PDA

View Full Version : Do the winners of wars get away with crimes?



No-name
19-08-05, 01:01
Hey WWII ended 60 years ago this month.

Recently I saw programs on Japan's nuclear program- not enough resources to build a bomb- but some pretty good brain power with some interesting progress.

On one thread we lashed at Japan's war crimes- and some tried to defend them or wish them away.

On another we debate the A-bombs' morality.

The US also targeted million of civillians with firebombing and stockpiled a million tons of mustard gas for the invasion of Japan.

Do the victors get away with war crimes?

Mycernius
19-08-05, 17:04
I heard a question on radio 4 a few weeks ago. If Hitler had used an Atomic bomb, but still lost the war, would the Nazis have been done for crimes against humanity?

As for your question. The victors make their own rules, especailly in the past. Nowadays it might be a little more difficult to do, but money and power still count for a lot.

No-name
19-08-05, 22:30
I have no doubt that two things are true: If Germany or Japan would have had "the bomb" they would have used it and if they had lost the war, it would have been a war crime. (Unless the allies used one too, as in the case of the arial targeting of civillian populations- they couldn't really make those charges stick.)

Maciamo
20-08-05, 02:36
Yes, they do get away with war crimes, except if :

1) their country is sufficiently developed democratically, and that country's people ask for their own war criminals (usually high-ranking politicians and military) to be punished. (self-censorship)

2) another war takes place later and the previous victor is defeated, and the new victor wants to punish the responsible of the previous war's crimes. (revenge - sometimes on another country's behalf)

3) an international court of justice punishes war criminals around the world, regardless of their nationality

The 2nd used to be common in feudal times, when wars were on smaller scales and personal relationships mattered more.

Rare are the country democratic enough for 1) to happen. We have seen American people wanting to sue GW Bush for war crimes, but that won't happen as long as he or his party are in power.

That is why number 3) should be considered, and such courts exist. But when some people tried to sue Bush senior for war crimes in accordance with the universal jurisdiction law, the US government menaced to withdraw NATO from Belgium if they didn't change the law. It's hard to try war criminals when they belong to the strongest country of the moment. But it's usually the strongest country that abuse weaker countries and get away with war crimes too.

Mars Man
20-08-05, 03:27
Nice way to put it there Maciamo !! :cool:

The question being 'do' rather than 'should be allowed to', I would say yes; absoulutely. And I have for sometime now stressed the importance that we all should give to the United Nations idea. Every national government, every national, ethnic group of peoples should be willing to relinquish a fair share of self-sovergnty to the UN, in order to give it the strength to, for example, be able to stop those who wish to invade against international laws--like some kind of bushwacker. I wish number 3), above, were truer.

Sukotto
20-08-05, 19:29
Every national government, every national, ethnic group of peoples should be willing to relinquish a fair share of self-sovergnty to the UN, in order to give it the strength to, for example, be able to stop those who wish to invade against international laws--like some kind of bushwacker. I wish number 3), above, were truer.




Most countries do, or would relinquish some sovereignty. Or perhaps
they have little choice when it comes to the powerful that wish to enforce
whatever they wish to enforce. It is out United States that so far has refused to adhere to the UN or international law in general. The political elites in the US do not wish to play fair when it comes to international politics. This is either wing of the ruling republi-crat party for sure. It seems almost as if Bush were "taking one for the ruling class", in that so many US citizens are blinded by their hate for Bush and his foreign policy that they refuse to see this. It is well documented. William Blum, for one, whose site
I just happened to have open right now http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
is one source that starts to get this information to us. Of course,
with all the propaganda, i.e. political spin, put out by US governments
it is quite understandable that we have not always been aware of this
stuff. Also, though I havn't gotten to it yet, I did hear Norman Solomon
on WIPublic Radio talking about his new book. "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" http://www.coldtype.net/war.html He chronicals how the drumbeat
for US intervention in other people's countries is a regular pattern.

