I recently started a thread on Japan's controversies surrounding its war crimes and role in previous wars in modern times, after Gen Toshio Tamogami's very controversial essay on such matters.
But the subject got me wondering about subject of war crimes or similar deeds concerning western countries (with most of my focus on British or Americans). I'm really not that knowledgeable on this subject, partly because material on it is hard to come by- but i'm sure like any other country in war, we are probably responsible for our own share of bad deeds in times of war. Even in modern wars, there is evidence of Americans being responsible for bad actions in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq etc. But i'm particularly interested in such stuff happening in previous wars/era's like WW2.
So if you know of any war crimes committed by the western side, i would like to hear and discuss about them ^_^ .
Material is hard to come by due to the absence of war crimes by the British and Americans in WW1 & 2.
However, the mass aerial bombings of Japan and Germany are considered war crimes by many. I'm particularly uneasy about the Dresden bombing, and if pushed would mark it down as war crime. And the guy who ordered the US Tokyo firebomb raids said he that if the USA had lost the war he'd probably have been tried as a war criminal.
For the UK, Dresden always comes up. For the US, the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There have been accusations of being war criminals for Bush and Blair.
As for answering them, it comes down to the winner and loser, or who has the bigger guns. The UK and US will not face any courts for Dresden or the bombs as they won the war. On the other hand if Germany won the US and UK would have their own prosecuted war criminals.
How far do you wish to go back with this, 20th century, 19th, 18th? The further you go back they worse the soldiers and commanders actions in war become. The Napoleonic wars saw atrocites on all sides.
I may be wrong, but I think the Tokyo firebombing of 9th March 1945 resulted in the largest loss of life at any one time / location in history- major natural disasters aside. And I've never heard of any military targets that existed in the Ueno / Asakusa area at that time, so the target was unequivically the civilian population, contrary to the Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime. Dresden was also of no military significance at the time it was obliterated.
The Geneva Convention attempts to impose a set of rules of 'decency' on the barbaric business of warfare. IFAIK, foreshortening the war is not mentioned as an mitigating factor in committing a war crime, which would negate most of the arguments in favour of these mass civilian bombings.
You may want to look at the Opium wars. Basically, the UK (and also France to some extent) did war to China to continue selling opium to Chinese people.
At that time, UK traded tea (made in China) against opium (made in India), creating great health issues in the Chinese population.
Also, I heard that in the skies of Europe during WWII, British and German planes were broadly respecting the rules of war (such as not shooting ejected pilots), whereas some American pilots did not.
I would also think that the mass bombings of cities with no significant military objective is a war crime, and it was performed massively by the allied forces. While the first bombings (in 1940 or 1941) could be explained by the need to "survive" and the very difficult situation of Britain, the later ones, when the was was almost lost for Germany, are harder to justify.
Now, there is also a trade-off between how much you wish to risk your soldier's life and how much you respect your oponent's civil population. It is easy to speak in this forum about war crimes, but when you are the guy in charge and have to decide whether you risk 10.000 of your soldiers or you go for massive airstrikes, it is certainly not an easy choice.
There is also Vietnam (burning whole villages down of civilians and torture/raping), Iraq...I dun need to explain that I guess. Also Korea War and Afghanistan War...
Jews were NOT welcome in the US during the massacre in WWII by the Nazis (what the USA was aware of)
The US also massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890..not to mention ALL the native Americans, what is most likely their biggest crime ever!
A few come to mind.. the Japanese-American Internment Camps, isolated incidents of civilian rape after occupying Japan, and gunning down Japanese POW's. This just goes to how vicious those years were for everyone involved.
Well as far as WW2 goes, I would say there are two big reasons you do not hear about war crimes on the allied side.
One big reason is because the allies won.
The second is that, if civilian casualties are any indication of who was committing war crimes, it leans toward what the axis side did overshadowing what the allies did.
Strait from Wikipedia:
Civilian causalities suffered on the allied side: 36,000,000
Civilian causalities suffered on the axis side: 4,000,000.
The numbers speak for themselves.
If you want to look for war crimes of the US and Great Britain before WW2, I'm sure, "Native Americans and genocide", and "British Empire", on a Wikipedia search will get you started.
I would also think that the mass bombings of cities with no significant military objective is a war crime, and it was performed massively by the allied forces. While the first bombings (in 1940 or 1941) could be explained by the need to "survive" and the very difficult situation of Britain, the later ones, when the was was almost lost for Germany, are harder to justify.
Well as far as WW2 goes, I would say there are two big reasons you do not hear about war crimes on the allied side.
One big reason is because the allies won.
The second is that, if civilian casualties are any indication of who was committing war crimes, it leans toward what the axis side did overshadowing what the allies did.
Strait from Wikipedia:
Civilian causalities suffered on the allied side: 36,000,000
Civilian causalities suffered on the axis side: 4,000,000.
