Worst War Crimes of WW2?

The problem I have with this is that in order for it to be a "crime" it must break a law and by tradition in the west this calls for a prexisting written "law". In that case we are talking about the conventions of war. The only exceptions I can think of were "crimes against humanity" and "waging offensive war" at the Neurember trials and the latter could well fall under failure to decare war. The former was so heineous that some action was demanded. Now one can make a reasonable case that it was not "moral" or "right" but that's basically argueing opinion.

 

Too true, War Crimes are an ongoing situation, and defined by precedent concerning past actions and decisions in response to them, and if it isn’t "on the books" internationally or recognized by the majority of the nations involved it simply isn’t one.

During the 11th century, church councils proclaimed the so-called Truce of God, forbidding warfare on certain days and the harming during hostilities of certain categories of persons, especially priests, women, pilgrims, and merchants (and also sometimes even of beasts of burden), under penalty of excommunication! A nasty penalty when one considers how important the Church was in that period and the saving and condemning of souls was their purview. Similarly, in wars between peoples of different religions these were included, treachery, i.e. the violation of a treaty-created or customarily sacrosanct rule, such as the molestation of heralds of truce, or the breach of a promise of free conduct, would be "punished by severest reprisals" (ranging from flogging to execution).

The first war crimes trial in recorded history in the technical sense of the term (that is, punishment of transgression of the accepted laws of war through secular rather than church judicial procedure) appears to have been the trial by an English court in 1305 of the celebrated Scot, Sir William Wallace; for waging a war of extermination against the English population, "sparing neither age nor sex, monk nor nun."

Since the latter part of the Middle Ages, customs and practices have evolved which eventually led to the modern laws of war as they exist today; and, in the words of a leading British jurist, Lord Wright of Durley (Robert Alderson Wright), chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, "there have been hundreds of cases in which national military tribunals have tried and convicted enemy nationals of breaches of the laws of war. To illustrate, during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the Germans arrested, tried and executed numerous French francs-tireurs (irregular combatants) for violations of the laws of war."

The concept that aggression itself in war is a crime is intimately connected with the distinction between "just" and "unjust war". "Unjust war" means, in essence, aggressive war, and includes especially aggression made in violation of a solemn pledge (treaty) not to attack.

The distinction between just and unjust war goes back for more than 2,000 years. It has been insisted upon, for example, by Roman statesmen and jurists in antiquity while Rome was still a Republic; also by the two most influential "doctors" of the Catholic Church, St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century; by the father of the modern law of nations, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), and other famous Dutch jurists; and by Spanish scholastics and French and German scholars in, during, and after the so called "Age of Enlightenment".

Approximate precedents for the proposition that "crimes against peace" are punishable also exist. Thus, the Senate of Rome requested the extradition for trial of Hannibal for inciting other nations to make war upon Rome, and of Brutulus Papius of Samnium for attacking Rome in breach of an existing treaty. (Both committed suicide rather than be captured) In 1474, Sir Peter of Hagenbach, governor of Breisach, was tried by a court composed of Austrian and Swiss judges and executed for having waged a terroristic, undeclared war.

As early as 1842, Daniel Webster, United States secretary of state, declared:

"The laws of war forbid the wounding, killing, impressing into the troops of the country, or enslaving or otherwise maltreating the prisoners of war unless they have been guilty of some other grave crime, and from the obligations of this law no civilized state can discharge itself. War crimes can be punished, not only by the organs of the country of which the offender is a citizen--for example, a guard who tortures, or a camp commander who orders the torturing of, prisoners of war will in a civilized country be court-martialed by his own authorities--but also by the enemy.

The right of the enemy to try a war crime suspect has been uncontested throughout the centuries. In fact, since the rules of war are now international law, such enemy suspects may be tried, and, if found guilty, punished even by a nation which has not passed any legislation for such procedures."

The United States Supreme Court stated shortly after the Civil War (in Dew v. Johnson):

"What is the law which governs an army invading an enemy's country?

It is not the civil law of the invaded country; it is not the civil law of the conquering country; it is the law of war. War crimes are very serious offenses."

Then in the words of the United States basic field manual: "All war crimes are subject to the death penalty, although a lesser penalty may be imposed. Not only military personnel are bound by the laws of war. Hence, any civilian may become guilty of a war crime--for example, a businessman participating in the plunder of enemy property. Even in the heat of war, persons suspected of war crimes may not be punished without their guilt being properly established. To shoot them out of hand constitutes itself a war crime."

