Historum - History Forums

Historum - History Forums (http://historum.com/)
-   War and Military History (http://historum.com/war-military-history/)
-   -   Atrocities during wartime (http://historum.com/war-military-history/49594-atrocities-during-wartime.html)

Virgil November 17th, 2012 05:56 AM

Atrocities during wartime
 
I would like to discuss the mindset and the effects of wartime atrocities. I would like to start with Lawrence, Kansas, although this thread is for the discussion of all wartime atrocities.

I am not saying that Lawrence, Kansas was as important as many of the horrible events of history. There are many atrocities in history that are a far greater significance. I find it interesting because it happened in my country, and the bad guys sympathized with my region. Men like Quantrill and Anderson should not be admired for their deeds, they were criminals in my mind, but were they also soldiers? At the same time, I find reason for sympathy with the perpetrators of the crime. Does that make me evil? Am I just expressing regional and cultural pride, or am I committing a "sin" of sorts?

redcoat November 17th, 2012 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil (Post 1260109)
I would like to discuss the mindset and the effects of wartime atrocities.

Before this thread gets under way I would like to point out something. :smile1:
An atrocity is an act which is considered to be shocking
If something is described as an atrocity it does not mean it is a war crime, because a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally accepted rules of war.
For example; In WW2 shooting at a pilot baling out of his aircraft may be described as an atrocity, but as it was not against the rules of war at this time it cannot be described as a war crime.

Virgil November 17th, 2012 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat (Post 1260154)
Before this thread gets under way I would like to point out something. :smile1:
An atrocity is an act which is considered to be shocking
If something is described as an atrocity it does not mean it is a war crime, because a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally accepted rules of war.
For example; In WW2 shooting at a pilot baling out of his aircraft may be described as an atrocity, but as it was not against the rules of war at this time it cannot be described as a war crime.

Thank you redcoat. That distinction between atrocity and war crime really does walk a fine line, but I think that also speaks to a point I was making. Perhaps one person's atrocity is another person's victory. One person's war crime is another person's necessary evil.

funakison November 17th, 2012 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil (Post 1260109)
I would like to discuss the mindset and the effects of wartime atrocities. I would like to start with Lawrence, Kansas, although this thread is for the discussion of all wartime atrocities.

I am not saying that Lawrence, Kansas was as important as many of the horrible events of history. There are many atrocities in history that are a far greater significance. I find it interesting because it happened in my country, and the bad guys sympathized with my region. Men like Quantrill and Anderson should not be admired for their deeds, they were criminals in my mind, but were they also soldiers? At the same time, I find reason for sympathy with the perpetrators of the crime. Does that make me evil? Am I just expressing regional and cultural pride, or am I committing a "sin" of sorts?

It not as if the incidents of artrocities in the ACW are front page news. They were over a hundred years ago, the dust has settled, the bitter words and rancour died away. By and large the wounds have healed.

We all have our own favourite military guys and bad arse heores from history. Is that wrong well maybe, it certainly isnt evil.

Virgil November 17th, 2012 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funakison (Post 1260167)
It not as if the incidents of artrocities in the ACW are front page news. They were over a hundred years ago, the dust has settled, the bitter words and rancour died away. By and large the wounds have healed.

We all have our own favourite military guys and bad arse heores from history. Is that wrong well maybe, it certainly isnt evil.

I guess that sends my mind in another direction. What if you favor the regime in Syria today? They are killing people for sure, perhaps crimes are being committed. If you sympathize with them, what does that mean?

irishcrusader95 November 17th, 2012 08:15 AM

i don't think that people in the home country who read of war crimes committed by their troops in other parts of the world can fully understand the circumstances of what the soldiers were going through. now that can not ever excuse a war crime yet i feel that the people back need to have an understanding of what pushes men to do such actions.

its never as black and white as people make it out to be and any man who finds themselves in a war will see their moral compass getting more gray the longer they stay there. who are we really to judge, we know nothing of the sleepless nights and long enduring days for a soldier in a heavy deployment, we don't know what its like to see the mutilated remains of your best friend or cradle him in your arms as he screams out for his mother, the pressure of being in a situation where death or dismemberment could strike at any moment. every man has a braking point.

Mangekyou November 17th, 2012 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 (Post 1260250)
i don't think that people in the home country who read of war crimes committed by their troops in other parts of the world can fully understand the circumstances of what the soldiers were going through. now that can not ever excuse a war crime yet i feel that the people back need to have an understanding of what pushes men to do such actions.

its never as black and white as people make it out to be and any man who finds themselves in a war will see their moral compass getting more gray the longer they stay there. who are we really to judge, we know nothing of the sleepless nights and long enduring days for a soldier in a heavy deployment, we don't know what its like to see the mutilated remains of your best friend or cradle him in your arms as he screams out for his mother, the pressure of being in a situation where death or dismemberment could strike at any moment. every man has a braking point.

100% agree with this. I often prefer military history as a subject, but I do not condone war. It is a nasty business, and there will always be nasty things that happen in warfare. Psychologically it will change ones mindset, especially if they are seeing people they are friends with, getting killed and maimed around them.

My Great Grandfather faught in WWII and had a reputation as a "hard man" in his town. He was never the same after the war, given what he saw dduring his campaigns around the globe.

sylla1 November 17th, 2012 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat (Post 1260154)
Before this thread gets under way I would like to point out something. :smile1:
An atrocity is an act which is considered to be shocking
If something is described as an atrocity it does not mean it is a war crime, because a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally accepted rules of war.
For example; In WW2 shooting at a pilot baling out of his aircraft may be described as an atrocity, but as it was not against the rules of war at this time it cannot be described as a war crime.

And as there are no and have never been any truly internationally accepted rules of war aside of the Jungle's Law (an absolute oxymoron, as war is inherently against any rule) we are overstating here the evident fact that a Crime of War is an euphemism for purported atrocities (as rightly defined above) by definition committed by the other side.

redcoat November 17th, 2012 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1 (Post 1260471)
And as there are no and have never been any truly internationally accepted rules of war aside of the Jungle's Law .

No, you are wrong :smile1:
The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

sylla1 November 17th, 2012 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat (Post 1260656)

No, I'm not wrong :smile1: :smile1: :smile1: .

And I'm pretty sure you have no doubt about it.

There's has never been any superior neutral authority that may enforce such purported "laws".

At the risk of overstating the obvious, a superior neutral authority (regularly called "government" among human societies) is an absolute requirement for the enforcement and ergo for the very existence of any law.

Because an unenforced law is simply no law.

When the "law" in enforced by one of the involved parties, by definition that is not "law".

At best it would be analogous to gangster "justice".

In plain English, as already stated, the Jungle's Law; the strongest one prevails; period.

That's exactly why War Crimes are systematically "committed" by the other side.

Ergo they are systematically convicted just by the own side.

And no amount of euphemistic wishful thinking from any side could even remotely change an inch such evident fact.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.