As with above and others documenting this stuff, the US, dare I say,
"oligarchy", fears giving up any sovereignty because they know
they have violated international law repeatedly, either of 2 main US parties.
Oh, did I mention they killed millions via their policies? Civilians mostly.
Gosh, countries are dumb, and so are the legal institutions of privalage -
the corporations - that the "oligarchy" hides behind & whose intere$t
the foreign policy is done for. It is $ and the privalege that protects
that $ that they kill and subvert international as well as domestic law for
http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/black_quote.jpg



So how do we get either 1) or 3) that Maciamo laid out for us into effect?
2) ? Arundhati Roy points out that to take on the US empire is a near
impossiblity militarily.
What Maciamo laid out is a generic for winners of wars.
Specifically in the world today the US is the powerful and most likely
winner of wars, because - it is most likely to wage wars.
So how do we get to #1 or #3 in the US?

Mars Man
21-08-05, 02:07
Yes, sukotta, it rings with truth. My first cousin who lives in Germany, Heidelburg, told me the same thing even before I had thought so carefully about it. So when I used the word 'fair' in my previous post, I intended to convey the concept of 'fair for the whole world' idea.

I entertained one dream-of-an-idea (meaning I don't ever think it could in any way whatsoever become reality) that there should be some binding international law wherein each and every person of the entire world would be legally required to go live in at least two different countries, at two different times in their life, for a length of at least one year per time. They could choose the first location, but the second would be given. (in order to see the other side of the coin, if you will)

Just as this thread has highlighted, far too many folks bend to the power. I mean, for those who know about that experiment where some were the jailers and others were the jailed, and the power abuse which arose causing the psychological experiment to be called off, power bends otherwise normal folks, and then the 'might is right' syndrome may very well set in. I would say a whole lot more than now sovereignty should be relinquished to the United Nations. The International Court for war crimes should have power over every national supreme court. This is how I feel.

Maciamo
21-08-05, 05:16
I entertained one dream-of-an-idea (meaning I don't ever think it could in any way whatsoever become reality) that there should be some binding international law wherein each and every person of the entire world would be legally required to go live in at least two different countries, at two different times in their life, for a length of at least one year per time.

This system already exists in some European universities, although it is mostly limited to Europe through the Erasmus programme. My university required all students to study abroad at least 1 semester, but usually 2 + a 3-month internship in a foreign company (still within Europe).

I think that more highschool students should also take part in exchange programmes such as Rotary Club (http://www.rotary.org/), AFS (http://www.afs.org/AFSI/) and the like. The Japanese often replace that by a —¯Šw (ryuugaku) after highschool/college/university, i.e. studying English or another language in a private language school abroad, typically for one year.

There are pros and cons for each system. I have personally experienced both. The ryuugaku system doesn't have the constraints to have to study at school/university with native speakers of that country, and conform to the rules of the exchange programmes, host family, etc. There is more freedom in choosing one's accommodation, and we can concentrate on learning the language only. But the Erasmus and especially Rotary or AFS type of programme have the merits to force the participants' adaptation to the local culture, as they must conform to the local culture and interact with local people in their language on a daily basis.

Miss_apollo7
21-08-05, 19:19
The simple answer: Yes, the victors can get away with crime.

E.g. WW2, the hlosersh; the German leaders were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, however, the droppings of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is also a crime against humanity, but the US leaders were never charged.

The Allies formally agreed in July 1945 to prosecute and punish the main war criminals. Some of the British leaders even uttered to just execute the worst war criminals, while most of the American leaders insisted on having courts.

The war trials were also about striking a sort of balance between justice and political expediency. Not always was it hjusticeh for some people. E.g. Hans Globke, who was in the Nazi Party, hgot offh after the war and became the highest ranking civil servant, which is just one of many examples with an outcome which was based on hpractical reasons.h
Anyway, it seemed as a matter of elementary justice, and at the same time a precondition of rebuilding a new Germany/Japan, that those responsible should answer for their crimes. However, the Nazi Party in Germany had counted 8 million members and it is impossible to punish them all, as many of them were needed in the new Germany.

