War crimes and criminals

[95th Rifleman]

The recent arrest of Ratko Mladic and the assassination of Bin laden have got me thinking. War is hell and every side is guilty of war crimes, it would be unavoidable in a war the scale of the twilight conflict. It can be even argued that using WMDs like nuclear weapons is in itself a crime.

Ok, fast forward to post exchange, things are starting to get organised, countries have moved from the "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" stage and have established industry and legitimacy. Would there be an interest in hunting down war criminals/ If so, who would do it and why? Would it be purely political, for the pursuit of justice or motivated by vengeance?

I'm always looking for new angles to base T2K games and this strikes me as an interesting one, setting up a game where the PCs are hunting a known war criminal.

[Legbreaker]

I'm always looking for new angles to base T2K games and this strikes me as an interesting one, setting up a game where the PCs are hunting a known war criminal.

Or the hunted.....

Yes, given a few years (minimum) of recovery, there would be some effort made to find and punish war criminals. However, it's likely to be a lot harder than post WWII due to the extreme level of destruction.

Overal, this sounds like a good Merc concept.

[Targan]

I'll have to email the player of Major Po and get him to contribute to this thread. His character was an expert in the application of war crimes. Even more than just being a hobby, almost a semi-professional war criminal :sagrin:

Comes to think of it General Pain would have extensive experience in this area too.

[Raellus]

Yes, given a few years (minimum) of recovery, there would be some effort made to find and punish war criminals. However, it's likely to be a lot harder than post WWII due to the extreme level of destruction.

Maybe not. Some countries have decided that pursuing and prosecuting war criminals will only lead to more instability and increase the potential for renewed bloodshed. Liberia, is the example that springs to mind. Certain murderous commanders on all sides of the '90s and early '00s conflict where pretty much granted amnesty. It's not uncommon for a former fighter/rapist to be recognized by one of his victims on the street.

After the widespread breakdown of central authority/civilization in Europe during the Twilight War, the line between legitimate combatant and war criminal would be rather blurred. As many have pointed out, one man's marauder is another man's freedom fighter. Just look at the pro-Mladic riots that have occured in Serbia since the arrest and deportation of a man most Europeans consider a war criminal (for the record, so do I). This is 15 years after a regional war. The Twilight War would dwarf the Yugoslav wars in scope, scale, and brutality. Identifying and labelling war criminals after such a war could rouse a lot of demons that many people might just want to forget completely about. I think the last thing many European nations would want to do is reopen old wounds or fracture tenuous political alliances. I'm not sure going after war criminals would be such a good idea for a continent just emerging from amounted to a second feudal period. There's no Marshall Plan on the way either to help stabilize things. In the interest of national reconciliation, pardons or blanket amnesties might be the norm. I think only the most notorious, violent, equal opportunity marauder captains would be fair game for labelling and prosecution as "war criminals". Some local commander who might have gotten overzealous on an anti-marauder sweep would likely be forgiven if he seemed contrite enough. Some partisan leader or feudal militia captain who killed captured gov. troops would likely get a pass as well. This might seem really cynical, but I'm just not sure Europeans 10-25 years after the TW would be invested in war crimes prosecutions. Hell, I bet a lot of survivors who fought in some army, militia, warband, etc. would have some moments that they wouldn't be proud to recount in public.

Politically speaking, who are the bad guys that need to be punished? There are no Nazi aggressors. Is the German military taken to task? How about the Soviets or the Americans? Didn't they both unleash weapons of mass destruction all across Europe and other parts of the world? What about the company commander that ordered a village wiped out for aiding and abedding enemy forces? Where do you start and where do you end. The scale of the crimes against humanity in the TW is truly massive. I'm not sure how much documentation would have been kept/survived the nuclear exchanges and the breakdown of civilization that followed. For that matter, how many eye-witnesses to attrocities would have survived and/or be willing to come forward?

I think a lot of people would jbe willing to say "let's try to forget about what happened and just move forward".

[Targan]

Its rare, after a war, for soldiers on the winning side to be tried for war crimes. Just sayin'.

[Legbreaker]

The problem with T2K compared to other wars is that there is no winner writing the history. All sides involved will have scores to settle in the years afterward.
As for living and letting live, even today there are nazi hunters seeking out and bringing to trial WWII war criminals, even though the vast majority would have to have died of old age by now.

The efforts to catch, try and punish war criminals may not be made by the international community as a whole, but it will happen. It could be carried out by a coallition of countries, a single country, an organisation or even individuals. As long as somebody can remember being wronged, retribution will be sought.

[Raellus]

Its rare, after a war, for soldiers on the winning side to be tried for war crimes. Just sayin'.

Exactly. I was going to come back and make this point but you beat me to it.

In the TW, there's really no clear-cut winner or loser. Usually, the winners dictate the terms, decide what war crimes are, and determine who should be prosecuted as such.

How are Poles going to get their hands on German, or Soviet/Russian, or American "war criminals"? They're not. I don't see any scenarios where exchanges/extraditions would be made. Each country pretty much looks after its own. I can see local attempts made to prosecute "local", native war criminals but I don't see any Nuremberg Trials or Hague tribunals after the Twilight War.

[Legbreaker]

So how is it that the Israeli's have managed to get their hands on some many over the decades?
It may not be easy, or guilt even all that clear cut, but there will still be somebody doing the chasing.

[Targan]

So how is it that the Israeli's have managed to get their hands on some many over the decades?

That's easy. In many cases they ignore international law and the laws of other countries and just do as they like.

Before anyone gets on their high horse I'm no anti-semite. I'm highly critical of the policies of the Israeli government but I have absolutely no issue with the Jewish people.

[Raellus]

So how is it that the Israeli's have managed to get their hands on some many over the decades?
It may not be easy, or guilt even all that clear cut, but there will still be somebody doing the chasing.

That's a good point. There might be small-scale prosecutions, post-TW. But it's not quite the same thing. What's Argentina going to do if a couple of Mossad agents kidnap a former Nazi living incognito in Buenos Aires? They can complain, but that's about it. Is Germany going to complain? Not likely.

Now imagine what would happen if some post-TW Poles somehow captured a Russian or German living in his home country? The repercussions could be severe. I'm not sure the risks would be worth it. Such actions would likely increase tension and could lead to renewed hostilities. Preserving peace and stability might trump pursuing/punishing war criminals.

Perhaps the countries of Europe would get together and work something out but, really, when has that sort of thing ever worked (well)?

[Legbreaker]

Repercussions be damned - at least that's the way many people may be thinking. Just look at how many loonies there are out there in everyday society protesting against this or that and happy to be arrested for it. Look at the people who like to disrupt WTO meetings for example - their actions may have servious impact on global relations, but that doesn't stop them from being a pain in the posterior.
While ever there are people who believe somebody has been or is being wronged, there will be people willing to do whatever it takes, rightly or wrongly and damn the political fallout!

[Raellus]

Yeah, but look at how reluctant everyone in Europe was to stand up to Hitler until '39. Why? No one wanted another world war. Appeasement was the product of war weariness resulting from the human, material, and financial costs of the "Great War". It traumatized the hell out of Europe and no one wanted to rock the boat for two decades after it ended. Imagine how traumatized people/nations would be by the Twilight War/WWIII.

Yes, there are individual citizens and small groups of radicals who just won't give a toss about that sort of thing. They might take matters into their own hands and you may see some vigilantism (or terrorism) related to wreaking vengeance on war criminals. But I really don't think you'd see governments pursuing war crimes prosecutions with much fervor.

[Legbreaker]

It really depends on which way the political wind is blowing and who's going to gain the most out of it. France for example may be willing to pursue some who came into contact with their citizens either on the Rhine, or when somebody was caught nosing about where they shouldn't have been - who's going to want to argue with what is the post WWWIII superpower?

Twenty five years later the political landscape may be completely different with a big general push to find any potential criminals. It may even be the government of the day bringing their own citizens to trial if it's in their political interests.

[Targan]

T:2300 shows that, like WWI, the Twilight War completely failed to be The War to End All Wars. Admittedly large-scale hostilities between the major powers fizzled out after 2001 (and I don't have the 2300 books here at work with me to check) but there were some really nasty regional wars in the century after the Twilight War ended. I recall that South America had its own really vicious series of wars.

And then things really kicked off all over again once the Stutterwarp faster-than-light drive was invented - a rare element called tantalum was a key requirement of the Stutterwarp drive and many countries went to war over the very finite deposits on earth. In the medium term those countries which had access to tantalum became major space faring powers while those without had to either ally themselves to those that did or resign themselves to being terrestrial nobodies (I say medium term because in the longer term terrestrial tantalum deposits became irrelevent in the face of the vast resources available in space).

In the CONUS MilGov and CivGov finally reunited in 2020. I suspect they would not have sought to prosecute one another's war criminals, in the spirit of detente and reconciliation (and political expediency of course). I'm sure however that any New America notables in custody would have been mercilessly punished.

[Mohoender]

IMO, after the Twilight war nobody would be prosecuted for war crimes as there is no winning side and as it would be more than complicated to find clear charges. Moreover, how could you charge your former ennemy for war crimes when you commited exactly the same crime? The use of nukes to the level of T2K is a war crime in itself. I would love to see the result of a war crime case where a government (which had dropped several Mt of nukes on others) would accuse one of, for exemple, privateeering or piracy.

Recall the case of the Admiral Donitz which was not found guilty because of his decision concerning submarine warfare as the USA had conducted the same kind of dirty war with their own submarines.

However, I would think that people could be charged with "crime against humanity" as Ratko Mladic is. Mass murder of civilians is a much better case. I can perfectly see a renewed US governement prosecuting former members of New America as it will add to their legitimacy. It will also be needed to avoid further chaos as you'll find criminal hunters such as Simon Wiesenthal. If they can't bring these people to court, this will quickly turn to bloodshed and cold revenge.

[headquarters]

The recent arrest of Ratko Mladic and the assassination of Bin laden have got me thinking. War is hell and every side is guilty of war crimes, it would be unavoidable in a war the scale of the twilight conflict. It can be even argued that using WMDs like nuclear weapons is in itself a crime.

Of course it is. Nukes against civilian population centers are cold blooded war crimes of the worst sort. ( I f they are to try Ratko Mladic for orchestrating the siege of Sarajevo where thousands perished from sniper fire, artllery and starvation but at the same time would let him of if he used a tactical nuclear weapon against it...)

