Worst War Crimes of WW2?

Sorry that's evasion. Why do you think WWII was unnecessary? Certainly it's hard to apply that label with any justification at all by 1940 and one could argue even earleir.

The above sentence has as far as I can tell no information content at all.

Is that a promise? Given the quality of your postings that would be a good thing.

 

Using the term which Winston proposed is far from being "poorly informed", even Churchill couldn't get that one adopted.

 

Did he just call me "Hollywood" or is he inferring that Hollywood is a source of factual representation of WW2 events, Or is he saying that all of the Axis warcrimes are figments of the media's grandios embellishment?

Was there a death camp in Hollywood or did Unit #731 have a free clinic there?

 

That can be a tricky one as some of the conventions at the time were suppose to only hold between signators. Others could be violated if your opponent violated them first.

An very reasonable view. It really requires looking at individual events.

Well if they come to the attention of higher command and aren't addressed they do.

Indeed and it's pretty clear that they were indeed allowed by the conventions. Furthermore in the case of the atomic bombs in all likelyhood they lowered both allied and Japanese casualties.

 

I certainly had no idea what he was talking about. One thought is he was aware of the phrase "Hollywood Marine" and was trying to be cute but that seem a little obscure for him base on his postings to date. A number of other possiblities are there including incoherency.

 

I agree lwd, if they are brought to the attention of the "brass" and not addressed they certainly do fall into that category, by default if nothing else. Each one would have to be investigated separately by the military, and I don't know the answer to that one. If they were condoned, that was wrong, if they were condemned and punishments applied, that was correct.

I have no information one way or the other in the case of allied actions. And Lou, that was cute. Force them to watch "B" movies as punishment, and feed them burned popcorn while they watched, with flat sodas!

Arrgggh, cruel and inhumane actions to be sure!

 

Had soldier A escaped German POW camp he would first find himself in a Penal battalion for allowing himself to get caught before rejoining his comrades.

In all seriousness, known German atrocities on Russian soldiers and civilians was quite wide spread; propaganda helped ofcourse, but not much had to be made up. Thousands of Red Army soldiers escaped either from marching to the camps or German captivity...

The main difference between atrocities commited by the Axis VS Allied nations was the fact that in Germany and Japan, commiting these crimes was state policy. In Allied nations individuals commited these acts and they were usually those who had witnessed or experienced what few of us can ever imagine. These acts were commited in revenge and number very few in comparison to their counterparts.

 

Most of the so called "war crimes" were not addressed as such until post WWII. And only the countries that ratify them have agreed to abide by them.

The "war crimes" as part of the fourth treaty of the Geneva convention were imposed by the victorious Allied armies post WWII against their Axis enemies. But during the war they did not exist in the form that was used to prosecute the axis powers post war. And the ones that did would only theoretically apply to those nations that agree to them and had ratified them. Only the victors can impose laws of conduct on the losers especially if the losers had never ratified those rules of conduct to begin with. Was it possible for any of the Axis countries to alledge "war crimes" against any allied nation and then try that case in their own courts with their own prosecuters? NO,

The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.[1]

“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.”

—- Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention​

Also you could consider the Holocaust as a crime against humanity as it began prior to the war and continued during the conflict but does it really fall into the "war crime" category as it was not practiced as part of the war but by the fascist regime as an ideological form of genocide upon race and religeous principles.

Okay lwd lets see you break this down point by point and tell me how wrong I am without any documention or proof of your own, let's hear your opinions and unsupported justifications as to why your point of view and your opinion is always right and all other poster's are always wrong. come on show us your biased false reasoning again and of course as usual don't back it up with any proof.

 

Possibly partisans, though at those dates "partisans" most likely meant cut off troops rather than locals.
Source is Alan Clark's Barbarossa who in turn attributes it to Von Manstein (pg 56 in my edition is the episode I recalled, found it on second try my first attempt was Guderian's Panzer Leader) it struck me when I read it as I too believed in a gradual worsening. That book centers on the hideological aspects of the "great patriotic war" and is an interesting read.

Does Katyn ring a bell ?