Huntington once said: hProsecution is necessary in order to assert the supremacy of democratic values and norms and to encourage the public to believe in them.h

Mars Man
22-08-05, 01:23
That Erasmus system sounds good. And I don't know any details about the others except the ryuugaku system. But yes, I think it would be so great to get something like this going; but I would think it would have be everyone, not only students, and twice in a lifetime, not only in youth, perhaps.

Yes, Miss_apollo7, I'm with you on that, and we should never forget the Dresden bombings and a few others, as well.

No-name
22-08-05, 06:02
I guess I worded the question wrong: SHOULD the victors be charged with crimes? Or is having rules of warfare just some arbitrary niggling that makes us feel civilized- maybe warfare itself should be a crime?

lexico
22-08-05, 07:57
Hey WWII ended 60 years ago this month.

Recently I saw programs on Japan's nuclear program- not enough resources to build a bomb- but some pretty good brain power with some interesting progress.Off topic, but was there any mention of testing an a-bomb around Aug. 12, 1945 by the IJ Navy or Unit 731 Special Operations in
(1) Hungnam (Konan) Korea,
(2) Nagoya, Japan, or
(3) Xing'an, China (Gobi, or west Manchuria/Manchukuo) ?

On one thread we lashed at Japan's war crimes- and some tried to defend them or wish them away.Yes, and what becomes ever more interesting (i.e. genuinely revolting) is the US involvement in manipulating due legal process in the IMTFE trials. I strongly suspect the US has not revealed all pertinent information in the name of cold war/national interest.
On another we debate the A-bombs' morality. The US also targeted million of civillians with firebombing and stockpiled a million tons of mustard gas for the invasion of Japan.I can well imagine the kind and degree of embarassment that belies US apologetics; there are so many flaws at almost every step of arguement coming from the US that it resembles calling a kettle white by 1,000 repetitions.
Do [sic. > Should we let] the victors get away with war crimes ?No.
[Or] SHOULD the victors be charged with crimes ?Absolutely ! Law and Justice is meant to be universal; otherwise (quoting Socrtes) what good would it do to stay "alive" by sneaking out the back door (to evade the death sentence) ? What then would we teach the children ?
Or is having rules of warfare just some arbitrary niggling that makes us feel civilized-- maybe warfare itself should be a crime?Possibly; and the best solution might be not selectively punitive measures, or a 1/10 decimation, or even 9/10 decimation, but total anhilation of either side. Do I sound extreme ? Then don't go to war. ;-)
Sorry I did not offer a logical, detailed reasoning. I'm afraind I might have to come back to eat my words -- I'm too exhausted to go deep into this, and hope to fix some / a whole lot when I get back. Flame on forumers ! :blush:

Mycernius
22-08-05, 18:27
I guess I worded the question wrong: SHOULD the victors be charged with crimes? Or is having rules of warfare just some arbitrary niggling that makes us feel civilized- maybe warfare itself should be a crime?
I feel that they should, and in some cases they have, but whom is going to arrest George W. or Tony Blair, or Alexander Putin? They might all be guilty of various crime against humanity, but they are all powerful men with a lot of influence. It strikes me that at the present moment in history the only people that seem to be charged with crimes aginst humanity are those that have been ousted from their country and have been unable to flee to a country that will protect them. Either that or the country has no real value in the modern world as far as natural resources go. Zimbabwe for example.

Mars Man
24-08-05, 08:10
I feel that they should, and in some cases they have, but whom is going to arrest George W. or Tony Blair, or Alexander Putin? They might all be guilty of various crime against humanity, but they are all powerful men with a lot of influence. It strikes me that at the present moment in history the only people that seem to be charged with crimes aginst humanity are those that have been ousted from their country and have been unable to flee to a country that will protect them. Either that or the country has no real value in the modern world as far as natural resources go. Zimbabwe for example.