In my humble opinion the hunt for war criminals would depend largely on how these individuals were affiliated with existing powerbases. Look at Ratko MNladic for instance - he is a hero to the nationalists in Serbia and they are a group to be reckoned with politically there. ( Or have been depending on how you see it). Its a poorly hidden secret that the secret services in Serbia knew his whereabouts and could have gotten him years ago.

Much the same in T2K I believe. The Russians are not going to give up " The Hero of Kaliscz" - or "The Butcher of Kaliscz" as Nato affiliates call him. And Vice Versa. But take countries that have had occupation and civil war - the winning faction would be out for blood and tracking down its adversaries on the pretext of war crimes - or actual charges - and individuals with a grievance would probably be looking high and low for the ones believed culpable to deliever some justice.

[headquarters]

I'll have to email the player of Major Po and get him to contribute to this thread. His character was an expert in the application of war crimes. Even more than just being a hobby, almost a semi-professional war criminal :sagrin:

Comes to think of it General Pain would have extensive experience in this area too.

Kind of an ethical conundrum for the GM - the pålayer who engages in ..war crimes..(WTF??)

General Pain certainly doled out his share before buying the ticket a few sessions back.- ( And thus cheating the GMs already made up MilGov Warcrimes tribunal of a lengthy and juicy trial with many implications..that would have been a good session though - the trial of General Pain. Probably would have ended in a court room shooting though - General Pain didnt have a lot of faith in legal process ;) )

[Rockwolf66]

I could totally see something like the warcrime in the prologue of Tom Kratman's "Countdown: The Liberators" happening in some parts of the TW2K world.

Basically a US Special Forces Officer leading a local warlord group finds out that a local tribe has kidnapped several americans and are going to torture and murder then. In responce he has the warlord group under his control capture the enemy tribes home village and after torturing the information out of the locals finds that the american's were burned alive. He then asks the warlord under his control to kill every male in the village and sell the women into slavery. As there are no witnesses insted of being charged with warcrimes he's discharged.

[Rainbow Six]

Personally I rather doubt there would be many post War prosecutions in a properly appointed court of law, for a number of reasons, many of which have already been put forward. Whilst I think the most pertinent one is that the War has no clear winner, to get a proper prosecution one would need evidence, witnesses, etc. Unlike the Balkan Wars (for example) every move both sides make is not going to be covered by 24 Hour news media after November 1997, so atrocities are not going to be recorded on film (covertly or otherwise). People will move around, disappear, die, etc, etc. So even if a Government had the will to do so I just don't see there being the capability for some time to have "proper" prosecutions.

Vigilante justice and kangaroo courts are, of course, a completely different matter altogether. Might Governments send out "snatch squads" to kidnap suspected war criminals and bring them in front of some sort of military tribunal that would administer swift and summary justice without regard for the rule of Law? I think there would be occasions where they probably would, (and I think this would be an excellent scenario for a campaign).

[95th Rifleman]

I know Israel is a bit of a touchy subject (I for one can not stand how they treat palestinians) but I have to say i always rspected how they went about going after war criminals.

This may be the way things go, individual governments operating black-op snatch squads to get the worst offenders.

Reading through the responses I have to (sadly) agree that allot would come down to a case of "Don't go after General smithski and we won't go after general smith" as every naion will have blood on their hands. I can see marauder leaders ending up as political scape goats to save political face.

[Mohoender]

I can see marauder leaders ending up as political scape goats to save political face.

Or politicians to justify/reinforce a certain level of legitimacy to the marauder leaders who just took over their places.;)

[MajorPo]

Ah war crimes, is there really such a thing? Some truly shocking and disturbing things happen in armed conflict, most notably the killing of people. We may like to think that there is a noble purpose to war and it can somehow be fought like a gentlemen's agreement.

I think this 'pretended civility' collectively makes a society feel better about sending out it's armed citizens to murder groups of armed citizen of another society. We like to call these groups armies and dress them all the same so we don't have to think of them as people.

Once the war is done and we have no more distractions, we sit back and think about what happened, and find fault with the way our enemy played their part. If they didn't follow our 'moral code' (whether or not it was the same as their own) we call them criminals and if we are the victors and in a place to do anything about it, we prosecute them. This again supports our sense of moral superiority and makes us collectively feel better about all the murder and destruction commited by our own citizens.

Basically I think war crimes are all a load of self-serving nonsense. War is about the application of lethal force to ensure victory. I don't believe there is anything worse you can do to a person than kill them, so whether you torture them to death or shoot them in the head it all means the same thing in the end. Is there really a 'good' death, I'd say no.

[95th Rifleman]

Ah war crimes, is there really such a thing? Some truly shocking and disturbing things happen in armed conflict, most notably the killing of people. We may like to think that there is a noble purpose to war and it can somehow be fought like a gentlemen's agreement.

I think this 'pretended civility' collectively makes a society feel better about sending out it's armed citizens to murder groups of armed citizen of another society. We like to call these groups armies and dress them all the same so we don't have to think of them as people.

Once the war is done and we have no more distractions, we sit back and think about what happened, and find fault with the way our enemy played their part. If they didn't follow our 'moral code' (whether or not it was the same as their own) we call them criminals and if we are the victors and in a place to do anything about it, we prosecute them. This again supports our sense of moral superiority and makes us collectively feel better about all the murder and destruction commited by our own citizens.

Basically I think war crimes are all a load of self-serving nonsense. War is about the application of lethal force to ensure victory. I don't believe there is anything worse you can do to a person than kill them, so whether you torture them to death or shoot them in the head it all means the same thing in the end. Is there really a 'good' death, I'd say no.

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent.

I'm always struck by the hypocrisy of the Nuremburg trials. Many people who study the second world war and who are British, Australian or new Zealander share a sense of disgust as we happily hanged the Nazis but let the japanese war criminals make deals with America to get out of how they treated our POWs.

The biggest issue, as stated, is the lack of a clear winner. My own nation, Britain, has a long and distinguished history of glory, honour and good conduct in war. We have this reputaion because we tend to win and kill any poor bastard that disagrees with us. We pioneered biological warfare in the 18the century French and Indian wars, we invented concentration camps in the Boer war and we developed a taste for rape and pillaging during the Indian mutiny which was quietly ignored.

America is another good example. The American government has always made much of the moral highground, claiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy. yet they have conveniantly opted out of any international agreements that would subject American soldiers to international war crimes tribunals. American war crimes are well documented in Vietnam and there was a case of US marines raping a civilian in iraq and calling in an airstrike to try and cover the crime.

The simple fact is you can not ask a human being to throw away every thing he has been taught from childhood regarding violence and killing and expect him to only kill the people you want him to.

[Caradhras]

I have to agree with MajorPo. The way nations try to formalise mass killing and make it seem like a civilised act with War, then have trials of officers of the losing side. It is kind of ridiculous.

Which part of taking a life is ok and which is a crime? Reasonable force? Because they started it? Of course it is a knotty problem but I do feel it is very conveniently used to paint good guys and bad guys.

It is similar to something I hear that winds me up - when people say 'That War wasnt legal' WTH? When was it ever 'legal' to go to War? Because a group of countries say it is ok, so it is?

I will stop now before I rant more :)

[dragoon500ly]

Of course it is. Nukes against civilian population centers are cold blooded war crimes of the worst sort.


Now I do not want to start a flame war, I am simply intrested in other peoples take on this.

On one hand, I agree with that nuking civilian population centers, would certainly count as a cold blooded war crime, on the other hand, only one nation has used nukes in a war.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka were horrific, and certainly are, in modern times, at best questionable actions. But at the time, the twin bombings were considered to have been the key to convincing the Japanese to finally sue for peace.

Now, the US was preparing for the massive invasions of Japan and were adjusting to the new methods of fighting that Japan had demonstrated on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Of special concern was the large numbers of combatants that Japan had in the southern islands, the program of intensive fortifications, the large number of kamikazes ready for the invasion force and Magic intercepts where the Japanese were talking about shifting the kamikaze attacks from warships and on to the transports. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were concerned about the heavy losses that the military would be facing. Its of intrest that the JCS briefs from that period do not make any claim of "Millions of Allied losses" (this is a post war claim that used to excuse the bombings), they simply estimated losses, based on the two most recent campaigns as being in the vinicity of 600,000 total (dead, wounded and missing). Japanese losses were estimated to range up to over one million (again, dead, wound and missing and including estimated civilian losses).

It is against this backdrop of the Japanese willingness to fight to the last soldier, of their new tactics of multiple, deeply dug-in positions and the horrors suffered by the Navy by the kamikaze attacks that Truman made his decision.

So, the question is, was President Truman a war criminal? Or did he make the hardest decision that any nation's leader ever had to face?

[Fusilier]

So, the question is, was President Truman a war criminal? Or did he make the hardest decision that any nation's leader ever had to face?

I would answer 'yes' and 'yes'. I agree it probably saved many lives and shortened the war, but it doesn't negate the fact that it still constituted a war crime by definition. I believe that one doesn't necessarily cancel out the other, as it were.

I recommend 2003 documentary "Fog of War", with Macnamara discussing the use of the atomic bombs...

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

[Raellus]

The Allies' strategic bombing campaign against Axis cities was, by definition, terrorism. Between Germany and Japan, nearly a million civilians were killed and many more wounded or displaced. Yet, since the Allies won the war, no Allied political or military leader was taken to task for ordering cities to be levelled.


As for the "there's no such things as crimes in war" argument, I don't buy it at all. That's the worst kind of moral relativism. There is such thing as fair play. Wantonly massacring civilians, shooting unarmed prisoners who've already surrendered, or rape are simply not acceptable or necessary behaviors, even in the organized insanity that we call war. Resorting to such amoral, unethical behaviors lowers human beings beneath wild animals. Shrugging and saying "c'est le guerre" doesn't justify, in any way, torture, murder, rape, etc. True, war offers the psychopath a much less restrained environment in which to conduct his/her pyschopathic behaviors, but does that make those behaviors acceptable? Most of the civilized world would argue that it does not.

[Mahatatain]

The Allies' strategic bombing campaign against Axis cities was, by definition, terrorism. Between Germany and Japan, nearly a million civilians were killed and many more wounded or displaced. Yet, since the Allies won the war, no Allied political or military leader was taken to task for ordering cities to be levelled.

