if a war-crimes tribunal had existed in the 1800s,
- Thread starter WriterDom
- Start date
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
No of cause he would...
Not have been indicted for the vicious and brutal war he fought on the southern civillians.
The reason for the lack of any indictment against him or any of his officers or men is simple.
He would (should, could) not be indicted because he started and finished the war on the winning side.
Can anyone remember the troops of a winning side in any war, since the war crimes trails started ever being indicted?
EZ
Not have been indicted for the vicious and brutal war he fought on the southern civillians.
The reason for the lack of any indictment against him or any of his officers or men is simple.
He would (should, could) not be indicted because he started and finished the war on the winning side.
Can anyone remember the troops of a winning side in any war, since the war crimes trails started ever being indicted?
EZ
Last edited:
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
Where and at what point do you draw the line...
Do you consider the bombing of civilian targets during WWII (this war was chosen, not out of disrespect for those who fought in it but as an example of a well documented war with casualty figures known to be substantially correct) to be justified.
If not then at what level do you prosecute, the country's Leader, the country's Military Leader, the General commanding the air war in that theatre of operations, the general in command of the airforce that carried out the raid, the bomber group leader... right down to the crews of the planes that actually dropped their bombs?
Are some of these more guilty because they ordered others to go out and bomb those targets, or should you only blame the aircrews that dropped the bombs (saying that they should have known better than to obey the orders they had been given)?
Can you state your feelings about this?
EZ
Do you consider the bombing of civilian targets during WWII (this war was chosen, not out of disrespect for those who fought in it but as an example of a well documented war with casualty figures known to be substantially correct) to be justified.
If not then at what level do you prosecute, the country's Leader, the country's Military Leader, the General commanding the air war in that theatre of operations, the general in command of the airforce that carried out the raid, the bomber group leader... right down to the crews of the planes that actually dropped their bombs?
Are some of these more guilty because they ordered others to go out and bomb those targets, or should you only blame the aircrews that dropped the bombs (saying that they should have known better than to obey the orders they had been given)?
Can you state your feelings about this?
EZ
Shucks, the past is too messy for me to get involved. I like thinking about the present more then the here and now.
Its not a question I can answer easily one way or the other. It's a tricky issue that has legitimate negatives and positives on both sides.
Alls fair in Love and War I suppose.
Its not a question I can answer easily one way or the other. It's a tricky issue that has legitimate negatives and positives on both sides.
Alls fair in Love and War I suppose.
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
Re: Re: Where and at what point do you draw the line...
But if all are culpable of committing the "war crime" of bombing civilian targets, why would you not indict and prosecute all those who took part.
Then you would have to add to those that actually flew on those missions, all those members of the support crews who made it possible for the mission to be carried out.
And you would have to add those members of the civilian population of 3rd countries who assisted by allowing air bases to be set up on their land in order to bomb the civilian targets of their countries enemies.
I have come across as cold and uncaring with these posts, and surprise surprise this was not my intention.
It is my intention to point out "Bad things happen in war" and I agree that the war crimes trials (Including those about the former Yugoslavia are justified), but how far down the ladder of a countries government, military or para-military or civilian population should you feel justified in imprisoning or executing when they loose their part of the war?
At what level do you say it doesn't matter he/she was to low on the level of doing disgusting things to be indicted?
EZ
lavender said:
But if all are culpable of committing the "war crime" of bombing civilian targets, why would you not indict and prosecute all those who took part.
Then you would have to add to those that actually flew on those missions, all those members of the support crews who made it possible for the mission to be carried out.
And you would have to add those members of the civilian population of 3rd countries who assisted by allowing air bases to be set up on their land in order to bomb the civilian targets of their countries enemies.
I have come across as cold and uncaring with these posts, and surprise surprise this was not my intention.
It is my intention to point out "Bad things happen in war" and I agree that the war crimes trials (Including those about the former Yugoslavia are justified), but how far down the ladder of a countries government, military or para-military or civilian population should you feel justified in imprisoning or executing when they loose their part of the war?
At what level do you say it doesn't matter he/she was to low on the level of doing disgusting things to be indicted?
EZ
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: Where and at what point do you draw the line...
First: The USA has prosecuted it's on soldiers forr "War Crimes" -- My Lai is only the most famous example. Other countrries have prosecuted their own for war crimes as well.
I do NOT know of any case where aanother country or international tribunal has prosecuted a "victor" for waar crimes.