The numbers speak for themselves.
If you want to look for war crimes of the US and Great Britain before WW2, I'm sure, "Native Americans and genocide", and "British Empire", on a Wikipedia search will get you started.
Please state which war crimes come under the "British Empire" heading?
As I've said before, the British Empire, for better or worse, was built by trade and coercion. The UK was never a big military power. Lands were taken control of unjustly, of course, but war crimes were very rare, so please list some. Nowhere was actually invaded, in complete contrast to the Japanese attempt at building an empire. I'm sure you've heard of the Commonwealth" - almost every ex-Empire country chose to remain associated with Britain through this organisation.
I think we're confusing unjust wars and political policies with war crimes.
A few come to mind.. the Japanese-American Internment Camps, isolated incidents of civilian rape after occupying Japan, and gunning down Japanese POW's. This just goes to how vicious those years were for everyone involved.
Internment may (or may not) have been an unjust policy, but a war crime?
Germans and Italians were interned in the UK, but there doesn't seem to have been any complaints about that (however, I think only non-UK citizens were interned.)
Apart from the aerial civilian bombings, the war in the west (USA, UK, Gemany) was fought according to the Geneva Convention on all sides.
As for the Germany/Russia conflict, the GV went out of the window... as it did on the Japanese side in the Far East.
True, but the treatment of the internees and POW's who had been relocated to these internment camps were protected by the articles of the Geneva convention.
I can't post any links yet but if you go to "Google Books", search "Judgment Without Trial" by "Tetsuden Kashima" and go to "Chapter 9: Abuses, Protests and the Geneva Convention" on page 183. If you have time or if you want you can read about it, albeit there are some pages missing in the preview.
Maybe what's involved here doesn't constitute the offenders as "Class-A War criminals" that some may like to find in a thread like this and probably would be considered minimal, irrelevant crimes because it cannot be compared to the atrocities that occured in Asia and Europe but they are war crimes non-the-less.
Also, I heard that in the skies of Europe during WWII, British and German planes were broadly respecting the rules of war (such as not shooting ejected pilots), whereas some American pilots did not.
Actually, you have this reversed. If you read Eisenhouers Biography, he complains of this several times. He was always reluctant to use paratroopers for this reason and a an argument that paratroopers were not very effective. Not only were they shot by germans before they hit the ground, they were also shot by jumpy french/Italian AA gunners (when they switched the the allied side) Thinking the germans were bombing them.
I would also think that the mass bombings of cities with no significant military objective is a war crime, and it was performed massively by the allied forces. While the first bombings (in 1940 or 1941) could be explained by the need to "survive" and the very difficult situation of Britain, the later ones, when the was was almost lost for Germany, are harder to justify.
I would not consider this a war crime because this is how war was fought at the time. There was no Guided munitions like there are now. Carpet bombing was used all the way up until the Vietnam war. You forget that in Germany, much of the civilian population built military equipment. Factories were located among civilian living areas. I think at the time, killing civilians was looked at as killing the supply force of the German military.
I am still a little concerned about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is a boarderline war crime. I understand why it was done, and I understand that without doing it there would have been another war with casualties probably close to those against germany. The generals were well aware that we could not accept many more casualties. I think it was just the world wanting to get the conflict over with.
If we had dealt with Japan first, and Germany 2nd.. Maybe Germany would have gotten nuked.
Actually, you have this reversed. If you read Eisenhouers Biography, he complains of this several times. He was always reluctant to use paratroopers for this reason and a an argument that paratroopers were not very effective. Not only were they shot by germans before they hit the ground, they were also shot by jumpy french/Italian AA gunners (when they switched the the allied side) Thinking the germans were bombing them.
I would not consider this a war crime because this is how war was fought at the time. There was no Guided munitions like there are now. Carpet bombing was used all the way up until the Vietnam war. You forget that in Germany, much of the civilian population built military equipment. Factories were located among civilian living areas. I think at the time, killing civilians was looked at as killing the supply force of the German military.
This is very true, civilians were the ones supplying the army with stuff like food, equipment and even future soldiers. Based on this i guess you could argue that it is fair to target any civilian area if the civilians are supporting their military (which is often the case)- but is this really fair?
Swept up in imperialism and militarism, millions of Japanese civilians in Japan in WW2 busily worked away in factories and farms which supplied their military. But not everybody seems to have been that willing in this- there wasn't really a choice back then to opt out of this work, and countless thousands (probably hundreds of thousands, maybe even more) of Japanese starved to death or were worked to death or both in WW2.
I guess in a way, you could argue that these Japanese civilians were pretty much slaves to the military, they didn't have a choice not to work back then for it.
And this goes for almost every country back in WW2- people didn't really have a choice not to support their war effort. Farmers in England for example were forced to produce masses of food for the nation and army, even if at the end of bumper harvests they themselves were still starving, they were not really allowed to take extra food for themselves.