From the little I know, have come across/read/whatever, this seems to be so sadly true, in a lot of ways. Of course, there could be some hope for betterment, for improvement in the world, but perhaps not in our time by any means. Nature could take care of its greater self in its own way; a large sized astroid. . .naw....don't want to think about that again, Mars was enough. (please forgive my insistence on a smidge of humor here) :bluush:

smoke
25-08-05, 19:37
an excellent thread...thought provoking.

I feel comments have been made so i have little to add.
All i'll say is, are there really any victors in war?

Zauriel
01-06-06, 01:09
Of course, the victors get away with their war crimes. They are the ones who always write history.

No-name
01-06-06, 07:06
Currently there are Marines from Camp Pendleton on trial for war crimes. The US military has on occasion actually tried members of its forces for criminal acts during the conflict.

Nicolas Peucelle
18-12-09, 00:49
It was more easy for a winning army to NOT put on trial their own personel suspected of war crimes in the past... but with the increased presence of independant Press in battle zones and also elsewhere the pressure increased since 1945. Also the definition of a war crime was not always clear and even today interpretations of international conventions are still possible. Early convention was reached in La Haye ("Haager Landkriegsordnung") and before the "Geneva Convention" was a kind of scale for unruly behavior. It seems that even George Washington still acting as a british forces officer has comitted a kind of personal war crime by killing a french officer who showed up for a negotiation. I read that german forces regulary executed their own soldiers for crimes like "looting" and rape (When committed by service member during time of war are war crimes). Some SS-Soldiers of the Dirlewanger Unit have been sentenced to death by SS-Military Courts because of war crimes (attrocities) comitted during the ordered repression campaign against the Warsav uprising in 1944. (Polish National Forces).

Maciamo
18-12-09, 13:09
I read that german forces regulary executed their own soldiers for crimes like "looting" and rape (When committed by service member during time of war are war crimes). Some SS-Soldiers of the Dirlewanger Unit have been sentenced to death by SS-Military Courts because of war crimes (attrocities) comitted during the ordered repression campaign against the Warsav uprising in 1944. (Polish National Forces).

Napoleon also executed some of his own soldiers for looting and raping in Germany and Austria (and maybe in other places too, but I read about those).

Yorkie
27-10-10, 14:18
Moroccan 'Free French' troops committed rape on a horrendous scale at Monte Cassino. Until recently, I do not think the average non-Italian European had even heard of this barbarism by 'Allied' soldiers against Italian villagers. I believe that a few were executed for the crime, but in a sense the majority 'got away with it'.

Sirius2b
01-03-11, 01:26
Do the winners of wars get away with their crimes?


In the most apparent level, yes.

However, what we really know about what is fair, and what is unfair... and if they do not pay at other levels?

(Not implying necessarily the invocation or "God", "Afterlife" or something like that).

Bad is Bad... and there is always a "consequence", whether we see it or not, whether we undestand it or not...

Regards.

Angela
01-03-11, 21:02
Even the losers can get away with war crimes, so what hope is there for bringing victors to justice? Silence on Monte Sole is a wonderful English language book about the massacre of almost a thousand people(mostly women, children, and elderly men) in the Apennine mountains near Bologna.

It took forty years to bring a few of the officers to justice. One of them is filmed saying he doesn't regret a thing. So far as I know, the Italian fascist guides were never even identified. The majority of the butchers got off totally.

Or what about the atrocities that went on in China during the 1930's? How many Japanese soldiers even went on trial for Nanking?

It's the same all over the world.

I don't know if sometimes the victims are paralyzed and want to block it out, or if they are often powerless humble people, or if political considerations take over, but whatever it is, it is a disgrace.