There was a lot of controversy when a statue to "Bomber" Harris was erected in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris#Postwar

[dragoon500ly]

And this is the crux of the arguement for the two bombings. We consider such an action, today, to be a such a horrendous action that it constitutes a war crime.

But at the time, it was considered the decisive blow that forced Japan to realize that it faced utter destruction. It gave the peace party and the emperor the leverage needed to surrender.

I've been able to listen to various living history tapes made by veterans of the Pacific War. In the over one thousand tapes that I've heard, not one single soldier, sailor, marine or airman has ever condemned the nuclear bombings, the most common sentiment is that it ended the war and allowed them to return to their lives.

In studying military history, one of the maxims is that to acheive victory, it is first necessary to destroy the enemies will and means to resist.

So is it a war crime to use every means at your disposal to destroy the enemies will to fight?

And just where do you draw the line. No Nukes? No Chems? No Bios? No shooting the enemy soldier with rounds that inflict undue suffering?

[Raellus]

So is it a war crime to use every means at your disposal to destroy the enemies will to fight?


If it means deliberately targetting civilians, then yes.

The bombing of German cities, if anything, only increased the German military's will to resist. It didn't prompt a single popular uprisings against the regime. One could easily argue that the terror bombing of Axis cities was a costly failure as it did not break their will to fight. It resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and bomber crew casualties were staggering as well.

[Fusilier]

I've been able to listen to various living history tapes made by veterans of the Pacific War. In the over one thousand tapes that I've heard, not one single soldier, sailor, marine or airman has ever condemned the nuclear bombings, the most common sentiment is that it ended the war and allowed them to return to their lives.

Morality isn't a popularity contest based on a select population.

So is it a war crime to use every means at your disposal to destroy the enemies will to fight?

Yes, if it means directly targeting non-combatant civilians. That's why Mladic is going to trial and Bin Laden was targetted... both tried using every means.

And just where do you draw the line. No Nukes? No Chems? No Bios? No shooting the enemy soldier with rounds that inflict undue suffering?

Sure. And also throw in the use of landmines too.

[pmulcahy11b]

The atomic bombing of Japan was for pure shock value. And yes, one could define it as terrorism. But the firebombing and conventional bombing campaign wasn't getting it done, it was just getting the Japanese more eager to repel the then-coming Allied invasion. Until the atomic bombings, the Japanese were going to fight until the last life.

The atomic bombings were a horrible thing, no question. But they stopped the need for an invasion of Japan, which would have caused a million or more casualties -- on the Japanese side, mostly deaths. It was a horrible act to stop a far more horrible act.

[Adm.Lee]

Ok, fast forward to post exchange, things are starting to get organised, countries have moved from the "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" stage and have established industry and legitimacy. Would there be an interest in hunting down war criminals/ If so, who would do it and why? Would it be purely political, for the pursuit of justice or motivated by vengeance?


Well, IMO, it's all going to come down to situations. IMO, you're looking at one or two instances: the ICC has been reconstituted as an element of the restoration of the rule of law (most likely with French backing, with the obvious goal of enhancing French influence across the Continent); or it's another nation or sub-national group, operating outside that framework of international law. The latter case is more likely, and will most likely resemble 'frontier justice.'

[headquarters]

While certainly see some of the points made here ( I could go one up and say that in the future -hopefully - war it self will be judged as organized crime ) , I have to refer to the present or any gaming timeline built upon the present - meaning :

The rule of law is never an absolute in any circumstance. While in peace time in a country with due legal process and a fairly non corrupted police force, you can hope to approach justice and fairness, but it is far from ensured. The impact of laws and what society do to uphold them is more of a moderator on crime than an efficient cure. In war time its plain for all to see that the rule of law is weak and almost non existent - its hardly a moderator at all. But it is present .And it does protect some - some victims that would otherwise perish in war crimes, and even some perpetrators that are reigned in by the nagging sensation that this isnt right -or that they wont get away with it. ( A bit philosophical that one - protecting a warcriminals humanity from himself..)

I for one see a huge difference in torturing a man to death instead of a quick killing. I see a huge difference in being under threat of prosecution for atrocities against civilians -wheras with no laws I could just chain alot of babies to my tanks and have at `em - let them return fire at their leisure...

Granted - trying Japanese prison camp commanders for war crimes because they starved,mistreated and tortured thousands of Yanks to death seems a bit off when Curtis LeMay who came up with the firebombing campaigns like Operation Meeting House killed ten times as many civilians in Tokyo alone-not to mention the other major cities.

I however like to think that lives are spared on a general basis due to the attempts to govern a base and ugly ritual like war by introducing rule of law.

You make some good points Po - but I feel you oversimplify.

(all my words in the spirit of a friendly debate on an interesting subject - state sponsored and legally sanctioned killing - a.k.a war)

Ah war crimes, is there really such a thing? Some truly shocking and disturbing things happen in armed conflict, most notably the killing of people. We may like to think that there is a noble purpose to war and it can somehow be fought like a gentlemen's agreement.

I think this 'pretended civility' collectively makes a society feel better about sending out it's armed citizens to murder groups of armed citizen of another society. We like to call these groups armies and dress them all the same so we don't have to think of them as people.

Once the war is done and we have no more distractions, we sit back and think about what happened, and find fault with the way our enemy played their part. If they didn't follow our 'moral code' (whether or not it was the same as their own) we call them criminals and if we are the victors and in a place to do anything about it, we prosecute them. This again supports our sense of moral superiority and makes us collectively feel better about all the murder and destruction commited by our own citizens.

Basically I think war crimes are all a load of self-serving nonsense. War is about the application of lethal force to ensure victory. I don't believe there is anything worse you can do to a person than kill them, so whether you torture them to death or shoot them in the head it all means the same thing in the end. Is there really a 'good' death, I'd say no.

[Mohoender]

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent.

I'm always struck by the hypocrisy of the Nuremburg trials. Many people who study the second world war and who are British, Australian or new Zealander share a sense of disgust as we happily hanged the Nazis but let the japanese war criminals make deals with America to get out of how they treated our POWs.

I hope you are not among them. If these people are scholars they should be fired and sent back to school. How can you forget of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East?

28 defendants with 2 dying of natural death before the end of the debates, 7 being executed, 16 sentenced to life imprisonment and 1 to 20 years imprisonement. Among the offences you'll find "Ordered, authorised, and permitted inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others" and "Deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities".

Nuremberg: 24 defendants with 12 death penalties and 3 acquited.

Were deal made with Japanese? Yes. Were deal made with Nazi? Oh yes as well. Can I respectfully remind you of a highly respected Wernher Von Braun. May I also point out that some among us might be driving a Volkswagen designed by an equally respected Ferdinand Porsche. Isn't that an interesting legacy of a certain A.Hitler? And these are only the two best known exemples. :D

[dragoon500ly]

One of the objections to the War Crimes Tribunals is that they tried to place the blame for carrying out orders to commit war crimes squarely on the shoulders of the military officers involved. After all, they should have realized that these were illegal orders and refused to carry them out (this is the simple version).

One of the problems with this view is that for most of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, one of the requirements of the military was to obey any order passed along by a superior officer ending with orders issued by the monarch at al. Again, this is the simple form.

The prime defense of the war criminals is that they obeyed the orders passed down to them. Their code of honor, their sworn military oath required
"unquestioning obedience" to the state. Reading through military journals, and various newspaper articles from that period make the point that what the German and Japanese officers did was, in many cases, not very different than those actions performed by Allied officers.

But wars have always been brutal, bloody, callous affairs. People die in some of the most horrible ways possible and often they die alone and in terrible agony.

But when a soldier in the middle of a fire fight has to make a split-second decision to fire on a fleeting target, and discovers afterwards that he shot an unarmed civilian, does that make him a war criminal?

When the elected leader of a nation, based on the best information presented to him, faced with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of losses on both sides, makes the decision to use a new weapon, unknowing of the terrible after-effects of that weapon. Is he a war criminal?

I don't believe that these actions warrant being tried as a war criminal. That title belongs solely to those swine who go out of their way to rape and murder non-combatants.

[Fusilier]

But when a soldier in the middle of a fire fight has to make a split-second decision to fire on a fleeting target, and discovers afterwards that he shot an unarmed civilian, does that make him a war criminal?

When the elected leader of a nation, based on the best information presented to him, faced with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of losses on both sides, makes the decision to use a new weapon, unknowing of the terrible after-effects of that weapon. Is he a war criminal?

I think mens rea needs to be considered. Mens rea is the term for criminal intent. So the soldier in your first example may not be considered a war criminal since it wasn't a deliberate attempt.

[Fusilier]

But wars have always been brutal, bloody, callous affairs. People die in some of the most horrible ways possible and often they die alone and in terrible agony.

Reminds me of another film.

Anyone here see "Johnny Got His Gun?"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067277/

Please don't tell me I am the only one who saw this amazing anti-war movie? Unfortunately most people only know it from the Metallica video for "One".

[dragoon500ly]

That's an oldie! Been several years since I've seen the whole thing.

[dragoon500ly]

I think mens rea needs to be considered. Mens rea is the term for criminal intent. So the soldier in your first example may not be considered a war criminal since it wasn't a deliberate attempt.

Too bad. The soldier in the first example stood a courts martial for his action. He was found not guilty, but it should never have passed the Article 32 hearing, let alone go to a c/m. Everybody involved thought that insurgents were all that was left in the building complex. Still, this is the Poltically Correct Army!

[Fusilier]

Too bad. The soldier in the first example stood a courts martial for his action. He was found not guilty, but it should never have passed the Article 32 hearing, let alone go to a c/m. Everybody involved thought that insurgents were all that was left in the building complex. Still, this is the Poltically Correct Army!

I'm not in disagreement with you, but isn't it the CM's purpose - to determine guilty or not? I mean just because he stood doesn't imply guilt right? That is the method in which criminal intent is determined I would expect.

My question may not make sense though... I don't know what Article 32 is.

[95th Rifleman]

Another problem with war crimes is the assumption of one morality and imposing it on all nations.

We like to assume that our interpretation of what is moral and what is right is the correct one. This is all well and good till you walk into someone who does not share your interpretation. This situation itself has led to a large number of armed conflicts.

