Is it time to forget about WWII war criminals?

jonniebgood1

During this week a suspected former Nazi collaborater was questioned in Hungary about war crimes from WWII. Stories like this have been common in the last few years with names like John Demjanjuk and Sandor Kepiro being charged. As time goes on the links to crimes seem to be getting more tentative and any association with an organisation that committed crimes being reason enough to some people to secure a conviction rather than actual proven crimes linked to the charged person. This brings about a question that has been about since the end of WWII- Was membership of the SS for example a crime?
It was declared a criminal organisation by the Nuremburg trial.

It also brings about the question of when to stop chasing down these old men. Csatary is 97 years old and WWII ended 67 years ago. So when the charges against him are minor (relative to WWII war crimes) should he be left alone to live out his days as many contend?

"Csatary was a small fish. I could name 2,000 people responsible for worse crimes than he was," said Laszlo Karsai, Hungary's pre-eminent Holocaust historian, himself the son of a Holocaust survivor.

"The money spent hunting down people like him would be better spent fighting the propaganda of those who so energetically deny the Holocaust today." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18876847

johngalway

If proven guilty, I'd let them be dug up and shot again for it. It's never too late to try people accused of those type crimes.

Seanchai

Yes, unless war criminals begins to include British and US ones. In terms of fairness and justice, it was always a sham while it excluded them. As if the only bad guys belonged to one side, the losing side. :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

Seanchai wrote: »

Yes, unless war criminals begins to include British and US ones. In terms of fairness and justice, it was always a sham while it excluded them. As if the only bad guys belonged to one side, the losing side. :rolleyes:

Thats the way it is I guess. I agree with you but history is traditionally written by the victor. I suspect however that this is changing in the past century, including WWII where events like the Katyn massacre or bombing of Dresden are legitmately questioned.

indioblack

Seanchai wrote: »

Yes, unless war criminals begins to include British and US ones. In terms of fairness and justice, it was always a sham while it excluded them. As if the only bad guys belonged to one side, the losing side. :rolleyes:

I'd say there is a difference between considering the actions of some in WW2 as criminal andhaving an agenda that automatically assumes the British and Americans committed war crimes.
The first requirement is to identify the individuals that can be brought before a court - in terms of fairness and justice.
Otherwise it's not a judicial procedure - but history.
Not to say that you can't have a reappraisal of history - you can - it's often a continuous process.
Katyn? Well, I don't see the Soviets mentioned in your post, so are they off the hook?
Dresden? As I've mentioned elsewhere, the bombing of German cities in WW2 deserves questioning.
It would be nice to think that, in WW2 the good guys triumphed over the bad guys - we know that was not the case.
But few would argue against the need to halt the Third Reich and it's Axis allies.
So who stopped the Axis? The USSR and the interesting new lands it gained control of.
The USA and it's increased wealth and economic and military power.
Your old friends the British - fighting for democracy whilst determined to hang on to it's empire.
The alternative? Sit on the sidelines and do nothing, as some countries did - oh yes, and complain afterwards that the whole war had not been fought in kid gloves.

golden lane

why don't the germans start another war.......maybe they might win, then they can take all the allied war criminals to justice......

kill another 44 million people and be the good guys for once....at least in some irish eyes they would be..........

beam me up scottie.....i'm surrounded by klingons...

jonniebgood1

golden lane wrote: »

why don't the germans start another war.......maybe they might win, then they can take all the allied war criminals to justice......

kill another 44 million people and be the good guys for once....at least in some irish eyes they would be..........

beam me up scottie.....i'm surrounded by klingons...

By all means express your opinion. This type of comment is not the way to do it.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I suspect however that this is changing in the past century, including WWII where events like the Katyn massacre or bombing of Dresden are legitmately questioned.

Legitimately questioned is not enough - the b*stards who carried out both - and particuarly the Dresden bombing ( the bombing was indiscriminate - the Katyn Massacre was a massacre of army officers) - should be strung up by the ankles.

indioblack

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Legitimately questioned is not enough - the b*stards who carried out both - and particuarly the Dresden bombing ( the bombing was indiscriminate - the Katyn Massacre was a massacre of army officers) - should be strung up by the ankles.