So if you argue that its fair to bomb civilian area's because the civilians are supporting the military in their work, and so bombing such area's is no much different from bombing ammunition supplies, military bases or troops etc, then any bombing of civilian area's in time of war could be justified one way or another.
So how do you really define the killing of civilians in WW2 as a war crime?
I am still a little concerned about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is a boarderline war crime. I understand why it was done, and I understand that without doing it there would have been another war with casualties probably close to those against germany. The generals were well aware that we could not accept many more casualties. I think it was just the world wanting to get the conflict over with.
If we had dealt with Japan first, and Germany 2nd.. Maybe Germany would have gotten nuked.
There would not have been another war at all if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't have been bombed!
Towards the end of the war, Japan was losing the war for one major reason and that reason pretty much alone- they were running out of supplies. Japan has never been a particularly self-sufficient country, the Japanese have always been a nation that has relied heavily on trade to bring in the goods for the country to thrive/prosper and modernize.
War is a bad thing for trade, and when the Japanese went to war, they never really bargained for how badly trade would suffer as a result of it. Packed with countless troops, ammunition, ships and planes etc at the start though the Japanese were a very strong, menacing and confident force and they inflicted massive damage on the Americans and their allies for a long time.
However towards the end of the war, the Japanese were running seriously low on vital raw materials like metal to build ships and planes out of. They had plenty of troops, but what use were they if they didn't have enough stuff to arm themselves properly with? This was the time in the war when the Japanese came up with such menaces as the Kamikaze pilot, which was essentially designed to help save planes and ammunition, while inflicting massive damage on enemy ships.
But as the war dragged on, Japan's navy kept on suffering big losses of their best and biggest fighting ships- and they simply didn't have the means to replace these ships adequately.
So with planes and ships running out and the civilian population starving and malnourished, no matter how much the Japanese wanted to win the war, they were destined to lose without the materials they needed so badly. The Americans knew the Japanese were becoming seriously weakened and knew the time for invasion was not far off.
But it was not as simple as this- numerous high ranking powerful members in the Japanese government and military refused to give in despite the odds being stacked against them. They (probably) knew they were going to lose sooner or later, however they still wanted inflict massive damage on the Americans when they invaded.
So the government and military started to prepare the civilian population for a mass suicidal last stand rush towards the Americans when they landed on Japan's shores. Ordinary people, even old women and children, were being prepared to fight with basic weapons like staffs, grenades, bayonets and anything else left over to hand, and were being prepared to commit mass suicide as well in various ways etc.
The Americans heard about all of these plans going on in Japan- they knew the time for invading Japan was not far off, but they were quite rightly concerned about the casualties that could potentially be inflicted on their troops by the civilians of this desperate and cornered nation.
So the Americans came up with the whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bomb idea's. I believe the idea was to install terror and submission into the Japanese by inflicting terrifying mass damage upon the civilian population via the nuclear bombs, as so to help deter them from making any last stand against the American troops.
And the rest is history.
The Americans have always argued that the bombs helped save American soldiers lives by helping subdue the Japanese civilian population and deter them from forming any aggressive last stand attack towards the American soldiers. And while there were numerous mass suicides by the Japanese (and controversially slaughters by Japanese troops towards Japanese civilians) on the Japanese side when the Americans invaded, overall they were pretty small-scale and scattered events, causing no real threat to the conquering Americans.
The controversy comes in about what the Americans really knew about Japan before they bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Nothing in this is that clear-cut.
Many argue for example, that the Americans actually knew that the Japanese in government who were arguing in favor of this last stand business had already largely fallen out of favor with most of the other generals and politicians etc, who only wanted the war and killing to end as they knew the loss of the war was certain and near.
Many argue that the Americans knew that the Japanese civilian population was starved, tired and seriously running out of resources and would never make any real threat to the conquering American soldiers.
Many argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki as particular targets in themselves were chosen amongst a list of many potential targets for no particular reasons- one of the American generals involved in the choosing of the targets protected Kyoto from being bombed simply because he had been on a honeymoon there with his wife before the war, and wanted something to be left of it after the war as he wanted to visit it again with his wife after the war was over. Pretty much for this reason alone, Kyoto still stands today as we know it.
Many argue that nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply done partly as a human experiment (the American's figured they were probably not going to get another chance to do this sort of thing again anytime soon) and partly as a visible testament to American power (probably getting payback was in mind too).
So there are many reasons and arguments with or against the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. One thing is for certain though, Japan was on its knees and was not going to start any new wars or last much longer in war.
I'm not sure though i can wholeheartedly justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians to save a fraction of thats soldiers lives. But with the way things were back then and what had been done on all sides, i can understand the mindset the Americans must have been in then against the Japanese. There was always something very frightening about Japan's abilities back then to brainwash its troops and people into doing terrible things.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, i apologize for not being on here for a little while to reply back sooner.
