Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 22809
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby David Thompson » 13 Nov 2017 20:52

Discussants interested in the IMT trial at Nuremberg -- Please post your comments to the pre-existing discussion thread at:

List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55352

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 3804
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Silesia Inferior

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby wm » 13 Nov 2017 21:42

wbell wrote:It would seem that you support the concept that the victor can commit any crime, because there's no one who would prosecute him for his actions.

Exactly - as long as other powers didn't demonstrate their displeasure.
Even more, you could only prosecute crimes committed against your people. If it was foreigners-on-foreigners and happened outside your territory it was none of your business.
It was like that then, and actually it is like that today too (see Crimea).

Still it doesn't mean the Allies committed any major crimes. All the Soviet ones mostly weren't war crimes (except against Poland and the Baltic States, and German civilians), bombings weren't too.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 24 Oct 2017 16:53
Location: Halifax

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby wbell » 14 Nov 2017 16:04

wm wrote:
wbell wrote:It would seem that you support the concept that the victor can commit any crime, because there's no one who would prosecute him for his actions.

Exactly - as long as other powers didn't demonstrate their displeasure.
Even more, you could only prosecute crimes committed against your people. If it was foreigners-on-foreigners and happened outside your territory it was none of your business.
It was like that then, and actually it is like that today too (see Crimea).


That's not entirely correct wm. There is a desire for individual States to take the responsibility of prosecution in their area of responsibility. However new developments were adopted in 1998.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was established on 17 July 1998. The International Court may now exercise jurisdiction, if the State on the territory of which the act or omission occurred (or the State of nationality of the suspect is Party to) has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor can now refer cases proprio motu (on his/her own initiative).

The ICC is not intended to take over jurisdiction exercised by national courts and is intended to exercise its jurisdiction only when the state is unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute. States continue to have the primary duty to prosecute suspected war criminals before theirs own courts.

wm wrote: Still it doesn't mean the Allies committed any major crimes. All the Soviet ones mostly weren't war crimes (except against Poland and the Baltic States, and German civilians), bombings weren't too.


Perhaps reading the Sticky on Allied war crimes might be useful to you.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 24 Oct 2017 16:53
Location: Halifax

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby wbell » 14 Nov 2017 16:20

wm wrote:
wbell wrote:It would seem that you support the concept that the victor can commit any crime, because there's no one who would prosecute him for his actions.

Exactly - as long as other powers didn't demonstrate their displeasure.
Even more, you could only prosecute crimes committed against your people. If it was foreigners-on-foreigners and happened outside your territory it was none of your business.


I best refer you to the Nuremberg trials. This was undertaken in Germany by the U.S., U.K. and the Soviets.

wm wrote: It was like that then, and actually it is like that today too (see Crimea).


It is not like that now. It's preferred that the applicable State prosecute war crimes that occurred within its jurisdiction. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was passed on 17 July 1998.

The International Criminal Court may exercise its jurisdiction, if the State on the territory of which the act or omission occurred (or the State of nationality of the accused) has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor can now refer cases proprio motu (on his/her own initiative).

The ICC is not intended to take over jurisdiction exercised by national courts and is intended to exercise its jurisdiction only when the State is unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute. States continue to have the primary duty to prosecute suspected war criminals before theirs own courts.

wm wrote: Still it doesn't mean the Allies committed any major crimes. All the Soviet ones mostly weren't war crimes (except against Poland and the Baltic States, and German civilians), bombings weren't too.


Perhaps you will find the Sticky on Allied war crimes helpful.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 3804
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Silesia Inferior

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby wm » 14 Nov 2017 22:00

wbell wrote:I best refer you to the Nuremberg trials. This was undertaken in Germany by the U.S., U.K. and the Soviets.

Countries protect their citizens during their stay abroad too. It's a little hard to prosecute foreigner criminals who harmed your citizens, but with some luck they are going to get it.


wbell wrote:It is not like that now. It's preferred that the applicable State prosecute war crimes that occurred within its jurisdiction. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was passed on 17 July 1998.

All major powers refused to sign. Without them on board the court is powerless.


wbell wrote:The International Criminal Court may exercise its jurisdiction, if the State on the territory of which the act or omission occurred (or the State of nationality of the accused) has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor can now refer cases proprio motu (on his/her own initiative).

It was like that before the WW2/WW1 too (since 1899). They called it "system of arbitration", there was the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and actually they were very proud of the system.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 24 Oct 2017 16:53
Location: Halifax

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby wbell » 15 Nov 2017 11:43

wm wrote: All major powers refused to sign. Without them on board the court is powerless.


I hardly think that with the majority of the world's countries (123) signing the agreement that the court is powerless...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 22809
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Postby David Thompson » 15 Nov 2017 18:48

This thread began before the section and the forum posted its rules. Because the call of the topic question calls for opinions, is generally unfocussed ("Alled 'crimes'"), and provides no useful framework for analysis, it's locked. I will attempt to separate out the more valuable posts by issue raised or discussed, and create some coherent threads from it.


Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Naver [Bot]