Second: Sherman wwould NOT have been prosecuted for his "total war" campaign, because he waged war against crops and industry to the extent he was able. If I remember correctly, he executed four of his own troops for rape.
Sherman waged as humane a campaign as is possible for a campaign against the economy and morale of an enemy nation. (Far more humane than either Axis or Allied air campaigns in WWII)
Finally, the line:
The stops with those who had the decision making power to stop a war crime. The Ploticl leader who formualtedd/approved the policy, the military leaders who gave the orders, and those who pulled the trigger. In some circumstances, those who transported the triggerman are also culpable, although anyone who rode along would not be.
Ezzy said:
First: The USA has prosecuted it's on soldiers forr "War Crimes" -- My Lai is only the most famous example. Other countrries have prosecuted their own for war crimes as well.
I do NOT know of any case where aanother country or international tribunal has prosecuted a "victor" for waar crimes.
Second: Sherman wwould NOT have been prosecuted for his "total war" campaign, because he waged war against crops and industry to the extent he was able. If I remember correctly, he executed four of his own troops for rape.
Sherman waged as humane a campaign as is possible for a campaign against the economy and morale of an enemy nation. (Far more humane than either Axis or Allied air campaigns in WWII)
Finally, the line:
The stops with those who had the decision making power to stop a war crime. The Ploticl leader who formualtedd/approved the policy, the military leaders who gave the orders, and those who pulled the trigger. In some circumstances, those who transported the triggerman are also culpable, although anyone who rode along would not be.
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
I was glad to see Ezzy...
...bring up the bombing of civilian targets because, if I recall correctly, it was the British who first "intentionally" bombed German civilian targets. Rather out of character, but I think it started from a misunderstanding (if that can be said in a time of war). Do correct me if I'm wrong on this one.
...bring up the bombing of civilian targets because, if I recall correctly, it was the British who first "intentionally" bombed German civilian targets. Rather out of character, but I think it started from a misunderstanding (if that can be said in a time of war). Do correct me if I'm wrong on this one.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
I live in the strip that runs from Westport straight down into the heart of Dixie which was a highway for both sides. The south came up and hacked a path of destruction of their own. The biggest cavalry battle of the war occurred in Kansas at Mine Creek, so you see, as with my example of sitting bull, the south was not innocent in waging war on civilians. It happens in every conflict.
Hell, look what the Russians do to their own in the name of defending the mother land.
War is hell boys and girls!
Hell, look what the Russians do to their own in the name of defending the mother land.
War is hell boys and girls!
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Technically speaking...
Vietnam was never a war, it was a "police action" (shrugs shoulders). Politicians and generals love to turn killing into something academic.
Vietnam was never a war, it was a "police action" (shrugs shoulders). Politicians and generals love to turn killing into something academic.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: Re: Technically speaking...
1: an Act of Congress. (Korea wasn't a "War" either.)
2: The soldiers won the battles, the politicians ceded the conflict.
PS: the point still remains, that I don't know of any US soldiers turned over to an international tribunal for "war crimes" prosecution, but the US has prosecuted it's own.
EvilBollWeevil said:
1: an Act of Congress. (Korea wasn't a "War" either.)
2: The soldiers won the battles, the politicians ceded the conflict.
PS: the point still remains, that I don't know of any US soldiers turned over to an international tribunal for "war crimes" prosecution, but the US has prosecuted it's own.
Last edited:
rambling man
Somewhat Deadly
- Joined
- May 16, 2001
- Posts
- 1,558
The only person charged with war crimes in the civil war was the man who ran Andersonville.
Sherman was simply prosecuting a war, the same as the British and US planes that eliminated so many German cities from existence during WW II.
In the 1800s, the Turkish massacres of Armenians would have been eligible for consideration on that level.
Also, though this is kind of blunt, some populations chose their fate by voting in governments that prosecuted war . Germany in WWII is an example. Hitler laid out his plans for total war against everyone way before he was elected. The Japanese people did nothign to stop their country's drift towards war. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.
Sherman was simply prosecuting a war, the same as the British and US planes that eliminated so many German cities from existence during WW II.
In the 1800s, the Turkish massacres of Armenians would have been eligible for consideration on that level.
Also, though this is kind of blunt, some populations chose their fate by voting in governments that prosecuted war . Germany in WWII is an example. Hitler laid out his plans for total war against everyone way before he was elected. The Japanese people did nothign to stop their country's drift towards war. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.
Similar threads