The Versailles Treaty provided that Germany should hand over to the Allies the persons wanted for trial. But when in February 1920 the first such list of some 900 names, but it included both the Kaiser and the former imperial crown prince, as well as Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, and Gen. Erich F. W. Ludendorff. When this list was presented, German indignation was so strong that the Allies agreed to a compromise recommended by the "Committee of Fifteen", namely, that investigations and trials would be handled by the German Supreme Court. The outcome was a farce.

Of the 901 persons grievously incriminated by evidence furnished by the Allies (mainly Great Britain, France, and Belgium), 888 were either acquitted or never arrested nor indicted. The whole procedure gave rise to fanatical chauvinistic demonstrations in Germany, and greatly helped the early spread of the Nazi’s version of nationalism. The 13 who were found guilty received insignificant prison sentences (most covered by "time served" awaiting trial), and they were celebrated inside and outside the court as national heroes. This "judicial farce" may have contributed to the Nuremberg and other War Crimes Trials when dealing with the Germans, once burnt twice shy.

Remember that in February 1928, the sixth Pan American Conference of 21 American republics resolved that " war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species all aggression is illicit. The Nuremberg and Tokyo international tribunals attached special importance to the "General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact) of Aug. 27, 1928, because it was ratified before World War II by virtually all the existing nations and governments of the world (the USSR never signed).

The pact does not actually specify that aggression is criminal, but the Nuremberg international tribunal declared: "The solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy pledged in the Kellogg-Briand Pact involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war, with its inevitable and terrible consequences, are committing a crime in so doing." This became "Count One" at the Nuremberg trials.

Then this:

"Imperial Germany waged the first World War with a brutality perhaps less systematic and frenzied than that of the National Socialist Reich, but just as deliberate. The deportation of workers, looting of public and private property, the taking and killing of hostages, the demoralization of the occupied territories constituted, in 1914 as in 1939, the political methods of German warfare.

"The Treaty of Versailles was based on The Hague Convention in order to establish the suppression of War Crimes. Under the title Sanctions, Charter VII, of the Treaty of Versailles discusses criminal responsibility incurred in the launching and waging of the conflict, which was then the called The Great War. Article 227 accused William of Hohenzollern, previously Emperor of Germany, of a supreme offence against international morality and against the sacred character of treaties.

Article 228 acknowledged the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring persons guilty of acts contrary to the laws and customs of war before military tribunals.

Article 229 provided that criminals whose acts were not of precise geographical location were to be referred to the inter-allied jurisdiction. The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were repeated in the conventions which were signed in 1919 and 1920 with the powers allied with Germany, in particular in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and in that of Neuilly.

"That is how the idea of War Crime was affirmed in International Law. The peace treaties of 1919 not only defined the concept of infringement; they formulated the terms of its suppression. The defendants at Nuremberg were aware of this, just as they were aware of the warnings of the Governments of the United Nations. They no doubt hoped that the repetition of the factual circumstances which hampered the punishment of the criminals in 1914 would permit them to escape their just punishment."

Goto:

Trials of German Major War Criminals: Volume 4

Then as to aerial bombardment, that can fall largely under the naval and artillery bombardments which had already been "regulated" after a fashion, as had forced slave labor or both civilian and military personnel of the enemy.

 

My position is not that bombing of population centers is war crime, it's that "strategic bombing" with 1940 technology is one. Bombing cities were enemy troops are resisting an advancing army was explicitly allowed by the treaties, so despite the horror things like Cassino (the town NOT the abbey), Stalingrad, Aachen and Rotterdam were "legal" though in the first two instances the attackers may have fared better without the rubble the bombs creatred. Comunication hubs behind the front like Guernica and Dresden are a grey area, but there is no way you can stretch the treaty wordings to cover Hamburg and Coventry.

 

Sorry to talk about something apart from what you guys were talking about, but were most German soldiers as well as civilians at the time dedicated to the Reich? I don't believe they were, but I thought it would be a good thing to ask. And when I say dedicated I'm talking full-Nazi outside of the party.

 

Well bombing casino was made it worst their were more places to hide and ambush points in the rubble.

 

I think for the most part we agree that airial bombardment was not a war crime by the standards of the time. However as you point out laws were at least reinterpeted if not rewritten after the shooting stopped for Nuremburg. The point that the Holocaust was so extreme that something had to be done serves to push home the point that warfare is contantly evolving, and so to our understanding of what is acceptable and what is not.

