Worst War Crimes of WW2?

Your saying that now but if that happend to the us during ww2 people and books would call the Germans/Japanese monters and killing innocent people.

 

There is a saying that "history is written by the victors". Regardless of who won, there is no denying that WWII was a "total war". Total War is defined as: "Warfare where all of a country's available resources, military as well as civilian, are employed".

In a situation where civilians on the home front are making the weapons, munitions, and keeping the country running smoothly on a war footing, they are viewed as viable targets. You can always get another foot soldier up to the front to take pot shots at the enemy, but what happens when his rifle runs out of ammo? His rations run out? Or his truck runs out of gas? Bottom line: once your supplied are cut off, you can't wage war effectively.

Yes, many view this attitude as derogatory and nasty, but this is a fact. Based on this, I wouldn't call it a "war crime" - dirty fighting, yes, war crime, no. In a total war, civilians working in industry and keeping their nation functioning are just as important as the troops on the front lines, and are in many cases harder to replace.

 

Unit 731, I watched a video about it on youtube and I couldn't even watch the who thing and it still scares me to think about it. If anyone thinks the experiments at Auschwitz were bad, go look up Unit 731 and I can guarantee you will be so much more horrified and freaked out about what they did. The Germans might have killed more, but the Japanese by far employed the most brutal type of torture.

 

Look at what happened to the civillian workers on Wake Island or the American Civillians that were at Bataan and Corregidor. I won't even bring up the atrocities that were comitted in the name of the Third Reich.

To even attempt to compare the actions of the Allies with those of the Axis is absurd.

 

The "total war" argument basically states there are no war crimes, everything is a target so everybody is innocent as you can justify any action as "useful to the war effort".
Not the sort sort of world I want to live in and fortunately most combattants, from all sides held the same opinion, in part it was human decency, in part fear of retaliation but the "anything goes as long as it hurts the enemy" was not generally accepted. Killing prisoners and civilians was the exception not the rule, medics were usually off limits, the red cross could opeate, and the international treaties did somehow limit the horror of war.

 

GUERRILLA? Uhmm this is a spanish invention (just see the name) and it's kind of war you fight AT HOME, against an invader (your regular army is overhelmed ) Against the Romans, The Arabs, Napoleon... the 9/11 , Madrid and London attacks weren´t guerrilla.

Unit 731 (I guess some episodes of the DUNE saga inspired by it) vs Menguele...IMHO The Janpanse were brutal in the ancient way, like the Assirians, Romans, barbarians and the medieval age. Even the Bio-warfare wasn´t new: Mongolians threw plague-infected corpses to the Venetians in the Black Sea, 1346 AD.

The industrial chain of murder that the Nazis deployed had no precedent. I voted for them because it.

 

The terrorist attacks are a form of asymmetrical warfare that descends from the availability of mass killing devices to small groups of people. Causing destruction on a massive scale is no longer a prerogative of governments and we still have to adjust to the fact. It resembles guerrilla as it's performed by small groups not necessarily linked into a central organization but differs in having the capability of striking the enemy at home which the guerrilla fighters usually don't.
This is why It's critical to get a consensus that civilians are never a legittimate target, calling my losses victims and the other side's "collateral damage" may be good propaganda but is unlikely to work in the long run.

 

In my opinion the holocaust was one of the worst crimes ever commited in history.

Although, some if not all on that list come very close to the holocaust.

Like Nanking for example. horrible attrocities against innocent people. A somewhat forgotten genocide from WW2.

 

Can you tell me why "we shouldn't be in Madrid anyways"?

It is the capital of Spain and an absolutely beautiful city oozing with history, exceptionally friendly people and some of the finest restaurants anywhere in the world.

Last time I checked there were no foreign troops stationed anywhere on the Iberian Peninsula.

 

I meant the U.S. shouldn't place military bases everywhere around the world where they're not wanted. Maybe not Madrid specifically, but if we stayed out of other peoples' countries then our bases there wouldn't get attacked. Keep the military in the U.S. or places where we're wanted.

 

I'm not comparing the Allies the the axis I am pointing out the fact the Allues were using the tacts of bombing enemy civillians so they demand a surrender that did not shorten the war mor did it offer millitary targets.
I'm done on the subject.

 

I don't want to pull this off track guys, but one quick question. Dresden was brought up, and while the numbers of dead are often brought up I am curious about the military aspects of the bombing. Dresden did have a heavy railcenter used for transporting men and supplies. Does anyone have any figures on troops and supplies running through the city both before and after the bombing?

 

i agree with almost everything you've said, except for your views of the werhmachts participation in war crimes.

the SS gets way too much credit for its roll in war crimes. although the Wehrmacht was involved less in the Holocaust, it was involved in many other crimes.

for example. the treatment of soviet POWS, which resulted in the death of over 3 million (60% of POWS) was completely the Wehrmacht's responsibility.

huge number of ordinary soldiers, spirred on by propaganda and their own racist views, did terrible things in the USSR. A quote from a german soldier comes to mind:

"if the Russians do back to Germany a fifth of what we did in Russia, there won't be anyone left alive".

it's true. and yes the russians were brutal in Germany and eastern europe. but their crimes were understandable, if not excusable.

 

They were not bombing enemy civillians for the sake of killing them. The Japanese turned war production into a "cottage industry" where the production of everything from bandages to the assembly of weapons was done in private homes.

 

Spot on with the Japanese. Remember those cheap, easy to make balloon bombs sent across the jet stream were built by children at school. The Japanese did not have entire industrial sections in many cities, but they were spread amongst the urban areas. It practical guaranteed that collateral damage was going to be higher than in Europe.

 

You also have to remeber alot of thoses "Foctory workers" were slave workers already badly treated also they had to worry about being bombed.
They already had to worry about being beaten and shot plus they were fed starvation rations and working in poor conditions.

 

actually a good point
in some bombing raids, a huge percentage of those killed were slave labour. These people, particuarly Russians, Jews and Poles, had horrific lives working in Germany.

 

yes, but what happened in Tokyo was way beyond collateral damage.
the allies used heavy fire bombing, knowing that the effect on the Japanese people (almost all of whom lived in WOODEN houses) would be horrific.

 

Amazed to find out that one of the Commanders at the Rape Of Nanking, was Prince Asaka, uncle to Hirohito. Not one family member of the Emperor was ever tried for war crimes !! Still say he should of been hung on September 3, 1945 for allowing documented crimes.