and her own people was caused by one party and one party alone - that's the nation(s) that caused this terrible war.
The defining context and difference, in regards to the OPs thread, was detailed in post #12. Obviously the allies purpose and objective was not to kill it's own allies civilians.
Casualties from friendly fire is an entirely different discussion.
Although I remember a scene from the movie Catch-22, an otherwise extremely liberal and anti-war movie based on Joseph Heller's book. In it there was an Italian civilian that was having a discussion with a US airman. This Italian civilian (perhaps a prostitute) was maimed not from German action, but from allied bombardment. The airman looked on in shame, but the prostitute explained that it made her hate the nazis and fascists even more. The motivation was obvious - the necessity for bombardment on her and her own people was caused by one party and one party alone - that's the nation(s) that caused this terrible war.
interesting take on it. I had not thought of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