You end up prosecuting someone under your laws who genuinely did nothing wrong under his own legal system.

[Mohoender]

One of the objections to the War Crimes Tribunals is that they tried to place the blame for carrying out orders to commit war crimes squarely on the shoulders of the military officers involved. After all, they should have realized that these were illegal orders and refused to carry them out (this is the simple version).


This is the really simple version and the one àf those advocating full scale blind revenge. The idea of war crimes always existed in a way or another as you always had some type of rules of engagement. Then, it evolved through the first half of the 20th century to reach the idea of war crime as we understand it today only after ww2 when everyone basically had enough. Very understandable when you think that humanity had destroyed almost 100 million lives in no more than 30 years.

When it comes to trials, most have not prosecuted soldiers but leaders and still do. Then, those sentenced to death or heavily condemned are generally linked to crime against humanity.

When it comes to Japan, trials have exclusively been carried on high ranking leaders and this is only fair. Japan had not ratified the geneva convention of 1929 and, therefore, you had no legal ground to prosecute officers or soldiers who only carried orders within the limits of their state laws and international laws binding their state.

The PRC wished to do it, of course, but was deprive of its right to do it by the KMT (first hand) and by the western world which didn't recognized it as a state before 1972. Then, it was kind of late.

Still most war crimes remain unpunished as it is the case for rapes. There is numerous evidence of rapes by allied and soviet troops in Germany and Japan. Most (if not all) unpunished. Some sources even give a high number for rapes by US troops in France (40.000). Then, a friend of mine (who had since died) had done his military service in Germany. In the town next to his base (near the French border), a woman's statue was showing her fist in anger toward France. According to his testimony. French troops which had entered the town in 1945, conducted mass murder and rape there.

Most war crime will remain unpunished and it will remain so for a long time.

One last thing, Bin Laden has never been guilty of war crime. If he had been taken alive he should have been prosecuted for terrorism and crime against humanity.

[Mohoender]

Another problem with war crimes is the assumption of one morality and imposing it on all nations.


Untrue, cases for war crimes are now established on the ground of international agreement now signed and ratified by most nations. If it had been true, this morality has prevailed. Weather or not it is a good thing, is another matter that could be open to debate.

[95th Rifleman]

Untrue, cases for war crimes are now established on the ground of international agreement now signed and ratified by most nations. If it had been true, this morality has prevailed. Weather or not it is a good thing, is another matter that could be open to debate.

The problems is we are fighting organisations that do not subscribe to those treaties. Afghanistan is a classic example of this and has forced America to create the term "unlawful combatant".

[pmulcahy11b]

Were deal made with Japanese? Yes. Were deal made with Nazi? Oh yes as well. Can I respectfully remind you of a highly respected Wernher Von Braun. May I also point out that some among us might be driving a Volkswagen designed by an equally respected Ferdinand Porsche. Isn't that an interesting legacy of a certain A.Hitler? And these are only the two best known exemples. :D

I know this will probably ignite a flame war, so I may not reply. All those examples above pale to the crimes of the Catholic Church in World War 2.

[Targan]

You end up prosecuting someone under your laws who genuinely did nothing wrong under his own legal system.

That's exactly what happened to the Australian David Hicks (well almost exactly, the US was making up a lot of rules as it went along when it started ounding up suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters). All those years he spent in Gitmo and he hadn't committed any offence under Australian law. He had received basic military training from Taliban, yes, but he never had anything to do with al Qaeda and had no interest in fighting US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan. He had accepted the offer of training because he had intended to volunteer in Kashmir (but never got the chance).

As soon as Hicks heard that the US and its allies were invading Afghanistan he attempted to leave the country. Not because he was a coward, not to join retreating Taliban forces in Pakistan, not to join al Qaeda, just to make damn sure he didn't end up on a two way shooting range with US and Coalition forces. Hicks was picked up at the border by Northern Alliance irregulars who arrested him and handed him to US forces purely to collect the bounty on offer for all Taliban fighters.

Then the Australian government at the time hung Hicks out to dry. It was absolutely appalling. I don't agree with many of the choices Hicks made in his life, converting to Islam and travelling to the places he went to but the only crime under Australian law that the Australian Government tried to pin on him was acting as a mercenary but that charge wouldn't stick because at the time that Hicks was training with the Taliban the Taliban was the recognised, legitimate government of Afghanistan. Its not a crime under Australian law to join another country's military.

The US could have done things alot better than it did with the whole 'unlawful combatant, throw 'em in Gitmo without charge or trial for years and years and see if they'll crack' policy.

[Mohoender]

The problems is we are fighting organisations that do not subscribe to those treaties. Afghanistan is a classic example of this and has forced America to create the term "unlawful combatant".

My turn to ignite a flame war. That term was invented to justify our governments' action when they are clearly violating these treaties. Then, what outrage me is that it will prevent Taliban leaders (members of a legal government in 2001) to face prosecution for war crimes.

[95th Rifleman]

I know this will probably ignite a flame war, so I may not reply. All those examples above pale to the crimes of the Catholic Church in World War 2.

What crimes?

[dragoon500ly]

I'm not in disagreement with you, but isn't it the CM's purpose - to determine guilty or not? I mean just because he stood doesn't imply guilt right? That is the method in which criminal intent is determined I would expect.

My question may not make sense though... I don't know what Article 32 is.

Article 32 is the Army's version of a Grand Jury hearing. A board of 1-3 officers (depends on the accused ranks) reviews the evidence for and against the defendent and then recommends a courts martial or orders the investigation to be dropped. In this case, the two officers on the board were blasted by the courts martial as the evidence presented by the JAG did not warrant a courts martial. The soldier was able to present enough witnesses to confirm the swirling, confusing conditions of the firefight, the poor intelligence, and the expectation set ahead of time that there would be no civilians present.

[Fusilier]

Article 32 is the Army's version of a Grand Jury hearing. A board of 1-3 officers (depends on the accused ranks) reviews the evidence for and against the defendent and then recommends a courts martial or orders the investigation to be dropped. In this case, the two officers on the board were blasted by the courts martial as the evidence presented by the JAG did not warrant a courts martial. The soldier was able to present enough witnesses to confirm the swirling, confusing conditions of the firefight, the poor intelligence, and the expectation set ahead of time that there would be no civilians present.

Ahh thanks. Very unfortunate that it went that far then.

[Legbreaker]

What crimes?

Others may have a lot more knowledge than me on this, but I do know that the Catholic church, or at least some very highly placed members of it, were absolutely instrumental in smuggling wanted and highly placed Nazi's out of Europe in the 40's, 50's and even 60's. Huge sums of money were paid to the church as bribes during this time.

In my opinion, a war crime can be (simply) classified as any action which causes unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering on a person or group of persons. By this definition, bombing of civilians could avoid the war crime tag if they were involved in production of war material. Shooting of escaping prisoners would also be "legal", while recapturing, and subjecting them to torture and/or drawn out execution (even being informed of impending execution without any option for appeal - aka mental torture) would not.

Obviously the true definition is MUCH more complex, but boiled down to it's basics, I think that probably sums it up fairly well.

[95th Rifleman]

Others may have a lot more knowledge than me on this, but I do know that the Catholic church, or at least some very highly placed members of it, were absolutely instrumental in smuggling wanted and highly placed Nazi's out of Europe in the 40's, 50's and even 60's. Huge sums of money were paid to the church as bribes during this time.

In my opinion, a war crime can be (simply) classified as any action which causes unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering on a person or group of persons. By this definition, bombing of civilians could avoid the war crime tag if they were involved in production of war material. Shooting of escaping prisoners would also be "legal", while recapturing, and subjecting them to torture and/or drawn out execution (even being informed of impending execution without any option for appeal - aka mental torture) would not.

Obviously the true definition is MUCH more complex, but boiled down to it's basics, I think that probably sums it up fairly well.

That's a bit daft mate, if you want to accuse the catholic curch of "war" crimes for helping to smuggle Nazis then you need to level the same accusation at America for operation paperclip when they gathered up as many nazi scientists as they could. Some of these scientists had clear links to the SS, hell a few where in the bloody SS.

Sure, individual priests helped smuggle out nazis but it wasn't a church policy.

[Legbreaker]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

[95th Rifleman]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

The Crusaders where good catholics.

[ShadoWarrior]

The atomic bombing of Japan was for pure shock value. And yes, one could define it as terrorism. But the firebombing and conventional bombing campaign wasn't getting it done, it was just getting the Japanese more eager to repel the then-coming Allied invasion. Until the atomic bombings, the Japanese were going to fight until the last life.

The atomic bombings were a horrible thing, no question. But they stopped the need for an invasion of Japan, which would have caused a million or more casualties -- on the Japanese side, mostly deaths. It was a horrible act to stop a far more horrible act.
The atomic bombings of Japan were done for several reasons, only one of which has been mentioned. Shock value was one. The others were as live-fire tests, and as a not-so-subtle message to Stalin. The fact that the arguably more destructive fire-bombing campaign wasn't getting the job done should clue people in to the fact that dropping the atomic bombs did not shorten the war in the slightest. That many people still continue to believe this common misconception is mostly due to post-war American propaganda and biased historians in the 50s and 60s.

Modern scholars recognize that the actual impetus for Japan surrendering when it did was when the Soviets invaded Manchuria on the same day that the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Faced with daily firebombing raids by the USAAF and an unstoppable land assault (including of the northern Japanese islands) by the Soviets, who didn't care how many troops they lost, some wiser Japanese leaders (about half the inner circle, including the Emperor) decided to end things before they lost to a foe who would never negotiate.

When it was just an Americans invasion the Japanese faced they were perfectly willing to, despite incessant bombing, to continue to fight to the bitter end. But that all changed when the Soviets joined in. The Japanese feared the Russians almost as much as the Germans did. They knew full well the Russians would exact a terrible revenge over their humiliation in 1905. So the Japanese put out feelers to the US and UK about a negotiated surrender that would allow them to keep an Emperor. Something that the Soviets would never have agreed to had the Soviets been allowed longer to grab more turf and gain a bigger say in things.

[Mohoender]

That's a bit daft mate, if you want to accuse the catholic curch of "war" crimes for helping to smuggle Nazis then you need to level the same accusation at America for operation paperclip when they gathered up as many nazi scientists as they could. Some of these scientists had clear links to the SS, hell a few where in the bloody SS.