Rastko Pocesta
08-03-11, 19:09
Let me be clear - Japanese military were among the worst savages history ever saw. They had the so called "comfort women" which they raped and tortured, their doctors were all quite comparable with Mengele, but no one ever tried anyone responsible for some of the cruelest and most brutal bombings ever! 50-90% of population of Japanese cities has been killed and complete cities were burnt. How did a beast, a monster like Curtis LeMay get away with of all this? Also, it's very hard to determine what is the total number of people whose death was (in)directly caused by Robert McNamara from Japan and Korea to Vietnam.

Wilhelm
08-03-11, 20:42
Yes. Take for example the communists, they comitted far more crimes than the Nazis, yet the later is seen as the bad one (which was) but the first is not seen as bad, even portrayed as cool (Soviet Union films, videogames and such.). Because the war was won by the USA and URSS, nothing more.

Reinaert
08-03-11, 21:47
Moroccan 'Free French' troops committed rape on a horrendous scale at Monte Cassino. Until recently, I do not think the average non-Italian European had even heard of this barbarism by 'Allied' soldiers against Italian villagers. I believe that a few were executed for the crime, but in a sense the majority 'got away with it'.

Well.. The English were there too.. And what did they do about it? Watch with their hands in their pockets?
Tell another fairy tale.

Reinaert
08-03-11, 21:53
Yes. Take for example the communists, they comitted far more crimes than the Nazis, yet the later is seen as the bad one (which was) but the first is not seen as bad, even portrayed as cool (Soviet Union films, videogames and such.). Because the war was won by the USA and URSS, nothing more.

The point is, the Nazi's planned their atrocities.
Their system was to kill people on purpose, based on an American "Eugenetics" theory.

And in Russia, the regime of Stalin was very hard.
But the man was paranoid, and that caused a lot of deaths on his account, but it wasn't in the communist system.

Wilhelm
08-03-11, 22:30
The point is, the Nazi's planned their atrocities.
Their system was to kill people on purpose, based on an American "Eugenetics" theory.

And in Russia, the regime of Stalin was very hard.
But the man was paranoid, and that caused a lot of deaths on his account, but it wasn't in the communist system.
The soviet crimes were also planned, and killed in purpose, yes. Same in the China of Mao. It was all calculated from offices. And the soviets had more concentration camps than the Third Reich. No excuses, crimes are crimes.

Reinaert
08-03-11, 23:19
The soviet crimes were also planned, and killed in purpose, yes. Same in the China of Mao. It was all calculated from offices. And the soviets had more concentration camps than the Third Reich. No excuses, crimes are crimes.

You seem to be a right wing provocateur.
The Nazi's were more bloody than the communists ever were.
I agree the communist regimes of Stalin and Mao were stupid.
But not on purpose.
They just had to start all over again. After a total breakdown of their civilization, caused by foreign influence.

The Russian Empire was exploiting farmers and workers in a feudal system until the Russian revolution.
The Chinese Empire was abused by many western tradesmen and governments.
The west didn't have gold to buy Chinese goods anymore, so the British, the French, the Americans, and other westerners invented the Opium trade to get their materials from China.
That was the main reason for the BOXER revolt, and it lead directly into the founding of a communist China.

And China is still supported by western capitalist GREED.

The difference is, the Chinese don't do drugs anymore. :innocent:

Melusine
08-03-11, 23:55
Re: "The difference is that the Chinese don't do drugs anymore!

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/asia/china/

It is estimated that there are between 3-7 million drug user in China as we "chat".

Re: Greed

Greed is a human condition not limited to Western capitalists. What does one think brought Mubarak and his sychophants down, and all the greedy rulers in our total human past and more to come from all points of the compass?

Melusine

Wilhelm
09-03-11, 00:11
You seem to be a right wing provocateur.
The Nazi's were more bloody than the communists ever were.
No. Communism has killed more 100 million people, that's far more than Nazism. Not to mention Fascist Italy, which killed very few people, less people than some current countries, like the USA. Im just stating facts, not emotions.


