What was the most horrible warcrime?
What was the most horrible warcrime?
Everyone knows about the Nazi camps,and those were horrible,but after reading about some of the things the Japanese did to captured Allied soldiers,I can only give my vote to the Japanese. I mean,be-heading and then eating the liver of their victims? I just amazes me how many things some Japanese(am I allowed to say Japs?)leaders managed to get away with as opposed to their German counterparts.
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
The intentional killing of surrendered prisoners of war not on the battlefield is the worst war-crime. I would say the Japanese were the worst offenders in this field, with the Germans and Russians in their respective treatment of each other's POWs following some distance behind. But even America goofed and killed off German POWs though neglect (lack of shelter, food, medicine) in temporary POW camps in Europe as the war closed and shortly afterward, of course many of these camps were run by the other Allies too particularly the French, if I remember right.
After that, the intentional killing of enemy civilians seems pretty evil, whether through strategic bombing, starvation, or other methods.
For what it is worth. The term "unconditional surrender" is akin to declaring a national "no quarter", and can be considered the largest of the WWII war crimes, as it is in violation of international law as to the "soveriegnty of a nation" and that was the primary reason , Germany fought to the death, and Japan nearly did so.
After that, the intentional killing of enemy civilians seems pretty evil, whether through strategic bombing, starvation, or other methods.
For what it is worth. The term "unconditional surrender" is akin to declaring a national "no quarter", and can be considered the largest of the WWII war crimes, as it is in violation of international law as to the "soveriegnty of a nation" and that was the primary reason , Germany fought to the death, and Japan nearly did so.
The "treatment" of Russian POW's by Germany was a war crime, as was the "treatment" of Wehrmacht personnel by the Soviets after the war. I think the Dresden bombing was definitely a war crime, but so was the bombing of Rotterdam, Coventry, etc. etc. the list just goes on and on.
These were all savage, brutal and destructive acts costing the lives of untold hundreds of thousands of innocents people who - maybe - happened to be on the wrong spot in the wrong time.
It would seem impossible to make a "war crimes top 10" or anything, but if you need one per se, I would say the Holocaust is the ultimate crime.
This, because of the way it was throroughly planned ahead, the sheer scale of organisation involved, the dehumanisation of it's victims, which in a sense dehumazed the perpetrators as well, the magnitude of it all, the perverse, evil doctrine behind it, the inconceivable horror and suffering of millions. Etc.
That's just my personal opinion, though.
- T -
These were all savage, brutal and destructive acts costing the lives of untold hundreds of thousands of innocents people who - maybe - happened to be on the wrong spot in the wrong time.
It would seem impossible to make a "war crimes top 10" or anything, but if you need one per se, I would say the Holocaust is the ultimate crime.
This, because of the way it was throroughly planned ahead, the sheer scale of organisation involved, the dehumanisation of it's victims, which in a sense dehumazed the perpetrators as well, the magnitude of it all, the perverse, evil doctrine behind it, the inconceivable horror and suffering of millions. Etc.
That's just my personal opinion, though.
- T -
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
There is a real fuzzy line here about this whole war-crime bit. Technically you could say up until recently war-crime and customs of war only dealth
soldiers and their conduct. Civilians are second class citizens compared to soldiers. So primarily my concern is with what actual soldiers did.
Crimes against humanity although performed at times by members of military forces( Holocaust, Strategic Bombing) are more in the realm of civilian justice and of which really only the highest civillains? who run nations should be held accountable. The fuzziness really sets in when you look at how the civilian governments even of Military ditatorship nations like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were run, and it also bad even in democracies when the Military is beholden to Civilian authorities. A case can be made, like it was by many Nazi military, that they were "following orders" to do otherwise in most militaries in war can result in immediate execution.
Personally I see two types of war-crimes for military people , the one that soldiers did "on their own" which they had control of , and the ones they are ordered to do. The only way I can see fair justice is to punish the ones who had option to either do or not do crimes on a small level or to punish the commanders who had authority to order large crimes committed or because of crimes that they allowed to occur without orders from their superiors.
soldiers and their conduct. Civilians are second class citizens compared to soldiers. So primarily my concern is with what actual soldiers did.
Crimes against humanity although performed at times by members of military forces( Holocaust, Strategic Bombing) are more in the realm of civilian justice and of which really only the highest civillains? who run nations should be held accountable. The fuzziness really sets in when you look at how the civilian governments even of Military ditatorship nations like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were run, and it also bad even in democracies when the Military is beholden to Civilian authorities. A case can be made, like it was by many Nazi military, that they were "following orders" to do otherwise in most militaries in war can result in immediate execution.
