WW2 WarCrimes

[Nickdfresh]

@Rising_Sun

In some instances that was true.

In many, it wasn’t.

I’ve been trying to locate a book or paper on it that I read a long, long time ago and don’t have and can’t recall the title of, but Google can’t find it. You’d think that by now the internet would have published everything printed since Gutenberg’s minor invention, wouldn’t you?

A few serious studies had already been done on this issue when I read about it.

There were many instances of disobedience of varying degrees which were tolerated, and I don’t mean by stars such as Rommel and Guderian.

My recollection is that various instances were detailed of OR’s, NCO’s, subalterns and field officers refusing to carry out questionable orders without any adverse consequences.

My recollection is that the harshness of the response to refusing orders related very much to the type of unit and the circumstances it was in, and also to the attitude of the commanders which influenced their subordinates.

My recollection also is that there were some significant incidents where German soldiers (Heer rather than Waffen SS) refused orders to harm civilians (I can’t recall if these were executions or circumstances where civilian deaths would be less direct) and possibly POWs in Western Europe without consqequences. I think there might also have been lesser incidents elsewhere, perhaps Greece or Crete, although the fighting on Crete was pretty vicious.

My recollection also is that things were much harsher on the Eastern Front.

Even there, the sentiments shown by von Paulus in surrendering to save his remaining men shows a willingness to disobey orders to protect his men. Not there was much risk of anyone outranking him on his recent promotion to Field Marshal with the authority to shoot him.

I’ve heard the story of an SS Lieutenant that refused an order to massacre Polish civilians in retaliation for a Polish attack during the 1939 operation. He was to be court-martialled and sentenced to death. But a funny thing happened on the way to the German court-martial – they found he was right! The authorities faced a dilemma of which neither option seemed palatable. His orders were patently illegal even under German law and all treaties signed so early on in the War, and his trial would have been an either embarrassing sideshow in which his council could theoretically have called for investigations and trials of senior Nazi party members for murder and war crimes. Or it would have been an embarrassing show trial (at that point) in which the lawless, putrid nature of the Nazi regime would have been exposed as law would need to be completely disregarded in order to execute him, providing grist to Allied propaganda.

The case was quietly dropped and he was discharged and then fled West I believe…

[Jazzman]

Most of the WWII vets are in their 80’s now, including any alleged war criminals still out there. Still, I think they should be brought to trial when found, no matter how old or sick they may be. No western nation that I know of has a statute of limitations on murder and due to the horrific nature of some of these guy’s crimes, if convicted they should spend their remaining days locked in a cell.

[mavericck]

What about the fire bombing of civilians? (Dresden and Hamburg come to mind)

[mkenny]

‘Warcrimes’ is a legal term that defines acts of war that fall outside of previously agreed rules. Bombing civilian targets (and thus civilians) is not a warcrime. If it was then the Luftwaffe would be in the dock as well-and they weren’t.
There is a distinction between isolated acts of criminality in an army and the officialy sanctioned and encouraged murders ect. carried out by the Germans.

[flamethrowerguy]

I was wondering about any sense in replying to this clumsy attempt of provocation, however when you’re sober again maybe you should e.g. read about the consequences for the officers in charge of

• the german air raid on Belgrade
  and
  -the american/british air raids on Belgrade…

[mkenny]

@flamethrowerguy

I was wondering about any sense in replying to this clumsy attempt of provocation

War crime is a legal term. Bombing after a declaration of war isn’t a crime.

however when you’re sober again maybe you should e.g. read about the consequences for the officers in charge of

• the german air raid on Belgrade
  and
  -the american/british air raids on Belgrade…

You mean the German raid described as :
“The air raid on Belgrade in 1941 had a primarily political-terrorist character and had nothing to do with the war. That air bombing was a matter of Hitler’s vanity, his personal revenge.” ?
The air raid that killed 20,000 without any declaration of war?

And the Allied raid that killed 1,000 after Yugoslavia was occupied by Germany?
A raid after a declaration of war?

You should read up on war crimes and how a declaration of war changes things.

[Cuts]

@Ace Vantura

I have been having a little bit of an discussion with another member on another ww2 forum about- Was Rape apart of the crime rules during ww1 and ww2?
I said it’s not part of the crime rules during ww1 and ww2 to rape someone, it was called spoils of war.If you win the war there’s no such crime as Rape and even if you do lose the war noone gets punish for raping.
He thinks other wise, am i wrong on this topic?