Sure, individual priests helped smuggle out nazis but it wasn't a church policy.

In fact, it was a church policy with an official office at Vatican city but to this you can add the French (who protected Vichy officials), the British for dissimulating evidences (films on the camps had not been released before the 1990's), the KMT (for giving a job of military advisor to the man responsible for the massacre of Nanjing) and the Soviets (of course)...

When you sited US you also forgot to put charges on General Patton who wished to enlist SS in order to launch an offensive on USSR.

Other time other needs. Bringing up charges on these need to forget that WW2 ceased only to lead the world to the cold war. We only achieved peace in 1989 and that lasted solely 2 years (Of course I'm being sarcastic or not:D:))

[James Langham]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

Much to Himmler's disgust, a substantial portion of the SS were actually regular church goers. I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

[Mohoender]

I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

You only have to justify your acts before god and god forgives everything may be.:D

[Mohoender]

I have written something false. You had no specific offices at the vatican taking care of war criminals. However, evidences have revealed that various high ranking clerics within the catholic church heading various offices (including the most influencials) had been involved (that would probably include one or two popes).

What I'm going to write is not politically correct. I have never been chocked by the Catholic Church hiding war criminals. As it did that it fullfilled one of its commitment which is to protect and shelter whoever seeks it. I'm more stunned by their official declarations, sign of support to nazi Germany and by the general silence that characterized the Vatican during this troubled time. Finally, I'm outraged by the fact that their higher leadership didn't offer the same protection to Jews, Roms... seeking refuge. For them, the support was purely individualistic. In Germany it came from the higher clergy while many among the lower clergy spied for the nazis, in France shelter was given by the lower clergy as the higher clergy was mostly supporting Vichy (to note out of 72,000 jewish children in France, 60,000 escaped deportation hided by among french families and religious institutions), in Italy, in the city of Rome, 80% of the jews escaped protected mostly by religious while Pie XII remained silent.

[dragoon500ly]

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

[95th Rifleman]

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

[dragoon500ly]

Funny how that works out...no?

[95th Rifleman]

Funny how that works out...no?

To be honest it makes sense in a coldly logical way. Imagine the propoganda anti-American nations could make out of an American soldier being in the hague?

[Mohoender]

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

That was my point about Japan.

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Vietnam signed them in 1957. When, it fought the Vietnam War, most troops involved were irregulars who are not concerned by this convention. Moreover, it won the war and the USA never declared war. As a result, there is little legal ground to charge any soldier from the north. If any ground existed, it would probably be against US troops.

[Mohoender]

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

US signed them in 1955. It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines. Moreover, in the 1980's the ICJ ruled US to be guilty of Terrorism (Among those condemning US for this was the US judge, funny). Then, US court ruled that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case (basically ruling that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear any case against US). Later, it vetoed any action in the UN. Still, to days, US remains the only western terrorist country.;) Whatever, what US did is worse than what you states. US signed these treaties but ruled that it is not entitled to follow them.

The power of a tribunal only resides within this tribunal and US has enough atomic bomb to escape any condamnation (especially as it remains the only country which has proven the world that it will willingly use them).

US tribunals also ruled against the federal state during the Civil War, it didn't change anything. US tribunals ruled the japanese internment camps to be illegal, it didn't change S...t. On the other hand, while Guantanamo was set up to escape international law, US courts and supreme courts ruled repetedly against that. At last, this is to the honor of the USA.

To make things easier, France had also been guilty of terrorist actions: possible implication in the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (1 dead) for exemple (more can be found). Of course, this is all "Raison d'Etat". What amaze me is that people remain confident in their governments.:D

[Mohoender]

Imagine the propoganda anti-American nations could make out of an American soldier being in the hague?

Imagine the lesson US could give to the world.

[Fusilier]

It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines.

That is one thing the US government really needs to get on board with.

[ShadoWarrior]

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

[Fusilier]

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

I'll edit my post here for better clarity...

That is one thing (landmine banning) that the US government, and every other non-signing goverment, really needs to get on board with for the sake of humanity.

Speaking on behalf of my post, I don't think it is insulting, but rather legitimate criticism. I also believe that nothing is immune from legitimate criticism, for obvious reasons. And that most certainly includes my own country. Criticism is how we improve society.

[Abbott Shaull]

The problem with T2K compared to other wars is that there is no winner writing the history. All sides involved will have scores to settle in the years afterward.
As for living and letting live, even today there are nazi hunters seeking out and bringing to trial WWII war criminals, even though the vast majority would have to have died of old age by now.

The efforts to catch, try and punish war criminals may not be made by the international community as a whole, but it will happen. It could be carried out by a coallition of countries, a single country, an organisation or even individuals. As long as somebody can remember being wronged, retribution will be sought.
What we forget is that the crime committed by allied troops that were largely overlooked. I am not saying it was right, and many cases their crimes compared by those committed by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII pale in comparison. There were enough, by the time end of the war, many of the case hadn't been document or the people who knew about didn't survive.

In the case of Twilight 2000 war. There would be no doubt many, but I think after things deteriorated to point where they would be in 2000, yeah some would be looking to hunt down war criminals, but in many cases, I think the people they would be after would already be dead....

[pmulcahy11b]

That's a bit daft mate, if you want to accuse the catholic curch of "war" crimes for helping to smuggle Nazis then you need to level the same accusation at America for operation paperclip when they gathered up as many nazi scientists as they could. Some of these scientists had clear links to the SS, hell a few where in the bloody SS.

Yep, one man's war crime is another man's intelligence operation.

[pmulcahy11b]

The Crusaders where good catholics.

So were the Inquisitors and today's church child molesters.

[Raellus]

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

I'm American and I don't recall seeing anything in this thread that would qualify as "America-bashing." There has been some criticism of American actions and policies in this thread, but nothing, unfair, unwarranted, or meant to offend. If you have an issue with a particular post, please PM me and, as moderator, I will take a look at it and run it by my fellow mods.

[95th Rifleman]

I'm American and I don't recall seeing anything in this thread that would qualify as "America-bashing." There has been some criticism of American actions and policies in this thread, but nothing, unfair, unwarranted, or meant to offend. If you have an issue with a particular post, please PM me and, as moderator, I will take a look at it and run it by my fellow mods.

That was my interpretation as well. I'm not out to slag off America but you can't have these discussions and ignore facts because they might upset a few folks.

Hell I'm British and I have no trouble with listing the bad things we have done (I did already in regards to bio-warfare and concentration camps). I could quite happily spend all day listing all the crap we have done in a thousand years of going to interesting places, meeting interesting people and killing them in interesting ways. They are uncomfortable facts, but that doesn't make them any less relevant.

[95th Rifleman]

What we forget is that the crime committed by allied troops that were largely overlooked. I am not saying it was right, and many cases their crimes compared by those committed by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII pale in comparison. There were enough, by the time end of the war, many of the case hadn't been document or the people who knew about didn't survive.

In the case of Twilight 2000 war. There would be no doubt many, but I think after things deteriorated to point where they would be in 2000, yeah some would be looking to hunt down war criminals, but in many cases, I think the people they would be after would already be dead....

It's not just the second world war. I have it on good authority (talking to my uncle who served with the paras) that British troops in the Falklands took ears during some of the bloodier and most stressful engagements. Not every ear came from a dead argentine.

But we won the falklands and the bodies where conveniantly policed and buried so noody had to be held to account. I'm sure things would of been different had we lost.

[ShadoWarrior]

War crimes occur in every war (or "police action", or whatever euphemism is being used) by troops from every nation, without exception. Something that I take exception to is when some folks label a country "terrorist" because of the mistakes of few individuals. Besmirching over a half a million troops who've served honorably because of the actions of a few that get heavy media coverage is grossly distorting the reality of how a war is conducted.

The US, along with most UK commonwealth nations, are some of the very few nations on this planet that indict and convict their own troops for violating the rules of war. It should also be noted that the civility of soldiers has improved steadily over the years. The armies of the various NATO nations today are a lot more restrained than they were 30-40 years ago, and those of 30-40 years ago were considerably more restrained than those who fought in WW2. And the trend continues as far back as you wish to go ... for "western" nations.

On the subject of WW2, you can hardly compare the treatment of Allied POWs by the Japanese with the treatment of Japanese POWs by the Allies. Cite me one example of Japanese POWs in a POW camp being slaughtered. Or worked to death. Even the Germans, for the most part, treated US/commonwealth prisoners according to the GC. The same cannot be said for any country that viewed their opponents as subhuman (Germany towards the USSR, USSR towards Germany & Japan, Japan towards anyone else). And, unlike the Germans, Japanese, and Russians, western allied troops in WW2 didn't routinely go rampaging through towns raping and killing everyone. That was an official policy for Germany on the eastern front, and for both the Imperial Japanese and the Russians.

So when discussing war crimes, it helps not to tar an entire nation with the misdeeds of a few. And it helps if you don't compare acts from different eras, when what is unacceptable today (carpet bombing cities, for example) wasn't viewed in the same way then. And to distinguish between plain bad judgment (accidentally killing some civilians with a missile strike) and deliberate criminal acts (targeting a missile at a location known to have many innocents, such as a school or hospital). And one need also be sure of one's definitions. If you aiding a terrorist, you're not 'innocent'. If he's in your house, the house and anyone in it is fair game. Torture is always a crime. And the leaders of countries (such as G.W. Bush) that issue orders that violate international law (such as authorizing torture) should be tried by an international court. No exceptions.

Finally, as several people have mentioned, the winning side in a war seldom, if ever, is held accountable for its war crimes. The winners make up new rules and then inflict them on the losers, retroactively. In a post-apocalyptic setting, where everyone is a loser, the only "justice" is what a powerful enough group can dish out locally ... and get away with.

[Fusilier]

It's not just the second world war. I have it on good authority (talking to my uncle who served with the paras) that British troops in the Falklands took ears during some of the bloodier and most stressful engagements. Not every ear came from a dead argentine.

But we won the falklands and the bodies where conveniantly policed and buried so noody had to be held to account. I'm sure things would of been different had we lost.

That isn't exactly 100% true.