I agree the communist regimes of Stalin and Mao were stupid.
But not on purpose.
Not on purpse ? Really ? They killed intententionally and sistematically more than 100 million people, but not on purpose ? Do you realize how stupid is what you are saying.

Reinaert
09-03-11, 00:11
Re: "The difference is that the Chinese don't do drugs anymore!

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/asia/china/

It is estimated that there are between 3-7 million drug user in China as we "chat".

Re: Greed

Greed is a human condition not limited to Western capitalists. What does one think brought Mubarak and his sychophants down, and all the greedy rulers in our total human past and more to come from all points of the compass?

Melusine

Haha,, You don't believe this shit about China, do you!
Just try to get drugs into China, and they get you facing a firing squad.
Another American Hooha propaganda twit.

Reinaert
09-03-11, 00:15
No. Communism has killed more 100 million people, that's far more than Nazism. Not to mention Fascist Italy, which killed very few people, less people than some current countries, like the USA. Im just stating facts, not emotions.


Not on purpse ? Really ? They killed intententionally and sistematically more than 100 million people, but not on purpose ? Do you realize how stupid is what you are saying.

It proves what for a real ass you are.

And you can't even spell English properly.

No, I already told the communist rules were stupid.
They caused a massive hunger.
Sigh.. Read some books about it.
Before you enter a European forum.
You're so pathetic.

sparkey
09-03-11, 00:31
The point is, the Nazi's planned their atrocities.
Their system was to kill people on purpose, based on an American "Eugenetics" theory.

Nitpicking because I'm not sure I want to join this lively debate: eugenics cannot said to be an American invention. Modern eugenics was systematized based on (a misunderstanding of) Darwinian evolution by Francis Galton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton), who was English. Before that, even Plato espoused a form of it, which he hoped would be implemented via controlled marriages. It's true that America led the way with compulsory sterilization in particular, however, they were not the only ones to do it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Wir_stehen_nicht_allein.jpg), and the Nazis took it farther. American eugenicist Joseph DeJarnette commented in 1934: "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

Melusine
09-03-11, 01:45
Did anyone notice on my previous post on Drugs in China that the"Greedy Dutch" introduced smoking opium with a pipe. ?

More on China drug use:

URL (Sina)
http://www.china.org.en/english/China/86705.htm


and from the BBC

http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/778357.stm

Note: before "trashing" fellow /lady posters "do a little research to back up your hateful claims.

Melusine

Rastko Pocesta
09-03-11, 15:17
Yes. Take for example the communists, they comitted far more crimes than the Nazis, yet the later is seen as the bad one (which was) but the first is not seen as bad, even portrayed as cool (Soviet Union films, videogames and such.). Because the war was won by the USA and URSS, nothing more.

Bullshit. There was a mass rape and Soviets collaborated with Nazis from 1939 to 1941, but it's factually incorrect that Soviets were "far worse" then Nazis. And yes, Stalin was not a communist, but a typical anti-semitic nazi. Later soviet leaders were of authoritarian left, just as was Lenin.

Reinaert
10-03-11, 19:59
Did anyone notice on my previous post on Drugs in China that the"Greedy Dutch" introduced smoking opium with a pipe. ?

More on China drug use:

URL (Sina)
http://www.china.org.en/english/China/86705.htm


and from the BBC

http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/778357.stm

Note: before "trashing" fellow /lady posters "do a little research to back up your hateful claims.

Melusine

Haha... Chinese link doesn't work.
And the BBC link doesn't say anything about drug history in China.

The English were the first to use opium to addict Chinese.
And like always, the English blame the Dutch for what they did themselves.

The English, French, Americans, and later on the Germans had influence, traders and even military personnel in China. The Dutch weren't even there!

The only thing the Dutch did was send their ships to China for trade.
They didn't have the channels to sell opium.

