War crimes and criminals

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

When it comes to the tactical level they were often defeated as in Narvik

The 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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by B.T.

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]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.