Corporal McLoughlin was implicated in taking some ears. But he was the only one as determined by two internal and external investigations. All of the ears came from dead Argentinians as well, and there were only a few (not that quantity really matters though).

The bodies were buried yes, but exhumed as part of the investigation by the British police and forensics specialists. The incident cost McLoughlin the VC (posthumously), which incidentally would never have been investigated had the other Para's not reported it. So he was held accountable.

[Mohoender]

War crimes occur in every war (or "police action", or whatever euphemism is being used) by troops from every nation, without exception. Something that I take exception to is when some folks label a country "terrorist" because of the mistakes of few individuals. Besmirching over a half a million troops who've served honorably because of the actions of a few that get heavy media coverage is grossly distorting the reality of how a war is conducted.


The term "terrorrist" has nothing to do with any military action either past or current but with a political one. It only refers to a judicial fact, a decision ruled by the International Court of Justice in 1984 (27 years ago) and never overruled. It's partly sarcasm because having a national court overruling an international one is not the best exemple of political integrity and wisdom. It has even less to do with any sort of media coverage but only with a well known and documented historical fact which makes the USA the only western country to be ever charged with Terrorism (for its implication with the Contras) and found guilty of that charge.

Else, I have not seen anything on japanese POW. For my part I only refered to US citizens of Japanese descent. To note, The famed 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which fought in Europe, was formed from those Japanese Americans who did agree to serve. This unit was the most highly decorated US military unit of its size and duration (wiki).:)

[Mohoender]

As France was never recognized guilty this is only suspected facts (most being, nevertheless, well documented) or crimes that remains largely unpunished, often negated

Crime against humanity
- Vichy France had been the first country to send children to Nazi concentration camps (still 60000 were saved by the French Population).
- Mass deportation of jews and resistance’s members to Germany (to note France was the only country not administered by Germany to act as such). Not to talk of torture and direct involvement by the French police and gendarmerie.
- Mass internment and, later, deportation of Gypsies (14000 dead). Restrictions started on September 16 1939, internment was ordered on April 6 1940 to end only on June 1 1946 (2 months before the fall of France, more than 1 year after the return of people from Auschwitz and almost 2 years after the liberation of France).
- Add to this the treatment given to the Harkis after the end of the Algerian war (agree that this might only be seen as an unlawful treatment).
- Suspected direct involvement of French soldiers in the Rwanda Genocide (4 cases being investigated)
- …

War crimes
- Mass rape by French soldiers in Germany (1945).
- Use of torture and military exaction in Algeria and else (1945-1962)
- Recent exactions in Côte d’Ivoire (Under operation Licorne) and Rwanda (1994)
- …

Raison d’Etat (or sometimes State terrorism from my point of view)
- Involvement in the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka (1965 - Charles de Gaulle)
- Sinking of the Rainbow warrior (New Zealand - 1985). The soldiers involved didn’t had to answer this. (François Mitterand)
- Suspected direct involvement in the assassination of Thomas Sankara (1987), leader of Burkina Faso. (François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac)
- Suspected involvement in the dissimulation of facts in the assassination of Judge Borrel who Died in djibouti in 1995 (Jacques Chirac). France still pretends it to be suicide while the former president of Djibouti has been found guilty of murder (how can you murder someone who had commited suicide?)
- Active support to the Ben Ali and Khadaffi regimes. Currently, France still support and funds the Chadian regime of Idriss Déby Itno. Meanwhile Déby sends troops within Libya to support the very Khadaffi we are bombing daily (how amusing).
- …

Of course, these are the doing of the French government not of the French population. To note French Presidents between 1968-1992 often brought flowers on Petain's tumb. The list could go a long way and soldiers have been condemned for several of these acts. However, politicians have yet to answer these. Still, the good thing about France is that I can write this without fearing for my life or freedom (the same for US).

[95th Rifleman]

Very often there is a difference between what a soldier fights for and what his country does.

America just happens to be a very good example and sets herself up a little bit. Nobody is insulting the memory of American soldiers who have fought in some very bloody wars for some good causes (WW1 and WW2 are examples, even if they where a tad late to the party :p).

But the US government is very shady, as are ALL governments and when an administration takes the moral highground they open themselves up to criticism.

We have such a great example today. The UK and France are happily blowing Libya's milliary to hell because Gaddafi was being a naughty boy. Funny thin is the bastards in Bahrain and Syria are doing the same thing and yet we are ignoring it (Russia is throwing a blanket over Syria and Saudi is supporting barhrain, who the Uk and US have cosy trade links and arm deals with.)

[dragoon500ly]

There was a certain US general who made a comment following a bloody battle.

"I wish that we could bottle the stench of a battlefield and save it for our political leaders. And the next time the bastards start talking about sending troops to fight for some stupid cause, every damned member of congress should be made to take a good whiff. Maybe then they will find some other way of settling things without sending our boys off to get die in some foreign country that nobody has ever heard of."

The military profession is perhaps unique in that its members really don't want to put to use the skills that they have learned.

In spite of Hollywood's best efforts to convince everyone that soldiers are mad dog killers, ready to loot, rape and murder at the first chance, I've never met one of these animals in all of my years wearing the uniform. Rather, I have had the privilage of serving with men and women who truely love their country and the ideals that it stands for.

Much has been made of those who fall short, and these criminals are justly punished. But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.

The military is indeed unique.

[Mohoender]

But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child.

Actually you do but you have to listen carefully.:) During the Draguignan's last year flood, the french navy helicopter pilots (who had been in the area for an air show) did no less than 800 rotations, saving undreds of peoples from the flood. Not to mention the soldiers at Chernobyl, Fukushima, New Orleans... Those who jumped over Kolwezi in 1966, 1978 and more recently... Those German soldiers of the Afrikakorps who had protected Jews in Tunisia... Those US troopers who sacrificed their chocolate as they were advancing through the villages of France, Belgium... Those hundreds of thousand of soldiers which have served under UN mandate all over the world... (The list is so long it would never ends, hopefully).

[Legbreaker]

Those US troopers who sacrificed their chocolate as they were advancing through the villages of France, Belgium...

*GASP*
No, not the chocolate!!!! ;)

Seriously though, soldiers are used in civil defence situations far more that combat (in most civilised countries anyway) even though barely trained for the tasks given them. More acts of bravery and kindness can be found in these situations than in all the battlefields of history combined - but we don't hear about it because it's not as "newsworthy" as somebody earning a VC for killing/capturing 30 of the enemy while armed with nothing more than a knife and his boots.

[Raellus]

Much has been made of those who fall short, and these criminals are justly punished. But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.

I think that dutiful, decent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are the silent majority in most militaries. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, it's the bad apples that get most of the attention.

Discussions that focus largely on negatives, such as this one, can sometimes make people feel that those involved have nothing good to say about the subject of discussion- in this case, military folks- especially when people have strong, personal connections to that subject. Please keep in mind that pretty much everybody here has, on some level, respect and admiration for military folks. Otherwise, we likely wouldn't be so wrapped up in an RPG like T2K.

[Targan]

The military profession is perhaps unique in that its members really don't want to put to use the skills that they have learned.
Really? Perhaps it is a reflection of the combat arms they serve in but the majority of serving and recently-serving soldiers I know are proud of their skills and look forward to putting them to use. Not because they want to end lives specifically but because they excel as warriors and are proud of their warcraft. The Australian and US militaries are both volunteer forces. Soldiers who don't want to be put in a position where they use their skills for real can always leave.

But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.
Strange, I hear about that sort of thing on a regular basis. It is quite common for the local media here in Perth to report on USN and USMC personnel on leave from ships berthed in Fremantle Port volunteering to assist in local worthy causes (such as cleaning up after a major bushfire last year). Or ADF personnel helping with disaster relief following the massive floods and fires in the Eastern States over the past few years. Is the US media so different?

[Mohoender]

*GASP*
No, not the chocolate!!!! ;)


I know it sounds to be a detail but to the various friends of mine that were children at the time, it was and remains extremely important. It might seems strange but that is what comes to their mind first before they tell you that they were hungree and that these soldiers had shared with them all they had. Keep in mind that, often, the wermacht had left only hours before.:)

[Graebarde]

The only thing worse than war is rules for war.

[dragoon500ly]

Strange, I hear about that sort of thing on a regular basis. It is quite common for the local media here in Perth to report on USN and USMC personnel on leave from ships berthed in Fremantle Port volunteering to assist in local worthy causes (such as cleaning up after a major bushfire last year). Or ADF personnel helping with disaster relief following the massive floods and fires in the Eastern States over the past few years. Is the US media so different?

It is most likely a US issue, for the most part, the media does not report favorably on the military. There is far more coverage of a GI that rapes a woman in Iraq then there ever is about all of the hospitals and schools that GIs built in Iraq. If there is a national diaster, such as Hurricane Katrina are the Midwest Floods, you will see coverage of National Guard efforts, but it is almost always curt at best (especially from the national media; local media tends to be a bit more open).

But then there is a running joke that the press hates the military and the military hates them right back.

[95th Rifleman]

I've ran into this in theuk, in heated arguments with stupid civvies. There are two broad camps, the civvies who say thins like "Our soldiers are killing babies" and the camp that says "I'm glad our lads are out there killing those muslim bastards".

Neither is valid.

The general philosophy of the British army is to go out there and save lives. This often means that to save lives you need to take life, to fight the people who want to kill the people you have been deployd to save.

It's because our soldiers have such high standards and such a reputation that when someone goes bad, we make such a big deal about it.

It wasn't always that way, the concept of the modern, professional soldier is very much a 20th century creation.

[ShadoWarrior]

It wasn't always that way, the concept of the modern, professional soldier is very much a 20th century creation.
A western, late 20th century concept. The Russians and Chinese still use conscript armies, as do most third world nations.

[ShadoWarrior]

There is far more coverage of a GI that rapes a woman in Iraq then there ever is about all of the hospitals and schools that GIs built in Iraq.GIs built hospitals and schools in Iraq? Really? I thought that was done by overpaid contractors, like most everything else that was outsourced in Iraq, including protecting State Department flunkies with PMCs rather than with US Marines.

[Legbreaker]

You won't find very many contractors in the Australian AO - virtually all works are carried out by military personell usually supervising local labour. The whole idea is to get the locals to invest their time and energy and thereby create pride in what they've achieved - it's much less likely they'll react well to somebody coming in and destroying the school they just built than if it was built by foreigners.