Hus
18-03-11, 23:47
We all know of the Axis War crimes - the Nazi Death/labour camps and the Japanese camps; etc, plus the thousands of smaller, sproradic and random atrociries committed against civilian and serviceman/woman alike, but which Allied actions were war crimes?

The carpet bombing of Germany by the RAF and the USAAF?
The carpet bombings and later the Atomic/Plutonium bombs on Japan?

Soviet
Mass rape and other war crimes by Soviet troops during the occupation of East Prussia (Danzig), parts of Pomerania and Silesia; during the Battle of Berlin, and the Battle of Budapest.

Canadians
Leonforte, July 1943. According to Mitcham and von Stauffenberg in The Battle of Sicily, The Loyal Edmonton Regiment killed captured German prisoners. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada randomly burned houses in Friesoythe, northwestern Germany in April 1945.

British
The German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich, claims that "Winston Churchill's decision to bomb Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime." The historian Donald Bloxham states that "The bombing of Dresden on 13-14 February 1945 was a war crime".
He further argues that there was a strong prima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case that he could have been found guilty.
"This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."
The subject of British involvement in war crimes during the campaign in North West Europe, between D Day and VE Day, was covered by historian Sean Longden in a chapter entitled 'Rage Revenge and Retribution' in his book 'To the Victor the Spoils'.

American
Canicattì slaughter: killing of Italian civilians by US army Lieutenant Colonel McCaffrey. A confidential inquiry was made, but McCaffrey was never charged with an offence relating to the incident. He died in 1954. This incident remained virtually unknown until Joseph S. Salemi of New York University, whose father witnessed it, publicised it.
# The Dachau massacre: killing of German prisoners of war and surrendering SS soldiers
# In the Biscari massacre, which consist of two instances of mass murders, U.S. troops of the 45th Infantry Division killed roughly 75 prisoners of war, mostly Italian.
# Richard Dominic Wiggers asserts that not only did American food policy in post-war Germany violate international law by directly and indirectly causing the unnecessary suffering and death, from starvation, of large numbers of civilians and POWs in occupied Germany. The adequate feeding of the German population in occupied Germany was an Allied legal obligation, under international law (Article 43 of The 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare).

Rape
It has been claimed that some US soldiers raped Okinawan women during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. While the number of rapes committed by US troops is not known, historian Peter Schrijvers states that an Okinawan historian[who?] has estimated that the number may have exceeded 10,000. There were 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of the Kanagawa prefecture.

"When US paratroopers landed in Sapporo, an orgy of looting, sexual violence and drunken brawling ensued. Gang rapes and other sex atrocities were not infrequent." Some of the rape victims committed suicide.
"A former prostitute recalled that as soon as Australian troops arrived in Kure in early 1946, they 'dragged young women into their jeeps, took them to the mountain, and then raped them. I heard them screaming for help nearly every night'."
The Allied occupation forces suppressed news of its criminal activities, on September 10 1945 SCAP "issued press and pre-censorship codes outlawing the publication of all reports and statistics 'inimical to the objectives of the Occupation'."

Allan Clifton, an Australian officer of the BCOF who acted as interpreter and criminal investigator wrote:
"I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. the hospital was in Hiroshima. the girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians.
The Moaning and wailing had ceased and she was quiet now. The tortured tension on her face had slipped away, and the soft brown skin was smooth and unwrinkled, stained with tears like the face of a child that has cried herself to sleep."

As to Australian justice he writes regarding another rape that was witnessed by a party of cardplayers:
"At the court martial that followed, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to ten years penal servitude. In accordance with army law the courts decision was forwarded to Australia for confirmation. Some time later the documents were returned marked 'Conviction quashed because of insufficient evidence'."

In 1998 the remains of three US Marines stationed on Okinawa were discovered outside of a local village. Accounts from elderly Okinawans verify that the men had made frequent trips to the village to rape the women that lived there but were ambushed and killed by men from the village on one of their return trips. According to the same article, published in 2000,
"rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war."

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.

