Who commit the Worst War Crime of ALL

[Rabs]

Vietnam is the biggest example. That nation wanted freedom and it drove the French out but USA (in order to contain Communism) went there and look what happened.

Oh they were kinda sad to see us go I think. BTW news flash Dictators dont = freedom.

I support US action on this one but after that war US imposed very strong sanctions on that crippled nation and these sanctions continued for 13 years which resulted in deaths of 2 million Iraqi children. An entire Iraqi race was destroyed for enemity with Saddam, why?

US managed to dismantle all Iraqi weapons programs by 1998 and Saddam made UN weapons inspectors leave the country because he had a reason for it. But US still questioned his legtimacy.

Well, we gave him oil for food he built palaces instead of food for his people.

Maybe he made UN weapons inspectors leave the country cause he had something to hide? The UN weapons inspectors were a joke anyway.

That would be like the US saying that the red-cross needs to leave Guantomo...theyve been there long enough anyway.

Now in 2003, when everybody knew that IRAQ was not involved in attacks of US soil and North Korea posed a bigger threat to its security, US govt still decided to attack this already crippled nation under the pretext of false claims that IRAQ has deadly weapons when everybody knew that this was fake and entire world was against this move.

I guess by everybody you mean everybody BUT the Russians, British, Isralies, French, Clinton adminstration, Germans, Italians and almost every other respected intelligence service.

IRAQ was captured under this false pretext and still the fight rages after 2 years of captivity with no solution yet. Under Saddam this nation was still managed but now under US, this nation has turned in to a breeding ground for more Terrorists. Thanks to US policy maker

The rape rooms are gone, theyve elected there own government and they have there own constitution faster than it took our founding fathers. 30 times more internet users, booming economy, lower unemployment than the begging of the war.

Better to bring all the crazies to one place makes them easier to kill...preferablly with pig blood soaked bullets.

Saddam was bad for his people but US made no good either.

I think we disagree.

 

[godofthunder9010]

For Mongols: Lets not forget that they were barbarians with no regard for humanity. Contrary to this US is part of a civilized world and its ambitions are bound to be better.

Right, and the point that I'm trying to get accross is that the "Civilized World" as been guilty of things as bad or worse than the Mongol barbarians. Nazi Germany and Japan are ample evidence, but we could expand that to any other case of genocide in modern times. We have far too many failures of the "Civilized World" to be civilized. Its very clear that rounding out and exterminating ethnic groups is a warcrime and I doubt anyone will argue with that.

I tell you one thing that many insurgents in IRAQ are ordinary citizens fighting for freedom.

Although the majority seem bent on disruption and Sunni Muslims that are terrified of what happens with a Shiite Muslim dominated government. A very very large number are not even Iraqi and are bent by goals that are probably not in the best interests of the Iraqi people. If they only ever targetted US soldiers then you'd have a stronger case there.

The important point that should be made: Yes people like to point fingers at the United States these days. Yes Americans are going to be a very defensive. In the end, the burden of proof is upon the accuser as to whether the USA is guilty of warcrimes. Not liking US policy and/or its results does not make the United States the intentional murderer of Millions of innocent people.

 

[Dean]

This is one of those debates that makes me think of witnessing a traffic accident... you want to pull your eyes away, but you can't, so you end up watching the whole thing.
The worst war crime/crime against humanity is a very subjective question: Israelis will say the holocaust, Chinese will say the cultural revolution, Russians will say the great Patriotic war, the Chinese would say the invasion by Japan, etc, etc. If you want to have a meaningful debate, you are going to have to adopt rules. For example:

1. The crime in question is a true attempt at genocide. i.e. holocaust, Kosovo.
2. The crime must be a confirmed case of attempted genocide. Holocaust
3. The crime must have had more than, say, 1 million victims. Holocaust, various Japanese invasions and policies, German invasion of Russia, Russian invasion of Germany, etc.
4. The crime in question must have taken place during a war and have been perpetrated by an army. If you do not have this rule, then the boundary between crimes against humanity and war crimes becomes difficult to see and damn near impossible to argue.
5. Be objective. Vote for one that does not affect you. If we do not follow this rule, AussieNick, for example, will continue to argue for the Japanese treatment of Aussie PoWs, Israelis will continue to argue for the holocaust, etc. While you both have a case, simply talking about the one that affects your country may not allow you to fully appreciate how other crimes affected other people. In addition, we can then put together a list and treat it as a poll.
Now that I've shot off my mouth, I'll give you my answer, following my rules.