[Mohoender]

It wasn't always that way, the concept of the modern, professional soldier is very much a 20th century creation.

A late 20th century remake (we love remakes). In fact, it is a fluctuating idea that come and go with time. Conscription was introduced after 1789 by the French while the Kingdom of France had relied on professional armies for centuries. Then, it still took some times before the other kingdom of Europe would rely on conscription.

What is funny is the silly current idea implying that professional armies are superior to conscripts. Over history, Professional armies often ends up being defeated by armies composed by a majority of conscripts and volunteers.

The Persian army facing the Greek
The Roman Legions defeated by the German invasions.
The French Chevalry defetaed by British Yeomanry.
British troops defeated during the American revolution.
The entirely professional armies of Europe defeated by the French revolutionary armies and, then, by the largely conscripted napoleonic armies.
I don't think I'll be wrong if I state that during the American Civil War volunteer and militia regiments put up some more than outstanding fights.
The coalition of professional armies defeated by the Bolchevik between 1917-1920
The British expeditionary force defeated by Germany in 1940 during the military campaign in France.
The more professional (not entirely professional so), well equipped Arabic forces defeated by Israel in 1948.
Then, we might end up winning in Afghanistan but it already took ten years of bitter fighting in front of an oponent which is outnumbered, underarmed...

The thing with conscripts resides in motivation. Conscripts fight for their homes and families (In 1941, the situation started to move in favor of the Soviets only when Stalin asked its troops to fight for mother Russia, they didn't give shit about the communist party). As long as you can convince conscripts that the reason of their fight is just and fair, they fight to death.

The problem with professional armies is motivation. Professionals fight to get land, to have the right to a booty, for the pay, for glory, to have access to higher education... These are all high motivations but only as far as you stand a good chance to get back home. Moreover, their funding depends on public opinions (another important and major weakness). While conscripts are heroes fighting for the Nation (or whatever it may be), professional soldiers are just that, professional soldiers.

While I have never seen entirely conscripted armies winning over a professional one, I have often seen professional armies loosing over an army composed of a strong core of professionals reinforced by a mass of conscript.

[dragoon500ly]

GIs built hospitals and schools in Iraq? Really? I thought that was done by overpaid contractors, like most everything else that was outsourced in Iraq, including protecting State Department flunkies with PMCs rather than with US Marines.

Long before the contractors came into play, engineers and seebees were repairing or building schools, hospitals, orphanages, and clinics. One unit in Afghanistan built 52 schools during its tour, to cite one example. Citing another example, a young Afghan girl suffered severe burns from a roadside bomb and required extensive facial reconstruction, care to take a wild guess on who raised the money to send her and her parents to the US to have this surgery? Her surgeon is a National Guard officer who volunteered his time and conviniced his hospital to provide the surgical team and medical care for free. Several hundred villages had wells drilled and are enjoying their first clean water, courtesy of GIs and the list goes on and on and on.

The contractors mostly go after the big money contracts. Where they can jack costs with hazardous duty pay and cost overruns.

PMCs are just a politically correct way of saying mercenaries. But hiring mercenaries is bad and hiring PMCs is good? Didn't the U.S. sign a treaty banning mercenaries? Didn't the State Department refuse to allow U.S. citizens to return to the U.S. after serving as mercenaries? And now the State Department is hiring PMCs? Talk about circular logic!!!

[Targan]

PMCs are just a politically correct way of saying mercenaries. But hiring mercenaries is bad and hiring PMCs is good? Didn't the U.S. sign a treaty banning mercenaries? Didn't the State Department refuse to allow U.S. citizens to return to the U.S. after serving as mercenaries? And now the State Department is hiring PMCs? Talk about circular logic!!!

LOL! Circular logic? That is a very generous characterisation. I think hypocrisy might be more accurate.

[ShadoWarrior]

What is funny is the silly current idea implying that professional armies are superior to conscripts. Over history, Professional armies often ends up being defeated by armies composed by a majority of conscripts and volunteers.
It's not a silly idea. It happens to be true. The only times that professional soldiers get defeated on the field is when they are swamped by overwhelmingly superior numbers (hence Stalin's famous remark about quantity having a quality all its own), or when generals make really stupid mistakes.

The British expeditionary force defeated by Germany in 1940 during the military campaign in France.
Due to bad strategy & bad tactics by the Allies. And the Germans were an entirely volunteer, professional army, the best in the world at that time, which doubly refutes your assertion.

The more professional (not entirely professional so), well equipped Arabic forces defeated by Israel in 1948.
The Arab armies at that time were not professionals, they were mostly conscript. They lost mostly due to bad leadership and bad planning. The Israelis had better, more experienced officers. The Arab armies were defeated in detail. Had the attacks been better coordinated and pressed more aggressively, the Israelis would have lost. They came very close to losing.

The thing with conscripts resides in motivation. Conscripts fight for their homes and families (In 1941, the situation started to move in favor of the Soviets only when Stalin asked its troops to fight for mother Russia, they didn't give shit about the communist party). As long as you can convince conscripts that the reason of their fight is just and fair, they fight to death.
Ever heard of the NKVD (forerunner to the KGB)? The conscript armies were "motivated" by having NKVD artillery battalions behind each division, whose sole purpose was to fire on any troops that considered retreating. When you're told go fight the enemy or you will be shot, you take your chances with the enemy as you know the alternative is a certain death.

While conscripts are heroes fighting for the Nation (or whatever it may be), professional soldiers are just that, professional soldiers.They aren't all "heroes". They have no choice. Heroes choose to fight. Sane people, whether professional or conscript, follow the instinct to preserve their skins.

While I have never seen entirely conscripted armies winning over a professional one, I have often seen professional armies loosing over an army composed of a strong core of professionals reinforced by a mass of conscript.
Tactically, the professional Germans repeatedly cut through the considerably larger conscript armies of Stalin. It was bad leadership (by Hitler) that lost the Germans the war. The Coalition forces cut through larger opposing Iraqi forces in the Gulf War with even more ease. Given a choice, conscripts surrender rather than fight. Happened in 1941, and 50 years later in 1991. Both the Russians and Iraqis had a "strong core of professionals reinforced by a mass of conscript". And they lost. Such armies only win when the other side is incompetent.

[Mohoender]

It's not a silly idea. It happens to be true. The only times that professional soldiers get defeated on the field is when they are swamped by overwhelmingly superior numbers (hence Stalin's famous remark about quantity having a quality all its own), or when generals make really stupid mistakes.


If that was true, you would still live under the British flag and sing "god save the queen" (something I would dislike greatly;)) or the French would have been defeated at Austerlitz. I would agree, however, about what you said on generals but this is only one component. On the other hand, I have not writen that conscript armies are superior to professional ones, I stated that conscript armies organized around a core of highly professional soldiers are largely superior. One of the main reason being effectively the fact that you can, then, send more troops to the field. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been possible without US national guards.

Something else, I suspect that this silly idea is not shared through most politician circles. To date, conscription have only been suspended and not suppressed in most countries.


Due to bad strategy & bad tactics by the Allies. And the Germans were an entirely volunteer, professional army, the best in the world at that time, which doubly refutes your assertion.


What was essential was the lack of centralized command on the Franco-British side (therefore strategy). When it comes to the tactical level they were often defeated as in Narvik, Amien (by the British), or Abbeville (4th DCR). The Wermacht for its part was in no way a volunteer army. It was a conscript one organized around a very strong professional element which was composed of corporals, sergeants and highly skilled officers trained during the inter-war period and on the battlefields in Spain and Poland. When it comes to tanks, their equipments were largely inferior and remained inferior all war long. Infantry units (in Belgium) often had one rifle for two soldiers. The Luftwaffe sustained so many losses during the battle of France that they had to postpone the invasion of UK (and later cancel it). They started to loose when the core of experienced soldiers began to disappear (on the eastern front but also in northern Africa) while the number of experienced soldiers grew among their ennemies.


The Arab armies at that time were not professionals, they were mostly conscript. They lost mostly due to bad leadership and bad planning. The Israelis had better, more experienced officers. The Arab armies were defeated in detail. Had the attacks been better coordinated and pressed more aggressively, the Israelis would have lost. They came very close to losing.


I have not said they were professionals, I have said they were more professional than the jews and better equipped. When the British withdrew the Jews didn't even have one man with any kind of experience with tanks. They were, however highgly motivated and proved capable of using the various talents at hand to the best results. What the Arabs failed to do.


Ever heard of the NKVD (forerunner to the KGB)? The conscript armies were "motivated" by having NKVD artillery battalions behind each division, whose sole purpose was to fire on any troops that considered retreating. When you're told go fight the enemy or you will be shot, you take your chances with the enemy as you know the alternative is a certain death.


The idea that it made them move forward is a legend. This is, nevertheless, true as at Stalingrad (It had not been true at Leningrad or Moscow, however). Then, they only started to win when political officers (among which Krutschov) changed that and chose to motivate the troops instead of shooting them from the back. Moreover, if you read standard russian military procedure for 1941, you quickly realize that their losses during the first months of the war were integrated into their defensive views. At all times, Russia's defense has been based on a core of highly trained troops which had never grown over 400,000. The remnants relies on a mass of much lightly trained conscripts. Then, Russian military procedure states that the lightly trained troops have to be sent first in order to slow down the attacker as much as possible. It's only when the invading army is exhausted that the most experience troops are engaged. The only exception had been that of the Soviet forces in East Germany.


They aren't all "heroes". They have no choice. Heroes choose to fight. Sane people, whether professional or conscript, follow the instinct to preserve their skins.


In the mind of people who are remaining behind the lines. I have rarely heard a former soldier describing himself to be a hero. However, their entire families, the society, the politician see or depict them as such. Most of the time, professional soldiers are considered to be doing their job or worse they are considered mercenaries.


Tactically, the professional Germans repeatedly cut through the considerably larger conscript armies of Stalin. It was bad leadership (by Hitler) that lost the Germans the war. The Coalition forces cut through larger opposing Iraqi forces in the Gulf War with even more ease. Given a choice, conscripts surrender rather than fight. Happened in 1941, and 50 years later in 1991. Both the Russians and Iraqis had a "strong core of professionals reinforced by a mass of conscript". And they lost. Such armies only win when the other side is incompetent.