Grim, but do the horrors suffered by the civilians and troops by the Japanese and Nazis across the globe justify the anger and hatred borne by the allied lads?

Bodin
30-08-11, 10:40
The point is, the Nazi's planned their atrocities.
Their system was to kill people on purpose, based on an American "Eugenetics" theory.

And in Russia, the regime of Stalin was very hard.
But the man was paranoid, and that caused a lot of deaths on his account, but it wasn't in the communist system.
Yes it was comunist sistem , in base of comunist sistem was killing and robing every richer man and anyone that oposed them , thats what they done during every revolution - Russia ( remember Tzar and his family ) , China , Hungary , Bulgaria , Yugoslavia , Albania , Cambogia ,...
Comunism is based on revolution- violence and it is crime by itself .
Lenin sistem killed lot of peoples , and Stalin killed more Russians than a Hitler. You never lived in comunistic country so you dont know what you are talking about .

Bodin
30-08-11, 10:51
Winers never face consequences of they war crimes , remember Russian and American crimes in Germany ( Dresden bombing , rapings and killings in Prussia , Ukraine and Finland,... ) , Americans crimes agains Native - Americans - they killed almoust all of them ( remember South America where sistem was hard and full of crimes , but they show more mercy then USA) , british crimes against Indians , Germans crimes in German Africa ( nobody blaimed them for that ) , nobody ( not even Stallin ) used atomic bomb except USA which make it most criminal country in world ( speacking about democratie ), what about crimes in Iraq and Afganistan for which no one will respond. So long live hipocracy. Only one that win with sword can take pen and write down history , and that is all that future generations will know unless we change it

ultralars
19-09-11, 13:06
After the second world war ended, the allies force starved 8 millions germans and took away it's means to feed itself and have a stable economy. It might not count as a war crime, as it was not during the the war, but it's still the victor of a war doing crimes on the looser, and not mentioning it in history books.

LeBrok
19-09-11, 19:01
Hi ultralars, never heard about forced starvation of Germans. I'm assuming, that by forced you meant, it was planed and executed, and not coincidental. Can you link us with something credible.
If it comes to German starvation, I remember documentaries about Americans feeding West-Berliners.

Reinaert
19-09-11, 21:56
I think ultralars seems to mean WW ONE.
That was from 1914-1918.

ultralars
20-09-11, 21:42
Hi ultralars, never heard about forced starvation of Germans. I'm assuming, that by forced you meant, it was planed and executed, and not coincidental. Can you link us with something credible.
If it comes to German starvation, I remember documentaries about Americans feeding West-Berliners.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/bacque_1.htm

Read up on " the morgentau plan "

Xander
08-12-11, 22:46
History is written by the winners.
If Nazi had won, we would have probably had a trial for Stalin(if he was still alive) or Bomber Harris, yet this doesn't mean Allied Crimes(including all countrless soviet atrocities) have to be forgotten, indeed, they should be remembered.

Raiden
12-12-11, 23:05
Yep. Winners are the ones who write history. Why would they hold themselves accountable?

Franco
17-12-11, 17:27
It proves what for a real ass you are.

And you can't even spell English properly.

No, I already told the communist rules were stupid.
They caused a massive hunger.
Sigh.. Read some books about it.
Before you enter a European forum.
You're so pathetic.

If he is so wrong why do you have to use fallacies like calling him ***** and refering to his bad spelling? Stalin was a big murderer, no doubt. But like every winner after a war his crimes are relativised. Had Hitler won the war he would be considred at least far more bening and not a modern version of Dracula like nowadays. The Holodomor is recognised as a planified famine by USA and many European countries like Spain. So it's not a provocative point of view at all, maybe just for rampant leftists who don't accept facts. I don't know if Stalin was worse or not worse than Hitler, but I would put him in the very same league along with other blood-thirsty communist dictators like Pol-Pot and Mao. I hope my bad spelling is not an impediment to express my thoughts. LOL.