I am not an authority on death figures...and I do not know who is. Forced starvation however counts as a crime. Starvation probably even counts as a war crime. Most of the Soviet POWs who died in 1941 starved to death. The German armed forces are held responsible.

Now, forget what you read about ideology in the "Wehrmacht". Think realistically instead. The Germans moved into a Soviet Union that experienced the following: (1) significant war damages and (2) Stalin's scorched earth policies. The destruction of communications and the generally poor food situation led directly to the deaths of millions of Soviet POWs. Were the German politicians and generals responsible? Of course. They generally let it happen and did not seem to care.

This example is used by historians to demonstrate one type of war crime. It therefore stands to rest that other incidents in other countries will count as well.

Ollie Garchy

Originally Posted by sven hassell

That is just creating a term to justify what is being done.
They are soldiers or civilians,you cant say because of the need to do what the U.S. is doing (dont think I have any sympathy for them) then there is something in between. Were the I.R.A.,E.T.A. ,R.A.F. enemy combatants?
Some inmates of X-ray have never been in combat or theatres of conflict(but are obviously guilty of terrorist activities) so how does that work?
I fully support the U.S. in its recent conflicts but by not adhering to the principles it stands for it makes a mockery of itself and its allies.

About the IRA... I don't sympathize with terrorists by any means, but if I recall clearly, it was the invading PROTESTANTS who kicked off the Troubles- google "Peep o'Day Boys".

After that little side note, I'm fairly certain that at some point, suffering becomes unmeasureable. What about the Iraqis who forced an SAS sergeant to clean a toilet with his hands, and then lick the excrement from his fingers? Not something I'd want to go through, but like I said, suffering is unmeasureable at some point. To base the whole thing on numbers alone is to define it as measureable- which (this is hypocritical coming from me) is a bit callous. On the plus side, it's healthy debate

War is fought when there is a conflict of interests, not a conflict of ideology.
Thought for the day.
Cheers.

What, Bulldog even worse than the systematic betrayal and genocide of the Native Americans? be careful my friend we've all got our skeletons in our closets........

We gave them their land back.

The parts we weren't using anyways.

He shoots, he scores! Griffin wins the game!

Nothing personal Poacher, just adding spice to the conversation rather than the same boring villians.

So then it is ok for me to mention that the Spanish killed more "Native Americans" than America? Just to spice things up a bit.

Bring it to the table my fine feathered fiend, by all means lay on.

I found these definitions regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity. If you want to determine, who was the wost war criminal, it seem logical to cross reference the culprits against the definitions and see, who has (for the want of a better expression) the most ticks. Scale also has to be a factor in determination.

A definition of a war crime is a punishable offense, under international (criminal) law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian.

The Nuremberg Principles, created during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

The guidelines are as follows:
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

I think if you only include those from the 20th century, based on the quality of recorded information, you get a manageable list.

I think you get Nazi Germany, Stalins Russia, Japan 1930s-1940s. Not in that order. Not a great surprise. The only issue is do you attribute the crime to the state and leaders. For example would you have Germany with Hitler as the major criminal with Himmler next. How much blood do you need on your hands and what link?

Thankfully now we seem to have a process in place to take to trial anyone no matter how much blood.

Although Saddam was undoubtably a criminal cannot classed in the same league as Hitler, Stalin and (who from Japan?).

I believe the name you are searching for is Hirohito, Reiben. Somehow he was involved with the decision making at the highest level of the Japanese military yet he had nothing to do with the war crimes they committed, hmmm. (Yeah, I know, the Allies gave the Emperor a free pass because they need him to rebuild Japan.)