War crimes.

[Heaven Hieghts]

So I am currently reading 'War crimes and the American Conscience' and it has brought up an interesting subject. That the Axis was brought to 'justice' at the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials and was prosecuted by the Allies, when all along they were acting along the same lines that the Axis were though were not accused of it.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in social studies and he said "The winners take the spoils" but I somehow believe that it has to be something a little bit more than that. Perhaps it was because we were trying to stop a sociopathic dictator from taking over the world and we had to fight dirty in order to do so. Perhaps this is just a case of the end justifies the means, but whatever the case I believe we should have owned up to our own foul play.

Thoughts?

[The Norse Hordes]

What? The Axis and Allies acted exactly the same?

What?

Military tactics were the same on both sides, but one side committed forced marches, torture, and the motherfucking holocaust.

[Barringtonia]

What? The Axis and Allies acted exactly the same?

What?

Military tactics were the same on both sides, but one side committed forced marches, torture, and the motherfucking holocaust.

Yeah, but aside from committed forced marches, torture, and the motherfucking holocaust, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[Heaven Hieghts]

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

[Barringtonia]

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

I think that for most wars one could certainly say that the victor is, well, the victor - it was a great 'victory' and thus the enemy should make reparations for essentially being losers - and though one might argue that trials should have been held over the use of napalm in Vietnam, for example, the Nazi Party was quite a different beast altogether.

Were they on trial for going to war? I don't think so, I think Nuremberg specifically concerned the Holocaust.

EDIT: Or not apparently, it was a War Crimes trial in general.

Still..

[The Norse Hordes]

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

Whose not owning up to whose conduct? Its well known and documented that carpet bombing, fire bombing, the atom bombs, etc happened. No one denies that.


You realize the Axis war criminals were not convicted on anything involving military tactics, correct?

[Heaven Hieghts]

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

I think that for most wars one could certainly say that the victor is, well, the victor - it was a great 'victory' and thus the enemy should make reparations for essentially being losers - and though one might argue that trials should have been held over the use of napalm in Vietnam, for example, the Nazi Party was quite a different beast altogether.

Were they on trial for going to war? I don't think so, I think Nuremberg specifically concerned the Holocaust.

I believe your missing the point here. The point is we did not own up to what we did, and in spite of Nuremburg being concerned about the Holocaust, we should have pointed out our misconduct as well as the misconduct of others.

[Brewdomia]

Ever heard of victor's justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor%27s_justice

[Darkle]

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

I think that for most wars one could certainly say that the victor is, well, the victor - it was a great 'victory' and thus the enemy should make reparations for essentially being losers - and though one might argue that trials should have been held over the use of napalm in Vietnam, for example, the Nazi Party was quite a different beast altogether.

Were they on trial for going to war? I don't think so, I think Nuremberg specifically concerned the Holocaust.

I believe your missing the point here. The point is we did not own up to what we did, and in spite of Nuremburg being concerned about the Holocaust, we should have pointed out our misconduct as well as the misconduct of others.

That would have pretty effectively undermined our authority to put the Axis on trial.

[Brajh]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

[The Norse Hordes]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

In vietnam, the losing side didnt take any responsibility either.

[Barringtonia]

I believe your missing the point here. The point is we did not own up to what we did, and in spite of Nuremburg being concerned about the Holocaust, we should have pointed out our misconduct as well as the misconduct of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

There's no way a victor can politically turn on their own soldiers and think about prosecuting them, Churchill even put a stop to the mass prosecution of German soldiers, saying something along the lines of 'I will not prosecute soldiers fighting for their country'.

[Brajh]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

In vietnam, the losing side didnt take any responsibility either.

The US wasn't held accountable by Vietnam. But weren't the participants in some highly popularized massacres tried or whatnot?

[Rolling squid]

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

That's not a war crime, those are legitimate acts of war. The only real war crimes are the mistreatment of prisoners and conquered lands, as well as using protected symbols without permission. Everything else I consider fair game.

[The Norse Hordes]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

In vietnam, the losing side didnt take any responsibility either.

The US wasn't held accountable by Vietnam. But weren't the participants in some highly popularized massacres tried or whatnot?

After the mai lai massacre, in an effort to save face after the coverup failed miserably, the military tried to punish four low level officers who were already dead.

Several people where however punished for the attempted cover up.

[Brajh]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

In vietnam, the losing side didnt take any responsibility either.

The US wasn't held accountable by Vietnam. But weren't the participants in some highly popularized massacres tried or whatnot?

After the mai lai massacre, in an effort to save face after the coverup failed miserably, the military tried to punish four low level officers who were already dead.

Several people where however punished for the attempted cover up.

Alright. I wasn't sure what happened there.

And if I'm not mistaken, the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib shit were all prosecuted, too.

[The Norse Hordes]

The winning side will never take responsibility for their war crimes, ever. I don't see Vietnam putting their officers on trial for torturing US prisoners. It will never happen.

In vietnam, the losing side didnt take any responsibility either.

The US wasn't held accountable by Vietnam. But weren't the participants in some highly popularized massacres tried or whatnot?

After the mai lai massacre, in an effort to save face after the coverup failed miserably, the military tried to punish four low level officers who were already dead.

Several people where however punished for the attempted cover up.