It is also relevent to point out that saturation bombing of urban centers has not really been done since 1945. When civilians in urban areas have come under assaut, such as the Kurds by Saddam in Iraq, it has generally veiwed as a crime. We would now view the dropping of unguided iron bombs from a B-52 unto an urban center as a crime as well.

I do not fault either side in general even though both sides on occasion bombed targets that were questionable. They were acting under accepted conventional thinking and laws of the era. But times do change.

 

Were the Germans ever tried for war crimes for bombing Britains cities? If they weren't, I can tell you why. It's because the Allies knew that they committed the same act and if they were to try the Germans they would be just as guilty, I'm sure theres more comparisons than just that, just to show that the victors DO write history.

 

belasar, i can respect your position as well. And during the years of 40 to late 44 there is no problem. From late 44 up to April 45 where the most interesting objects were only scrap the aerial bombings were only to terrorize the civilians and had no influence of the military industry.

Most of the important industries were bombed to ruins or had moved to underground and the others were out of resources. So that in my own opinion it was nothing else than terror bombing. And i´m sure that the Bomber Command had informations from the Secret Service and from the Air reckon that it was needless to bomb any longer.

Written laws were good but there were no exactly law for that. And not to offend you but the law is most time on the winners side.

Regards

Ulrich

 

Bombing civilian cities, and unrestricted submarine warfare were NOT on the list. For that very reason, the allied forces did the same. The allies however used the justification of the "retaliation in kind" clause of many of the "conventions of war" which had been signed by all parties. It might have been flimsy, but could be put forward with a straight face.

 

Ulrich, no offence at all my friend,

Your point is fair about the last six months of the war in Europe. There was simply no way the Allied command and political leaders could order a stand down by their strategic bomber force and past events had left a bad taste for their use in the tactical support role.

Germany was still resisting, indeed the armies in the west were fighting hard so that the eastern armies had some chance to surrender to the western allies. Allird ground troops and tactical airmen were still dying to finish a war that everyone knew how it was going end.

In that enviroment, their own public would neither understand the decision to halt the bombing or think it acceptable. In a perfect world our leaders would always make the right choice at the right time, but sadly we are all to human for that.

 

belasar,

thanks for beeing fair and seeing the other side too!!!

Yes that is right and who of us would be in this situation to make the right decision. To me the areal bombings were OK as an tool to stop the war by destroying the abilities of military resources. The only bitter taste is that they used it to save soldiers lifes by taking civilian lifes in an heavy amount and at those late days of war.

Regards

Ulrich

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

It is not always easy to spot a war crime.
The displacement of civilians from their homes by an enemy army is not necessarily a war crime.
It can be argued that the displacement is being carried out for the protection of the civilians.
It only becomes a war crime if the expulsions can be proven to be part of campaign of ethnic cleansing or designed as a mass punishment of civilians.
Equally, is it a war crime for the air force of one country to bomb an enemy's television station because of the propaganda in the broadcasts?
Under the Geneva Conventions, this is not a war crime. Just about all aspects of a state's infrastructure - roads, bridges, power stations, factories - become legitimate targets if they might be put to military use.
Such attacks only become war crimes if the extent of collateral damage to civilians and civilian interests resulting from the attack would be excessive compared to the military advantage gained from the attack.

 

The 1949 Geneva convention is much more restrictive than that, for one they state the displacement must be temporary which is a big difference and closes a lot of loopholes.
Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The wording was chosen so as not to include the massive post WW2 Eastern Europe ethnic cleansing. But to also avoid making the WW2 stategic bombing campaign an explicit war crime they left a huge loophole, the result is that ethnic cleansing continues to this day unchecked.
The "cleansers" just terrorize the locals, which is legal as long as they state they are targetting "military" targets and the cvilians are "collateral damage", then state they left "voluntarily". If you destroy a city's water or power source the civilians are forced to leave.

 

Which was enacted in "response" to WW2's less than discriminate bombings. It didn't regulate the policy at the time.

 

War Crimes happened on every side in this war and always happened during every war.
I remember one special happening in France:
Oradour, 1944. Waffen SS massacre a whole town population. Shoot the men, herd the women and children into a church and burn it to the ground.

This is just an example, i know similair things happened in Russia and other countries. The Russians did no better in East Prussia and the rest of Germany, I know.