I think it was more a matter of theaters than combattants, on the western front, north africa and Italy your chances if captured were pretty good unless dealing with notoriously "bad" units like SS or Goumiers.
In the Balkans your chances were not that good, on the eastern front unless you were captured near a supply head the "death marches" were horrible and even if you survived to a camp nobody really cared if you lived or not.
For the PTO .... no doubt Japanese treatment of prisoners was horrible, but the allied behaviour is pretty suspect too, the numbers of Japanese POWs is very very small compared to forces involved and episodes like Surigao and Bismark Sea make me wonder just how much that was Japanese "no surrender" philosophy and how much a "no quarters" allied policy. I also very much doubt treatment of prisoners in mainland China had anything to do with the Hague conventions but independent information is scarce.

 

lwd
you are rude, a prime example of a "cyber bully" here are some examples as to why you should be banned from this forum. Your behavior is deplorable and you certainly have no respect for other posters.

here is your reply to someone, who after getting fed up with your behavior, said they would not be posting for a while...
Is that a promise? Given the quality of your postings that would be a good thing.
(who are you to judge? the quality or lack of it in your postings is not any better, in fact most is speculation, bogus excuses and never backed up by facts but by bias opinions)

Sorry you are wrong.
(this is your favorite form of rebuttle and proves your lack of tact and your rude, ignorant behavior. Who are you to say the comment is wrong and did you back it up with reasons as to why?)
Sorry you are wrong.
you are wrong
you are wrong
you are wrong
Sorry you are wrong.


The burden on you is to prove it.
(when you make the accusaion that someone is wrong then you need to prove why you feel they are wrong, no one owes you any justification for feeling the way they do)

The above sentence has as far as I can tell no information content at all.
(this remark is typical of you but if you read your rebuttles you will see that it applies to you more than anyone)

Ultimatly it's a matter of opinion
(you wrote this in a response when someone proved you were wrong, if this is really how you feel then why do you tell everyone else that they are wrong when.......Ultimatly it's a matter of opinion. ?)
then in a later post you make the comment...That's your opinion, so I guess when you say it's a matter of opinion when you say it, when someone else has an opinion it does not count.
That's a pretty weak reference but it's something. Up until now all we had is your opinion on it. That hardly constitutes proof. (once again another of your inconistant views on opinions)

Interesting accusation. Not a single detail though. Care to tell us just what you are talking about?
(with this comment of yours, which you use frequently, I am curious to know if you find "playing stupid and naive" works for you)

Again I dissagee. The "military necessity" clauses inparticular indicate that you do the best you can and move forward.
(what clause are you referring too?)

That's a pretty weak reference but it's something. Up until now all we had is your opinion on it. That hardly constitutes proof. In any case I said you haven't proven it and you still haven't.
(when you are the one who contests that a point is not valid to you or when you state that the comment is wrong then you should be the one to prove it, if you can't it is only your opinion) and yes you can prove a negative, I am sure you can prove that you did not shoot JFK, can't you?


What exactly are you calling an "act against humanity"? It's a new term to me and certainly not a well defined one in this contxt. As for "two wrongs never make a right" in some senses that's another strawman in others it's incorrect. For instance according to the covnentions in place in WWII if side A makes first use of gas warfare it's commiting a war crime. If side B retaliates it's not.
(hahahaha the "Strawman" term you always use)
(this is your opinion not a legal fact. in this case using deductive reasoning, then since the Nazi's gassed their Jewish citizens then the US could do it to, legally, since the Nazi's did it first)
can you prove your statement with written facts or laws that state once country A does a crime then country B is legally allowed to do it?)

Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman

Furthermore I believe if you go to any specific raid you will find that there was a target of military value listed as the target for the day
(just a strawman, to use your ridiculous term, you believe? can you back this up with proof that all air raids were for military value only?)

No but it doesn't criminalise their deaths if they are collateral casualties that occur in the persute of legitimate targets. Which is the case here.
(another one of you bogus attempts to justify killing civilians)

Another possibility is that they simply weren't war crimes
(I can see by your rebuttles that the Allies had justification for their "war crimes" but the Axis did not

I don't doubt it happened but how often and when it did how often was it a case of mistaken
identity.
(another one of your bogus attempts to justify your false statements)

Indeed and it's pretty clear that they were indeed allowed by the conventions. Furthermore in the case of the atomic bombs in all likelyhood they lowered both allied and Japanese casualties.
(do you honestly feel that what ever you can kill the most of the enemies civilians justifies the possibility of less military casualties?)

 

The Nuremberg trials addressed failure to live up to the conventions of war fare as they existed at the time.