Regards

On the vague offchance you’re not winding everyone and their dog up, the answer is yes.

[flamethrowerguy]

@mkenny

The air raid that killed 20,000 without any declaration of war?

…and which serious source mentions this number which is usually estimated by 1500-1700?

[Rising_Sun]

@Ace Vantura

Um, I was expecting an answer in English.

You got one.

Your inability to comprehend a clear answer in clear English does not demonstrate any deficiency in the answerer’s English.

On this board we do not usually disparage a member’s English as there are many members who are not native English speakers, although a number of them have significantly better English expression and comprehension than you.

@Ace Vantura

I have no idea what you just said ,sep for yes i was wrong.

I have no idea what you just said, not least because ‘sep’ is meaningless.

By the way, in the quoted sentence the first person singular pronoun should have been capitalised while at #23 you should not have capitalised the r in ‘Rape’. Also, you should have said ‘a part’ rather than ‘apart’.

As for the clause ‘noone gets punish for raping’, and even allowing for ‘noone’ as a typo (which we all make and which it is customary to ignore), it is a grammatical disaster.

Your deplorable English disqualifies you from disparaging another member’s English. So don’t do it, or people will think you are a complete tool.

@Ace Vantura

But i was not wrong about the spoils of war though.

Really?

Demonstrate:
(a) the concept of ‘spoils of war’ in twentieth century international law, and
(b) how it allowed rape, or anything else.

@Ace Vantura

Did anyone get punished for raping after ww2?

Yes.

For example, General Yamashita was hanged for permitting rape, among other war crimes, under his command. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/Yamashita1.htm

@Ace Vantura

I never heard such as a case!

Your lack of knowledge of an event is not evidence that it did not occur. Were it so, much of WWII would be a blank canvas.

@Ace Vantura

Please can you answer in English next time.

It would be better if you posted in English.

@Ace Vantura

If you do dare to answer back.

Don’t try to provoke quarrels with such infantile comments.

[Cuts]

@Ace Vantura

Um, I was expecting an answer in English.

And such did you receive.

@Ace Vantura

I have no idea what you just said ,sep for yes i was wrong.

If, with my poor English, I comprehend you correctly, you are informing me of the fact that all you gleaned from my previous post is my correct assertion that you were, (and are,) incorrect in your assumption.

@Ace Vantura

But i was not wrong about the spoils of war though.

From your statement I take it you are unfamiliar with the Hague Conference of 1899, in particlar Hague II, Section II, Chapter I, Article 25, and Section III, Articles 43, 46 and 47.
Similarly the Hague Conference of 1907, Hague IV, Section II, Chapter I, Article 25, and Section III, Articles 43, 46 and 47.
Also noting, if necessary, Article 4.

@Ace Vantura

Did anyone get punished for raping after ww2?

Yes, very many have been. eg. Pte Ronald A. Gray, convicted 1988, execution scheduled 10 Dec 2008.
But should I understand that you mean ‘did anyone get punished after 02 Sep 1945 for a rape committed during war ?’ or ‘did anyone who committed a rape during WWII get punished for the crime ?’

@Ace Vantura

I never heard such as a case!

If you wish to find one searching would be a good start.

Try reading “Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during WWII” by J. Robert Lilly.
(Publ. by Palgrave Macmillan Aug 2007. 256 pp.)
In it he notes that of the 854 cases of rape in England, France and Germany dealt with by US military courts, seventy death sentences were carried out, although other punishments were more commonplace.

@Ace Vantura

Please can you answer in English next time;)

The question is hardly can I post in English, but if I do, will you be able to comprehend the answer ?

@Ace Vantura

If you do dare to answer back.

How old are you young man ?
When you leave school you will find that these purile ‘dares’ lose all their attraction.
You are likely to discover new diversions, girls for example.
I can assure you they are both infinitely more of a challenge and far more fun that a ‘dare.’

[Cuts]

Ace V,
Your last just seen.
No hard feelings pal.

Clean slate ?

[Rising_Sun]

@Ace Vantura

R/S, I was not trying to cause a quarrels with other members,i learnt my lesson the hard way. I was trying to bring humour;)

It didn’t come across that way. Use emoticons if you want to make sure your humorous attempt is perceived.