Alright. I wasn't sure what happened there.

And if I'm not mistaken, the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib shit were all prosecuted, too.

Scapegoated is a better term. Considering it was ordered by the higher ups (Rummy, et all), but none of them saw the inside of a court room, I dont think that counts.

[Brogavia]

The idea of war crimes is idiotic. You are trying to apply the rules of civilization to an event that defies law. Its like saying its ok to kill a man in cold blood with a knife but not a gun.

[The Grand World Order]

Losing a war is a war crime.

[Daistallia 2104]

So I am currently reading 'War crimes and the American Conscience' and it has brought up an interesting subject.

Haven't read the book. Sounds like a good read.

That the Axis was brought to 'justice' at the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials and was prosecuted by the Allies, when all along they were acting along the same lines that the Axis were though were not accused of it.

Yes, there were allied war crimes - unrestricted submarine warfare, a small number POW and civilian murders, some rapes, and bombings of civilians.

Certainly nowhere near "along the same lines". Scattered small scale murders of POWs is not "along the same lines" as systematic genocide, widescale abuse and murder of POWs and civilians, cannibalising POWs, germ warfare, waging aggressive wars, etc.

And note that not only were allied soldiers accused, there were prosecutions - three cases of US soldiers, two related to the Biscari massacre and one to the Salina massacre.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in social studies and he said "The winners take the spoils" but I somehow believe that it has to be something a little bit more than that. Perhaps it was because we were trying to stop a sociopathic dictator from taking over the world and we had to fight dirty in order to do so. Perhaps this is just a case of the end justifies the means, but whatever the case I believe we should have owned up to our own foul play.

Thoughts?

The US has "owned up to" it's war crimes more than Japan has.

Did I say exactly the same? No, I did not.

Those are all things to consider but we also acted along those same lines, such as say, bombing civilian territory, at night by the US and during the day by the English if my sources are correct. The fact being that we were not owning up to our misconduct not a game of 'whose war crime is worse.'

"Along the same lines" does imply a high degree of equivilancy.

Were they on trial for going to war? I don't think so, I think Nuremberg specifically concerned the Holocaust.

EDIT: Or not apparently, it was a War Crimes trial in general.

Still..

Waging aggrssive wars was certainly a charge brought in Tokyo by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

The US wasn't held accountable by Vietnam. But weren't the participants in some highly popularized massacres tried or whatnot?

Popularized? Was My Lai really popular?

That's not a war crime, those are legitimate acts of war. The only real war crimes are the mistreatment of prisoners and conquered lands, as well as using protected symbols without permission. Everything else I consider fair game.

Fortunately, international law does not agree with you, and classifies war crimes much more broadly.

[The Norse Hordes]

The US has "owned up to" it's war crimes more than Japan has.

Really?

I was going to call you on this, but you actually live there. Is this true?

Popularized? Was My Lai really popular?

Yes.

Honestly, the only Ally who blatantly got away with war crimes was the USSR.

[Albrante]

Lets face it history is written by the victor. If the Nazis won then we would be tried for war crimes as going against their "laws".

[Daistallia 2104]

The US has "owned up to" it's war crimes more than Japan has.

Really?

I was going to call you on this, but you actually live there. Is this true?

That perhapse should have been prefaced as a matter of opinion, but consider:
The US prosecuted a couple of POW massacres, but Japan didn't.
POW massacres were mentioned in my HS history courses and nobody complained, while the nationalists here scream bloody murder when putting their war crimes in the HS texts is mentioned.
In the US, saying FDR may have had some responsiblitry for the war and Truman may have been a war criminal for bombing civilians won't get you shot, unlike in Japan, where saying the emperor was partly responsible for the war may get you shot.
US war criminals weren't enshrined as gods, and the US president doesn't prey to war criminals, unlike Japanese PMs. (Even Emperor Showa had the good sense to stop going there after the enshrinement of the class A war criminals.)

(Yasukuni and the school history texts are most damning, IMO.)

Popularized? Was My Lai really popular?

Yes.

Publicised, yes, but certainly not popularized.

Honestly, the only Ally who blatantly got away with war crimes was the USSR.

Pretty much, although the Yugoslvians also did to a lesser extent.

[The Norse Hordes]

That perhapse should have been prefaced as a matter of opinion, but consider:
The US prosecuted a couple of POW massacres, but Japan didn't.
POW massacres were mentioned in my HS history courses and nobody complained, while the nationalists here scream bloody murder when putting their war crimes in the HS texts is mentioned.
In the US, saying FDR may have had some responsiblitry for the war and Truman may have been a war criminal for bombing civilians won't get you shot, unlike in Japan, where saying the emperor was partly responsible for the war may get you shot.
US war criminals weren't enshrined as gods, and the US president doesn't prey to war criminals, unlike Japanese PMs. (Even Emperor Showa had the good sense to stop going there after the enshrinement of the class A war criminals.)

(Yasukuni and the school history texts are most damning, IMO.)

This is very interesting to me. Any more info you go would be appreciated.

Publicised, yes, but certainly not popularized.

Im using the two interchangably.

[Daistallia 2104]

Oh, and just to note, the UK prosecuted three in regards to POW abuse and deaths at Bad Nenndorf.