And how exactly do you propose to do that?
A memo was sent, I think from Churchill, to Harris during this bombing campaign which asked him to avoid indiscriminate bombing.
To which Harris replied that the bombing was not indiscriminate.
The exact quote can be found in Leo McKinstrey's book, "Lancaster".
For me this is part of the difficulty in attempting to rationalise this bombing campaign, especially from the point of view of Bomber Command.
I think trying to understand the context in which this happened is preferable to the throwaway emotion of "just string 'em up".
The attempt to end the German war by bombing German cities - a failed policy in retrospect - was carried out, and conceived, by people who were not monsters or murderers - and that is what I find chilling.
It's inception can be understood - and, when it was also applied to directly strategic targets, it had a negative effect on the enemies economy and military.
But the single-minded pursuance of the campaign against German cities - when it must surely have become obvious that the gains were not there - this I find hard to understand.

Reekwind

indioblack wrote: »

The attempt to end the German war by bombing German cities - a failed policy in retrospect - was carried out, and conceived, by people who were not monsters or murderers - and that is what I find chilling

How would you describe someone who advocates the mass and deliberate bombing of German civilians if not as a "monster or murderer"? Just because they were capable of rationalising their crimes does not excuse them. There can be no doubt that the likes of Bomber Harris fully approved of targeting workers' housing and he wrote:

"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive, and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany" (Quoted in J Gooch's Airpower: Theory and Practice)

This can, and should be, interpreted as nothing less than a war crime

(Unfortunately, because the wacko brigade are out in force these days, I'm compelled to offer the disclaimer that this does not mean that the British were no better than the Nazis. There are degrees of atrocity and it says a great deal about Nazi Germany that it was able to easily surpass those committed by the British)

donaghs

When its comes to History, "forget" is surely never a good idea?

But for dying feeble senile old people, perhaps best just to give a suspended sentence as they are about to expire anyway.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

During this week a suspected former Nazi collaborater was questioned in Hungary about war crimes from WWII. Stories like this have been common in the last few years with names like John Demjanjuk and Sandor Kepiro being charged. As time goes on the links to crimes seem to be getting more tentative and any association with an organisation that committed crimes being reason enough to some people to secure a conviction rather than actual proven crimes linked to the charged person. This brings about a question that has been about since the end of WWII- Was membership of the SS for example a crime?
It was declared a criminal organisation by the Nuremburg trial.

It also brings about the question of when to stop chasing down these old men. Csatary is 97 years old and WWII ended 67 years ago. So when the charges against him are minor (relative to WWII war crimes) should he be left alone to live out his days as many contend?

the problem with investigating war crimes is that shady dealings on the part of the allies are exposed.
Klaus Barbie worked for the CIA.
John Demjanjuk could not be extradited for a long ime because he was a US citizen.
the nuremberg trial was a farce. victors justice. it was the first time enemy generals were stripped of their uniforms and decorations and hanged.

indioblack

Reekwind wrote: »

How would you describe someone who advocates the mass and deliberate bombing of German civilians if not as a "monster or murderer"? Just because they were capable of rationalising their crimes does not excuse them. There can be no doubt that the likes of Bomber Harris fully approved of targeting workers' housing and he wrote:

"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive, and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany" (Quoted in J Gooch's Airpower: Theory and Practice)

This can, and should be, interpreted as nothing less than a war crime

(Unfortunately, because the wacko brigade are out in force these days, I'm compelled to offer the disclaimer that this does not mean that the British were no better than the Nazis. There are degrees of atrocity and it says a great deal about Nazi Germany that it was able to easily surpass those committed by the British)

The quote that you used is misleading because it could be inferred that bombing German cities was an end in itself, and, as I'm sure you are aware, the strategy pursued by Harris was intended to bring the European war to an end by airpower alone.
Your last sentence I found interesting. Even if the Allies had been able to intensify their assaults on Germany it is inconceivable that this would have forced Hitler to seek peace - ultimately he was indifferent to the fate of his own people.
The German population showed incredible resiliance - but, in the regime under which they lived they had little choice but to endure.
Some Germans would have found their patriotism diminished as the war progressed - but they would have been able to do little about ending the war.
It does indeed say a great deal about Nazi Germany.