@Ace Vantura

You could of just giving me proof R/S, no need to go through all of that.

I wasn’t the one trying to prove anything. You were. On a history forum you need to refer to evidence from historical sources or texts to support your position.

@Ace Vantura

You are very rough around the edges but i do have to respect everyone’s personality.

If you think I’m rough around the edges, you ought to see how jagged I am at the core if someone really pisses me off.

I rebuked you because you took an unwarranted shot at Cuts about his English rather than debating the issue about rape as a war crime on historical or legal bases.

@Ace Vantura

I am only 21 years old sorry if i don’t know as much as you do R/S,

Most of the people who fought in WWII were about your age or younger, and so were most of them who died.

We had a now-banned disruptive member not so long ago who used to run a similar line about being young and ignorant to try to slide out of situations she created. You would be well advised not to emulate her sorry performance. Not least because I might start to think that you are her in a fresh incarnation. And don’t bother to protest this point, or it might become an instance of ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’ ff.

@Ace Vantura

I was only stating that rape during war time it seems there’s no rules

There were always rules, but they were, and even now are, often ignored. That doesn’t alter the fact that rape was a war crime, any more than people being murdered every day in every country on earth alters the fact that murder is a crime in each jurisdiction.

@Ace Vantura

and laws and it seems there’s no punishment in my eyes.

In almost all individual cases you’re probably correct so far as individual offenders being tried for their crimes, and victims being vindicated, is concerned.

But that wasn’t the point you were making originally, which was that rape wasn’t a crime in both world wars, but ‘the spoils of war’.

If it wasn’t a crime, why on earth do you expect it to be punished?

[Rising_Sun]

@Ace Vantura

By the generals of the army during ww1 and ww2 it was classed as spoils of war.

1. Name the generals.

2. Specify the army.

3. Detail how or when they claimed rape was the spoils of war.

@Ace Vantura

About the banned member,what’s her name?only if you are aloud to tell me.

I’d suggest you don’t pursue this path, because you are looking more and more to me like the troll whose name you seek.

Simply take this as a warning that I have my eye on you as a troll, and piss me off not, for mightily shall my wrath fall upon you if I decide that you are.

[mkenny]

@flamethrowerguy

…and which serious source mentions this number which is usually estimated by 1500-1700?

Right or wrong totals do not impact on the main point. A declaration of war is the key factor. To help the debats move forward I concede that I do not have authorative figures in the casualties and thus could be wrong.
Sadly being wrong on the detail will not alter the fact that the German bombing itself was war crime and the Allied bombing was not.

[Ivaylo]

@herman2

Excerpt from todays Toronto Star:
MUNICH, Germany – An 89-year-old former Nazi officer was charged with murder today in the killing of 14 civilians in Italy during World War II, German officials said.
Josef Eduard Scheungraber will go on trial Sept. 15, the Munich state court said.
Prosecutors accuse Scheungraber, who was stationed in Italy as the commander of a mountain infantry batallion, of ordering his troops to kill the civilians at Falzano di Cortona, near the Tuscan town of Arezzo, in June 1944 in reprisal for the killing of two German soldiers.
The troops shut 11 people in a farmhouse and blew up the building
Anton Winkler, a spokesman for Munich prosecutors, said the charges were based on documents and witness testimony, including that of a survivor of the massacre.

***********Is the cost of prosecuting WW2 war criminals that are 89 yrs old worth the time,money and effort?.I often wonder what society’s opinion on the topic is.??

My opinion is that ANYONE Allied , Soviet , Italian or German who did something out of the soldiers duty , shooting civilians , raping girls and so on must be charged by the court and if found guilty to take the consequences even if that mean a dead for him / her . Because to be a soldier means not to be butcher , you have to follow some rules and first of all not to become a animal even if that is hard as there is war around .

[Rising_Sun]

@Ivaylo

My opinion is that ANYONE Allied , Soviet , Italian or German who did something out of the soldiers duty , shooting civilians , raping girls and so on must be charged by the court and if found guilty to take the consequences even if that mean a dead for him / her . Because to be a soldier means not to be butcher , you have to follow some rules and first of all not to become a animal even if that is hard as there is war around .