 

I bought this afternoon "AMONG THE DEAD CITIES" (by A.C. Crayling )
1)I disagree with his judgements,which are p c biased.
2) interesting is his appendix:all (?) German cities attacked by Bomber Command with civilian casualties and RAF losses ,for the period 11/12 may 1940 till 2/2 may 1945.
I will limit my self to SOME exemples of 1945:those where civilian casualties are mentioned
2 january :Nurnberg :1794 dead 100000bombed out RAF losses :6
6 january :Hanau :9O dead 20000 bombed out RAF losses 6 on a total of 482
Why was Hanau (with 42000 inhabitants in 1939) attacked ?
7 january :Munich :505 dead 70000 BO RAF losses 15
16 january:Magdeburg :16000 dead 19O000 BO RAF losses 17
2 february:Wiesbaden :1000 dead 20000 BO
3 february :Berlin:2541 dead 119057 BO
13 februaryresden:more than 30000 dead 250000 BO
21 february :Nurnberg:1356 dead 69385 BO
21 februry :Worms :239 dead 35000 BO
23 february :Essen :1555 dead
23 februaryforzheim:up to 20000 dead 50000 BO
26 february :Berlin:636 dead 71283 BO
27 february :Leipzig :677 dead
1 march :Bruschal:1000 dead 30000 BO
Is there any informationwhy Bruschal was attacked ?
2 march :Cologne :500 dead
6 marchessau:600 dead 20000 BO
6 march :Harburg :422 dead
11 march :Essen:897 dead
12 march ortmund :895 dead
12 march :Swinemunde :up to 23000 dead
13 march :Wuppertal :562 dead
15 march :Hagen :505 dead 32500 BO
16 march:Nuremberg :517 dead 35000 BO
18 march :Berlin :336 dead 79785 BO
19 march :Witten:500 dead 20000 BO
19 march:Hanau :2000 dead 30000 BO
22 march :Hildesheim:1645 dead 40000 BO
24 march :Gladbeck :3095 dead 40000 B0
25 march :Osnabruck:143 dead 20000 BO
27 march aderborn :330 dead 30000 BO
3 april :Kiel:624 dead
3/4 april :Nordhausen:8800 dead 20000 BO
6 april :Leipzig :733 dead
8 april :Halberstadt:1866 dead 25000 BO
10 april lauen :20000 BO
14 april otsdam :5000 dead 40000 BO
24 april :Bad Oldesloe :700 dead
Why was Bad Oldesloe (8300 inhabitants in 1939) attacked ?
Some points:
1) why was Harburg (a big industrial center ) only attacked in march 1945 ?
2) why the discrepancies of civilian casualties ? Potsdam :5000 dead by an attack of 500 Lancasters,Wiesbaden :100 dead by 495 Lancasters
3)some cities were attacked seveal times,others only once :why ?
4) I can see no structure (=planning) in the attacks.
My general impression is that the attacks were happening haphazardly ,that some cities were attacked,because they were not yet attacked,and that BC was attacking,because they still were pursuing the mirage that one of these attacks would cause a suddenly collapse of Germany(the (in)famous Douhet doctrine,notwithstanding that these doctrine had been proved to be a failure .

 

Of course it couldn't regulate the WW2 policies, it came after the war was over!!
IMHO as an attempt to "regulate" it's a complete failure, as it had to "legttimize" the ww2 bombings it's practically useless with regard to protecting civilians from aerial bombing. The treaties it replaced, that could have been extended to explicitly include bombing by aircraft, were a lot more restrictive.
In WW2 the US and Britain. two large industrial nations, dedicated a large amount of their war effort to area bombing of cities, nothing on that scale is likely to happen again as Douhet's theories are totally discredited, so if you make rules that keep that this side of legal they are not going to be effective.

 

Point is they bombed for these reasons one to break the civillain population moral that failed.2 Destroy the German industry which i guess it worked because it was not until the 3rd half of 1944 the Industry started to slow down.3 The most successful one attacking strategical targets like oil fields,Iron ore shipping and such this is the one that really hurt the German war machine not the other 2.

 

I disagree. There was nothing very grey about Guernica or Dresden. Why do you think Hamburg and Coventry were not covered?

Another possibility is that they simply weren't war crimes. There was some thought of charging some of the Germans with crimes related to unrestricted submarine warfare and that was decided against because the point was brought up that the allies did the same. It's not clear how the court would have decided if it had been brought up, there's at least a chance that those charged would have been found not guilty of a crime in this instance due to the military necessity clause.

Can you support this in any way? Certainly releasing all the fighters and AA guns that were used in "defence of the Reich" would have had a negative impact on the ground war. Not to mention the impact of improved logistics as the rail net came back on line.