Personally I see two types of war-crimes for military people , the one that soldiers did "on their own" which they had control of , and the ones they are ordered to do. The only way I can see fair justice is to punish the ones who had option to either do or not do crimes on a small level or to punish the commanders who had authority to order large crimes committed or because of crimes that they allowed to occur without orders from their superiors.
Find a copy of an old book, The Knights of Bushido by Lord Russell, I inherited my fathers copy. http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheet ... shido.htmlEveryone knows about the Nazi camps,and those were horrible,but after reading about some of the things the Japanese did to captured Allied soldiers
I agree with both Chris and Tony's comments, there isnt a No 1 Crime, overall genocide must be the worst crime against humanity though. Those who conduct genocide, be they Nazi's or Pol Pot or Hutu or whoever, are attacking humanity itself.
-
Paul Stamzer
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 12 Dec 2003, 18:18
- Location: USA
I have come to the conclusion that war itself is a crime. Even those that enter with the best, most "moral" intentions, rarely end up that way.
But if I had to single something out that was totally absurdly EVIL and WICKED and without REDEMPTION, I would say it was the First World War. Not only was World War I pointless, senseless, and without any good reason for starting in the first place, it was the direct cause of Hitler's astonishing metamorphosis from artist to Fuehrer, the rise of Naziism, and the outbreak of the Second World War.
One irony I really like is that World War I started because Austria wanted to punish Serbia for the assasination of the Archduke. Now what did we just witness a few years ago? Bill Clinton punishing Serbia!
The First World War was for NOTHING. Everyone who died in that catastrophe died in vain. That has got to be the ultimate war crime....
But if I had to single something out that was totally absurdly EVIL and WICKED and without REDEMPTION, I would say it was the First World War. Not only was World War I pointless, senseless, and without any good reason for starting in the first place, it was the direct cause of Hitler's astonishing metamorphosis from artist to Fuehrer, the rise of Naziism, and the outbreak of the Second World War.
One irony I really like is that World War I started because Austria wanted to punish Serbia for the assasination of the Archduke. Now what did we just witness a few years ago? Bill Clinton punishing Serbia!
The First World War was for NOTHING. Everyone who died in that catastrophe died in vain. That has got to be the ultimate war crime....
-
SeppCaesar
- Member
- Posts: 614
- Joined: 06 Sep 2003, 05:22
- Location: Michigan, U.S.
-
Alixanther
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
- Location: Romania
The term "horrible" is wrong put, because is related to emotion-defined thoughts, not to rational ones. What's horrible to me could be "not so horrible" to you and "much more horrible" to him/her. Some may find it not horrible at all. Hiroshima atomic bombing was given a lot of excuses. How would you define the atomic bomb on Nagasaki? It was, too, on the same level of usefullness as WW1, I think. War is the biggest crime? Let's put the blame, then, on the Industrial Revolution, which gave birth to all these mechanized means of killing people... No, you can't be serious. A war crime is a crime which shouldn't have occured in times of war. This is the meaning of it.
P.S. I would see as moral a war against those who diminish the chances of survival for tomorrow generations, against those who kill us not instantly, but bit by bit, through toxins, radioactives and pollution. Don't get me wrong, but praising Holocaust as being the most intense-suffering event denotes religious selfishness and anthropo-centrism. We, the human beings, represent only a fraction of the living beings on this planet. If situation doesn't change, soon it will be totally irrelevant for the global picture.
P.S. I would see as moral a war against those who diminish the chances of survival for tomorrow generations, against those who kill us not instantly, but bit by bit, through toxins, radioactives and pollution. Don't get me wrong, but praising Holocaust as being the most intense-suffering event denotes religious selfishness and anthropo-centrism. We, the human beings, represent only a fraction of the living beings on this planet. If situation doesn't change, soon it will be totally irrelevant for the global picture.
Last edited by Alixanther on 02 Jan 2004, 06:55, edited 1 time in total.
Paul, the First World War wasn't for nothing, nor was it a war crime. The vast majority of casualties in the First World War were military casualties, as it should be. Treatment of POW's was also better on all sides.
Anyway, the FWW began as a direct result of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke at the hands of my countryman. However, it was only so because the Austrians used it as the excuse they needed to clamp down on their territories in the Balkans, to expand them at the expense of Serbia and to curb Russian influence in the region.
Germany, in turn, used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to go to war against Great Britain, its long time colonial and economic adversary. The involvement of Russia was unfortunate, in the eyes of the German leadership. But, in that involvement they saw the opportunity to destroy a future adversary while they were still in the throes of industrialization.
