Allied war crimes during World War II

 

 

I did withdraw from this thread and this will be my last word.

 

Dad was in the South Pacific, not Europe.  He saw things done to civilian populations as well as US military, by the Japanese, that he can't speak of even today.  His LST took a near miss by the stern which bent the screws, making it impossible for the ship to leave the beach after they had unloaded.  Dads duty station was the forward gun director.  The area directly in front of him was where the dead marines were laid out to be removed as time allowed.  He and others had to look at that for 5 days.  Those guys knew exactly what was going on, and I don't believe they, at that time, gave a crap.

 

The Nazis declared war on the US,  The Japanese attacked without warning and then declared war. 

The general attitude of most vets toward what you've spoken of is like that of the dropping of the A Bomb, No Pearl Harbor, No Hiroshima.

Simplistic, yes, in some cases racist, yes.  But again, you cannot judge anything that happened in that war by the values we hold today.

 

I do find it interesting that the folks who initiate total and unrestricted warfare are always the first to cry foul when the same is visited upon them. [And Beorna, that is not directed at you personally]

 

I could very easily compile a list like yours, It would be about a hundred times longer and would start with the Malmedy [Spelling?] Massacre.  It would serve no purpose save that of underlining the insanity of the war.

 

A final thought- This subject could be hashed and rehashed forever. I feel it shows a complete disrespect for the thousands of white crosses from both sides. Men from both the Axis and Allies who, shall remain forever young.

 

 

 

 

The greatest war crime of WW II were the war crime tribunals.  War is state sanctioned killing.  The object of conducting war is to win.  If you can win by intimidation, killing no one fantastic.  If necessary you exterminate your opponents entirely.  Hopefully something less will suffice.

When the fighting ends, the winner decides what punishment to administer or what revenge to exact.

In WW I, the German military which had introduced gas warfare, was appalled to discover that US Marines were using shotguns against their personnel.

In WW II the British who were appalled that the Luftwaffe could stoop to bomb innocent civilians in cities on their part exclusively bombed cities at night when there could not possibly be any accurate sighting on their bombs.

If you look back in history the black flag was a tried and tested acceptable form of behavior.  Any besieged city which failed to capitulate when the wall was breached was subject to mass rape, extermination of every person, theft on a grand scale. 

If you want to point that in the 20th century nations had signed Accords which stipulated which forms of warfare were or were not acceptable, and in fact under the League of Nations had completely outlawed war to solve disputes.  Question?  If war is outlawed and some nations breaks that law, how is that nation to be punished other than other nation(s) prosecuting war against them?  CATCH 22.  Even ignoring this conundrum, consider that when a war is concluded it will be the victor(s) who determine who has violated the law.

Consider if the League of Nations had been formed prior to WWI.  When Germany had been forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, accepting war guilt; what if they had appealed to the League and the League had voided the treaty and its onerous reparations.  What if the League had rightly judged that Germany was no more responsible for the war than Austria Hungary, Serbia,
Russsia, Britain, or France.  Do have any inkling of a thought that the victorious Allies would have acceded to the verdict?

In fact it is only in the 20th Century that the concept of war crimes was allowed to take form.  And oddly enough it is the rise of democracy which is at fault.  Prior to that century wars were primarily between opposing monarch and in Europe given the pattern of monarchial in-breeding were essentially family affairs.  Had not democracy interposed WW I probably could have been resolved with much less bloodshed and far sooner.

However once warfare became a matter of one nation state versus another; one people against another, and modern warfare requiring enormous armies, war became personal.  Individual people (voters) became vested in the outcome of the war. The enormous bloodletting required that somebody had to be held responsible, ie, the concept of war crimes/criminals.