Where is the soldier’s duty in raping someone, most often a female?

What possible military need or benefit is there in such an act?

What sort of officer or NCO could allow this to happen?

Isn’t it the case that to be a soldier one must be prepared to be a butcher?

Is there something other than butchery happening on a battlefield?

In the midst of all that butchery, why shouldn’t a soldier rape any woman he can find, as he kills anyone he can find?

Where are the moral and behavioural divisions in these cases?

[Cuts]

@Ace Vantura

Cuts, i am 21 years old.

R/S-Rape was not always classed as a crime,and i don’t belive in raping women.
Rape was sometimes classed as spoils of war

look under International Law and Humanitarian Law
http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/War_rape

Ivaylo-Rape wernt really classed as rapes sometimes .

I can not find the rest,wiki is to big.

Regrads

And indeed it is the Wiki, with all it’s attendant faults and errors.

[redcoat]

@flamethrowerguy

I was wondering about any sense in replying to this clumsy attempt of provocation, however when you’re sober again maybe you should e.g. read about the consequences for the officers in charge of

• the german air raid on Belgrade
  and
  -the american/british air raids on Belgrade…

The reason the Yugoslavian government was able to charge these men with a war crime was because the Yugoslavian government had declared Belgrade an ‘Open City’ (ie undefended) before the raid, and under international agreements which Germany had signed, it was illegal to bombard an ‘Open City’

ps; A city can only be classed as an ‘Open City’ if it is about to fall to enemy ground forces and the authorities of the countries have removed all their military forces from the area and intend to make no effort to defend it.

[flamethrowerguy]

@redcoat

The reason the Yugoslavian government was able to charge these men with a war crime was because the Yugoslavian government had declared Belgrade an ‘Open City’ (ie undefended) before the raid, and under international agreements which Germany had signed, it was illegal to bombard an ‘Open City’

Absolutely right about that. Along with other towns (e.g. Laibach/Ljubljana) Belgrade was declared an “Open City” by the Yugoslavian government.
The validation of a declaration like this has the precondition that no significant military units, authorities and institutions are present within the town in question. According to W. Dahl (Ehrenbuch des deutschen Soldaten, 1985) this wasn’t the case regarding Belgrade. Furthermore a onesided declaration is meaningless as was proven by the examples of Rome and Manila. (Castren, The present law of war and neutrality, 1954). Several italian towns were declared “Open Cities” by the germans in WW2 - meaning to suffer a strategical disadvantage by leading troop movements around the cities instead of straight through (Rome, Florence, Cassino). These declarations were not noted by the western allies.
p.s. posted before reading your edit.

[flamethrowerguy]

@mkenny

Right or wrong totals do not impact on the main point. A declaration of war is the key factor. To help the debats move forward I concede that I do not have authorative figures in the casualties and thus could be wrong.
Sadly being wrong on the detail will not alter the fact that the German bombing itself was war crime and the Allied bombing was not.

Just as a reminder- I am NOT trying to deny any german war crimes generally but allright, point about the missing german Declaration of War to Yugoslavia taken.
However, the population of Belgrade who was torn out of their celebrations of orthodox Easter by the RAF respectively USAAF on April 16/17, 1944 (incl. about 1200 civilian casualties) might have another opinion to the allied air raids being a justified act. But that’s just speculation of mine.
For the sake of completeness I’d like to mention that some german/austrian sources called the coup d’état in Belgrade on March 27, 1941 and the consequential emigration of prince regent Paul and many pro-german politicians as well as the following anti-german excesses in the yugoslavian capitol a reason for Germany to act on justified level. Furthermore it is said that the new government -in league with London and Moscow- blatantly searched direct confrontation with the Third Reich. However, this theory comes from sources (e.g. Dr. Maximilian Czesany, Austria) which I would call far more “conservative” than my own and I wouldn’t use this as an argument in a debate.
Back to the german air raid on Belgrade of April 6, 1941. We agreed about the air raid being a war crime due to the lack of a declaration of war. How about the consequential (nocturnal!) british air raid on Sofia/Bulgaria on early April 7, 1941 which was declared an act of reprisal by the british government. Although Bulgaria joined the Axis on March 1, 1941 there was no belligerency between the UK and Bulgaria (W. Dahl, Ehrenbuch des deutschen Soldaten, 1985).