It all boils down to national interest. Politically, the war made perfect sense. However, since Europe hadn't been involved in a major land war since 1870, no one had seen the neccessity of doctrinal evolution to accomodate major leaps and bounds in military technology. The result was carnage, but it was battlefield carnage. In other words, it was bad, but it wasn't a war crime - and it wasn't pointless, when it comes down to it. Political events in Europe had been building up to war since the 1890's.
Regards,
VJ
Anyway, the FWW began as a direct result of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke at the hands of my countryman. However, it was only so because the Austrians used it as the excuse they needed to clamp down on their territories in the Balkans, to expand them at the expense of Serbia and to curb Russian influence in the region.
Germany, in turn, used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to go to war against Great Britain, its long time colonial and economic adversary. The involvement of Russia was unfortunate, in the eyes of the German leadership. But, in that involvement they saw the opportunity to destroy a future adversary while they were still in the throes of industrialization.
It all boils down to national interest. Politically, the war made perfect sense. However, since Europe hadn't been involved in a major land war since 1870, no one had seen the neccessity of doctrinal evolution to accomodate major leaps and bounds in military technology. The result was carnage, but it was battlefield carnage. In other words, it was bad, but it wasn't a war crime - and it wasn't pointless, when it comes down to it. Political events in Europe had been building up to war since the 1890's.
Regards,
VJ
- There are many and interconnected reasons for the outbreak of WWI. When it comes to Britain and Germany, one must not forget I think, that there was intense competion going on, both quite ready to go to war with the other, each on its own. As far as economy was concerned, Britain was being flooded by 'made in Germany' products and as Albion was being eclipsed by a younger and more vital industrialized nation in the game itself had invented, it was rather Britain that had reasons for grudge against Germany than the other way around. The hate propaganda, denoting Germans as "huns", culminating in various atrocity tales, begun well before the war broke out.Germany, in turn, used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to go to war against Great Britain, its long time colonial and economic adversary.
Technically, of course, it was a matter of Britain declaring war on Germany as it had obliged itself to such a course of action if Belgium was invaded. Since the attack on Belgium was a necessary feature of the Schlieffen-plan, the unfolding of events became predetermined once Germany felt it necessary to declare war on France.
While I agree with most of the points you made in your post, when talking about the war in the West you have made a major error.VJ wrote: Germany, in turn, used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to go to war against Great Britain, its long time colonial and economic adversary. Regards,
VJ
Germany did not seek war with Britain, it was hoped that Britain would not get involved in the war, while Germany dealt with its major threat in the west, France.
Unfortunately in the preceeding years Germany had done a very good job of making the British fearful of German expansionism. So when the Germans gave the British a perfect excuse for going to war when they invaded Belguim (who's neutrality Britain was pledged to protect) they took it.
The British army at the time while very good, was also very small when compared with other European armies, and the Germans made a major mistake in their pre-war planning by discounting it in their plans for any attack on France
My sources in no uncertain terms point out that both the British and the Germans were itching for a fight. The neo-Colonial race, the naval race and the economic struggle between the two empires was reaching its height, and the boiling point was nearing in any case. The Germans couldn't have gone to war with France without being declared war upon by Britain. The Ango-French reproachment and the formation of the Entente in the decades prior to WWI made that certain. I don't think the Germans were either surprised or very dissapointed that they were given the opportunity to battle both the French and the English at the same time. They correctly believed they had a greater industrial base and a better army.
Regards,
VJ
Regards,
VJ
-
fighting_scars
- Member
- Posts: 231
- Joined: 02 Sep 2003, 07:21
- Location: New Zealand
When it comes to warcrimes (as opposed to 'crimes against humanity' such as the Final Solution etc) the Japanese beat the German hands down. What happened at Nanking and unit 731 is proof and is just the tip.
Why did teh Japs get away with it? The Americans wanted them as a bastion against those evil Communists. You know in Japan there are monuments to the Kamakazi pilots? They also claim that Nanking is just, and I quote, "Chinese Marxist Propaganda". Yes, those bloody communists at it again :roll:.
But I feel sorry for the families of those killed by the Japanese. Sure having Goering and the like hung didn't bring their sons, daughters, brothers or sisters back; but it did give some sense of justice....if you know what I mean?
Why did teh Japs get away with it? The Americans wanted them as a bastion against those evil Communists. You know in Japan there are monuments to the Kamakazi pilots? They also claim that Nanking is just, and I quote, "Chinese Marxist Propaganda". Yes, those bloody communists at it again :roll:.
But I feel sorry for the families of those killed by the Japanese. Sure having Goering and the like hung didn't bring their sons, daughters, brothers or sisters back; but it did give some sense of justice....if you know what I mean?