No. Rather the other way around. The 1949 Geneva conventions were created to regularize and deal with problems that existed in the pre WWII conventions. They obviously were not used in the various war crimes trials immediatly after WWII.

Incorrect.

In some cases however all the major combatants did. The Soviets at various points claimed they opted out or didn't so there status is rather nebulous. If you doubt this see the list of those who were signators to the Hauge Conventions at: Hague Convention - World War I Document Archive
Note that Germany and Japan are both on the list.

Niether particularly true or relevant.

But that's not quite what happened after the war either. For one thing there were no German courts. For another the trials were by "international courts". Now one could argue that they should have taken place in the Hague but Dutch neutrality had been violated by both the major axis powers.

Care to explain why you made such a massive quote of wiki without sourcing it? And just why it's relevant?

That's why it was considered a "crime against humanity" and not a war crime among other reasons. For instance since much of it took place vs German civilians it could hardly be a war crime on their account either.

One hardly needs a source to point out a logical falacy or point out a clear misinterpretation.

I have never claimed omncients but you are the proponent here. It is an excepted rule of logic that proving a negative is impossilbe. Therefore it's up to you to present your case and if I disagree for me to prove individual points wrong. So far your case is so weak there's little point in me doing much research on it. So how about can you present a well supported logical case or is it all innuendo, vague accusations, and faulty logic?

well got to go now.

 

@ lwd

omncients
making up words does not prove your intelligence
persute
not quite sure what this one means either

Care to explain why you made such a massive quote of wiki without sourcing it? And just why it's relevant?
As usual it is only relevant when you agree with it if you do not agree with the proof that is provided to show you are wrong then of course you state it is not relevant.

Incorrect.
(once again you state something is incorrect or wrong but you do not state why) just another
"strawman"

Niether particularly true or relevant
(another typical bogus response by you when you have been proven wrong)

The Nuremberg trials addressed failure to live up to the conventions of war fare as they existed at the time.
(what conventions do you refer too and did the Axis countries ratify those conventions)

Obviously false.
(you said this too, why who knows)

On the contrary it clearly did not violate the letter as it was not directly addressed. As for the spirit I would dispute that as well
(has anyone made a point that you would not dispute?)

 

the topic of the thread was a poll asking for people OPINIONS on the worse war crimes. I think you will see that there is a poster on here that goes through every other person's OPINIONS and critisizes them point by point and then comments that they are wrong or what they have to say is irrelevant without contributing anything to the topic of the thread or stating his own OPINIONS on the worse war crimes. He is a self appointed judge and jury on whose OPONIONS are right or wrong and feels the need to respond to everyone's OPINIONS that he does not agree with by telling them that they are wrong (in his opinion) or not relevant.

Is this the kind of poster you want on this forum?

I admit it is not my role to point that out to that person by playing his game so I was wrong to try to do so and I appologize.

if you feel I need to be banned or reprimanded fine. Frankly I don't see the need for me to engage in forums where that kind of behavior is tolerated. I will not tolerate a cyber bully and I do not think any poster deserves to have their opinions picked apart by a cyber bully for any reason at any time.

The original thread is based solely on a poll of peoples opinions on a topic that obviously is very controversial and no one deserves to be critisized in such a manner for having their opinion.

So I confess that I was wrong for lowering myself to the cyber bully's ways but I had hoped he would catch on to the way he was critisizing everyone.

but don't worry about giving me a "time out" or "banning me" I will do so voluntarily

auf wiedersehn

 

I was in the same thought process myself Lou, I was thinking more of warnings to both by PM and cooler time if it continued after.

 

the fire bombing of German cities is one of them :that's your WRONG opinion
any poster that disagrees needs to get his head examined :and you are the one accusing other posters of being insultant and arragant

 

In fact , about the Ike´s death camps, I guess you're wrong: Your source just took the miss of information about so many POW and then sclaims that they died. This is not serious, he should go to the STANDESAMT and cross the data. That was the way Mr. Bacque “killed” the whole Volkssturm.

My knownledge: Spanish Civil War: Here we have the symmetric case: The fascist wrote thy released so many people, these people never returned home, here we put names and families to these “looses”. Mr Backe simply tooks a hole in the books and got an "astonishing discovery". IMHO these holes indicate that there is nothing to cover.