Farmer Pudsey

Surly the biggest war crimes committed were the atomic bombing of Nagsaki amd Hiroshimo. Were these partly a test to see the effects of the bombs and a warning to the USSR.

However on the other hand an invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

Franticfrank

As bad as the atomic bombings were, as you correctly point out, Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan would have cost far more lives. Look at the island hopping campaign before the bombings, and the amount of Japanese prisoners taken alive by the Americans. On Iwo Jima, nearly 22,000 Japanese were killed and only 200 taken prisoner. Imagine that kind of fantaticism on the home islands and the death toll is unimaginable.

Reekwind

indioblack wrote: »

The quote that you used is misleading because it could be inferred that bombing German cities was an end in itself, and, as I'm sure you are aware, the strategy pursued by Harris was intended to bring the European war to an end by airpower alone

... by employing terror bombing against civilian targets, yes

Here's the thing: nobody in WWII (or arguably history) simply practised mass murder for the sake of it. Even the eradication of the Jews and Slavs was justified in the name of racial doctrine and a new European order. The Stalinist deportation and execution of Poles was framed as part of a 'counter-revolutionary conspiracy'. The British destruction of German cities was intended to end the war. Etc, etc

So if your definition of a "monster" is somebody who kills wildly and without reason... well, then you'll find very few such monsters in the history books. Which suggests to me that your definition is entirely wrong

indioblack

Reekwind wrote: »

... by employing terror bombing against civilian targets, yes

Here's the thing: nobody in WWII (or arguably history) simply practised mass murder for the sake of it. Even the eradication of the Jews and Slavs was justified in the name of racial doctrine and a new European order. The Stalinist deportation and execution of Poles was framed as part of a 'counter-revolutionary conspiracy'. The British destruction of German cities was intended to end the war. Etc, etc

So if your definition of a "monster" is somebody who kills wildly and without reason... well, then you'll find very few such monsters in the history books. Which suggests to me that your definition is entirely wrong

I don't recall defining what a monster is.
Your three examples, the Holocaust, Stalin and Britains bombing of German cities have logic.
I was tempted to ask which of the aftermaths of these three you would prefer - a Europe with most of European Jews dead, the reduction of another group of Stalin's "enemies" or the ending of a war.
But that would beg the question "does the end justify the means?"

As an aside, but not unrelated, this is Churchill writing to Beaverbrook on the eve of the Battle of Britain:
"...when I look round to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power....Should he,(Hitler) be repulsed here or not try invasion, he will recoil eastward, and we have nothing to stop him. But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through."
Can't agree with the "one sure path" and the use of "exterminating" - well, I thought of leaving it out!
Having said that, Churchill's remarks must be understood in the context of this period of the war and Britain's position at this time.

indioblack

Reekwind wrote: »

... by employing terror bombing against civilian targets, yes

Here's the thing: nobody in WWII (or arguably history) simply practised mass murder for the sake of it. Even the eradication of the Jews and Slavs was justified in the name of racial doctrine and a new European order. The Stalinist deportation and execution of Poles was framed as part of a 'counter-revolutionary conspiracy'. The British destruction of German cities was intended to end the war. Etc, etc

So if your definition of a "monster" is somebody who kills wildly and without reason... well, then you'll find very few such monsters in the history books. Which suggests to me that your definition is entirely wrong

You made that definition - I didn't.
The answer can be found in your own reply.
The killing of Jews was intended to remove the Jews from Europe.
Stalins purges, executions , got rid of some more of his "enemies".
The campaign by Bomber Command against German cities was part of an aerial war against the Third Reich and itself was part of a war waged against the Axis powers by the Allies - the intention being to bring these powers down and end the war.
It does however beg the question, "does the end justify the means?"

Victor

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is it time to forget about WWII war criminals?

The lessons of WWII must never be forgotten, not just because of those that have died, but as a lesson to more recent, current and future war criminals.

Karsai does have a point on the expending of effort.

Manach

On Victor's point on lesson for war criminals - by having no statue of limitations on such acts mean that once implicated, leaders of such states have no interest in stepping aside into dishonourable retirement - instead would hang onto power to the bitter end (Gotterdamerung so to speak) as Assad in Syria is currently doing?