The russian won and had no core of professionals to begin with (They had been killed during the purges, 3 years before). Moreover, the development of tanks and tank tactics had ceased. Then, by october 1941, Stalin was smart enough to give back the initiative to its officers. The Iraqi lost obviously. I said that conscript should be properly motivated. Normal people don't fight for a regime or a political party. In 1991, the Iraqi had no reason to fight. Especially, as they had been defeated only 2 years earlier by a conscripted iranian army (at that time the Iraqi had received the most advanced equipements). Add to this, that Saddam was the worse military leader ever.
About the Soviet, in 1918, the situation had been even worse and they were able to build one of the most skilled army from scratch (Thanks to Trotsky and to a fair number of Officers who had served under the Tsar). By 1921, they had the most experienced and well trained cavalry in the world. Between 1919 and 1921 these men had defeated all of their oponents. Still they were defeated by a ragtag Polish army supported by the French. A defeat that put an end to the Bolchevik idea of exporting their revolution.

[ShadoWarrior]

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been possible without US national guards.
True. And the US NG are not conscripts. They are highly-trained soldiers, all volunteer, just like the regular troops. The main difference is that they work a civilian job when they are not on active duty. So I don't see why you are trying to use the NG to support your ideas about conscripts, since they aren't conscripts.

What was essential was the lack of centralized command on the Franco-British side (therefore strategy).They did have a centralized command. One that made a great many mistakes.

When it comes to the tactical level they were often defeated as in NarvikThe Germans won at Narvik. The British only temporarily took the port and were forced to pull back out.

But you've completely missed my point. Both the German and the British armies in 1940-41 were composed of professional soldiers.

The Wermacht for its part was in no way a volunteer army. It was a conscript one organized around a very strong professional element which was composed of corporals, sergeants and highly skilled officers trained during the inter-war period and on the battlefields in Spain and Poland.
While conscription was reintroduced in 1935, the majority of the army until 1941 was volunteer.

When it comes to tanks, their equipments were largely inferior and remained inferior all war long.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with conscription or professional soldiery. And Germans equipment was equal to or better than Allied equipment, except for the T-34 and KV-1, throughout most of the war. Germany's problem wasn't quality, it was lack of quantity. That, and lacking long range bombers, and having a moron for a leader.

The Luftwaffe sustained so many losses during the battle of France that they had to postpone the invasion of UK (and later cancel it).
Must be French revisionist history. The Luftwaffe didn't lose significant numbers during the invasion of France. Mainly because the UK declined to risk their planes over the continent and wisely kept them in reserve to defend the homeland instead. The reason Sealion was postponed was due to losses suffered by the Luftwaffe against the RAF after France had surrendered.

When the British withdrew the Jews didn't even have one man with any kind of experience with tanks.
You should do some research into Yitzhak Sadeh.

if you read standard russian military procedure for 1941, you quickly realize that their losses during the first months of the war were integrated into their defensive views.
Sorry, no. Their losses in 1941 were not planned. Anything implying that it was part of some plan was the Soviets rewriting their history (which they did a LOT of) after the war. The Soviets, prior to being invaded, had no intention to trade vast amounts of land and troops to buy time. It's something that they did because they had no choice and were unprepared. Stalin had not expected Hitler to betray him so soon.

The russian won and had no core of professionals to begin with (They had been killed during the purges, 3 years before).
Look up the following names: Zhukov, Timoshenko, Vatutin. Konev, Rokossovsky, or Malinin. I could name plenty of others. The purges only killed half of the officer corps.

Moreover, the development of tanks and tank tactics had ceased.
False. The T-34 was designed during 1937-1940 and the KV-1 was designed during 1938-39. There were other tanks being designed during the same period. And the Soviets were developing new tactics during this time, too. Including massed armor, patterned after the panzertruppen.

[95th Rifleman]

I always get annoyed by this concept that the Russians where ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-motivated and got lucky because the enemy leader was a moron.

This attitude is a holdover from cold war propoganda.

The Russians had one of the best SMGs ever made (PPSH), they had excelelnt snipers who carried effective and modern (for the time) sniper rifles. many concepts of modern sniping where developed by the Russians.

The Russians turned rocket artillery into an art form with their masse katyusha bateries and today's western MLRS systems are a direct descendent.

While the Russians had a conscript force they where a professional conscript force. Sure they had a allot of, well publicised, ill-trained human wave units. But the hard fighting was done by the professionels such as the Siberian divisons.

The Germans may of invented Blitzkrieg, but the Russians made it their own with their rapid advance into Germany.

[ShadoWarrior]

I always get annoyed by this concept that the Russians where ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-motivated and got lucky because the enemy leader was a moron.
The Soviet army west of the Urals was ill-trained in 1941. And only had two leaders worth a damn, Timoshenko and Zhukov. The good troops were facing the Japanese ... until Stalin received word that the Japanese were not going to be a threat, intending to go after the US instead, allowing him to transfer them west. (Why he didn't do it sooner, regardless of the Japanese, is further proof that losing troops by the hundreds of thousands wasn't part of the Soviet defense plan. Stalin was expecting the troops west of Moscow to hold, which they failed to do.)

Stalin didn't allow a reorganization of the army even after the near-disaster of the Winter War exposed just how crappy the Russian army was. That didn't begin until Zhukov took over the defense of the Moscow front. It's a testament to how good Timoshenko was that he pulled a victory in the Winter War from what was an ongoing defeat, and Zhukov managing to pull together routed units and civilians and defend Moscow long enough for the Siberian units to arrive and turn the tide.

The Russians had one of the best SMGs ever made (PPSH), they had excelelnt snipers who carried effective and modern (for the time) sniper rifles. many concepts of modern sniping where developed by the Russians.

The Russians turned rocket artillery into an art form with their masse katyusha bateries and today's western MLRS systems are a direct descendent.
The Russians also had superb tanks from 1940 onwards, and then there's the IL-2 "flying tank". And some of the best medium and heavy field artillery used in WW2. I could go on.

[B.T.]

Isn't this going a little off topic here? What's the point? We were discussing war crimes. And I think, this has little to do with an army being made out of professionals or being a conscript army!

By the way: The Wehrmacht was a conscript army, built around a core of professionals. Some years ago the decline of military skills and leadership in the German fighting units was debated and the term "Entprofessionalisierung" was introduced for this. It means (shortened): 1941 was the point in time, where it was clear, that the military leadership of commanding officers in front line troops had declined to such an degree, that troops lacked a lot of professional leadership.
In the earlier stage of the war, the SS was a volunteer-force. And certain units were composed out of volunteers. For example the Sturmartillerie was composed out of volunteers, stemming from the tank branch or from the artillery. But the majority of the troops were no volunteers. Period.

A little more back to topic:
About two or three month ago, two German historians published a book, after they had researched documents of the Western Allies. The allied forces had prison camps, where they bugged (listened to) German POWs. And what was getting very clear: A lot of German soldiers - professionals and conscripts alike - were well aware, that they did not fight the war, as it should have been. They talked quite frankly about the destroying of civil property, the killing of civilians, raping of women, and the like.
What does this tell: From my personal point of view it seems to stress, that people, that had been brought up in a dictatorship and therefore (Wrongly) knew, they were the masterrace, had little trouble, to kill civilians, they thought inferior to themselves.

IIRC the Canadians had a case during the RESTORE HOPE/Somalia engagement of th UN. Some soldiers of a paratrooper unit had been involved in criminal activities and had oppressd Somalis (I'm just remembering. This should not be mistaken as "Canada-bashing"!!). Similar things have happened in all wars. Mo has pointed on several incidents involving French military.

I am a little annoyed, I have to confess. Everyone trying to blame soldiers of one nationality or another just does not help in discussing the question, if war crimes would be punished or not.

If I was to harsh here, please inform me. I try to be calm, but I'm not certain, if I actually am to harsh.

[Sanjuro]

There is a perception that in the US War of Independence, an army of American volunteers defeated a professional British Army.
Hmmmm.
When I lived in the US in the 1990s, I was surprised to read (initially in an article by Dave Barry in the Miami Herald, later in more academic sources) that there were more American colonists fighting for the British, than for the Revolutionary side. Washington's army in fact had four French soldiers for every American volunteer- the cost of supplying this army being so great it ruined the French economy, and led to the mass starvation that triggered the French Revolution.
So it looks like a professional Franco-US Army defeated a British-led partisan army!
While we're talking about volunteers, does anyone else find it a really difficult word to type? I seem to start with voulnteers, then get worse- I almost expect to proof-read this post and find I've been talking about wars between vol-au-vents and profiteroles!

[Targan]

Isn't this going a little off topic here? What's the point? We were discussing war crimes. And I think, this has little to do with an army being made out of professionals or being a conscript army!

I am a little annoyed, I have to confess. Everyone trying to blame soldiers of one nationality or another just does not help in discussing the question, if war crimes would be punished or not.

If I was to harsh here, please inform me. I try to be calm, but I'm not certain, if I actually am to harsh.

No, you're not being harsh. Threads around here do have a tendency to wander off topic (I'm as guilty as anyone of this). Many members have prodigious knowledge of WWII so as soon as that war is mentioned, that's where the thread is bound to go for a while. War crimes do happen on an individual and small scale basis in most wars. Obviously, in the past, there have also been cases of systematic, large scale perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Germany does tend to get singled out but (in my opinion) the modern German military is a highly honorable institution. Same goes for Japan (but bad feelings still run very, very deep here in Australia over the way the Japanese treated POWs in WWII).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It wasn't always that way, the concept of the modern, professional soldier is very much a 20th century creation.

A western, late 20th century concept. The Russians and Chinese still use conscript armies, as do most third world nations.

I disagree, as Mohoender mentioned, we like to believe we invented many things in our time but in many cases it's simply re-invention.
By the 19th dynasty (ca 1298 to 1187 BCE), the Egyptians fielded a fairly well trained standing army.
Although typically forming only in times of conflict, the men of Sparta were professional troops.
The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire were, although essentially conscripts, professional soldiers.

In regards to conscripts, Western nations still used conscripts up until the 1990s as can be seen in many NATO countries. Sweden is only now changing from a conscript force to a regular army and China is also in the same process.
As a side note, conscript troops were responsible for the defence of Papua New Guinea in WW2 and managed to acquit themselves well.