I think that the worst war crime in history was perpetrated by the German Army during the invasion of Russia for the following reasons:
1. More Russian civilians became victims than did Jews in the holocaust, or of any other group for that matter.
2. Although there was no official attempt to eradicate the Russian population, the effect of German "requisitions" often ended up having the same effect. Entire villages and towns simply ceased to exist, and in many cases the civilians were force marched back to Germany as slave labourers. The fates that many of them suffered were horrifying.
3. The crimes were perpetrated by the German Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Luftwaffe.
4. It was during WW II
5. Due to these policies, the Russians ended up suffering up to 14 million casualties.
6. I am neither Russian or German, so this one did not affect me.

Now, if you want to know if this was the most horrifying of the crimes that have been discussed, I would say no, the Holocaust and Rwandan massacres were, with various others thrown in for good measure. All in all, the 20th century was rather nasty in that regard...

Dean.
Merry Christmas...
Happy Chanukah...
Salaam Alayikum.

 

[AussieNick]

1. The crime in question is a true attempt at genocide. i.e. holocaust, Kosovo.
2. The crime must be a confirmed case of attempted genocide. Holocaust

Mate that doesn't make it a war crime. It can be a war crime to kill 1 person, let alone a whole race. Clearly the German issue is top of most peoples list. But I try and look at who commited the most abhorent war crimes. Remember the question is about "War crimes" not "crime against humanity". So that technically means you can forget the holocaust, the slaughter of Russian civilians etc, and only start looking at the way one soldier treated another. That, my friend, is a war crime.

 

[Forrest_Gump]

Worst "War Crime"?

How about the Hutu led slaughter of 800,000 some Rwandans during the infamous "100 days". All non-combatants, all killed up close and personal. And of course all done while the UN, and I hate to say the US, stood and watched.

 

[AussieNick]

Worst "War Crime"?

How about the Hutu led slaughter of 800,000 some Rwandans during the infamous "100 days". All non-combatants, all killed up close and personal. And of course all done while the UN, and I hate to say the US, stood and watched.

My personal opinion of a war-crime is a crime commited by one soldier against another... not a civilian. That makes it a crime against humanity.

 

[Dean]

Mate that doesn't make it a war crime. It can be a war crime to kill 1 person, let alone a whole race. Clearly the German issue is top of most peoples list. But I try and look at who commited the most abhorent war crimes. Remember the question is about "War crimes" not "crime against humanity". So that technically means you can forget the holocaust, the slaughter of Russian civilians etc, and only start looking at the way one soldier treated another. That, my friend, is a war crime.

You missed one point. A war crime is committed by a soldier during a war, either against civilians or other soldiers. A crime against humanity is committed by individuals or groups, usually a government, against civilians. The line can be crossed when soldiers commit crimes on the behest of their government against civilians, particularly when war is not declared, as happened in Rwanda.
The holocaust was committed by SS and Waffen SS men who followed the German Armies, forced their victims into death and labour camps, and killed millions. In my opinion, as in the opinion of many others, they were soldiers, and they were acting on the orders of their government. The German invasion of Russia was similar with one exception: In this case, the Wehrmacht was far more heavily involved.
All of these crimes were committed by soldiers on the direct orders of their government, and in the two cases that we both cited, the orders are on the record and publically available. The Einsatzgruppen were SS groups specifically formed to deal with groups the Nazis wanted to exterminate, specifically Jews, Bolsheviks, homosexuals, etc. The Wehrmacht was ordered to be very severe with Russian civilians as the Nazi government considered them sub-human, and in order to lessen their supply problems, the Wehrmacht was ordered to take all the food they needed. In the Russian winter, this was tantamount to murder, and both the issuers of the order and the army that carried those orders out understood this. IMO, as they were soldiers, they were guilty of war crimes, and the government that gave the orders to the Einsatzgruppen and Wehrmacht were guilty of crimes against humanity. As an aside, it must be noted that some German group commanders refused to allow the Einsatzgruppen to operate in their sectors. None of them suffered any reprisals.
Finally, please remember that I also believe that the Japanese crimes against the Allies in the Pacific were also war crimes. As I followed my own rules, I did not point out that many of the men who shared the Japanese camps with the Australians were Canadians captured after the surrender of Hong Kong and in a few other places. Very few of those men survived the war, as they were victims of systematic starvation, torture, murder and abuse. But I am trying to remain as objective as possible, and my objective viewpoint is still leading me back to Russia.

Dean.

P.S. I re-read AussieNick's last post, and I now realize that we have a difference of opinion. As such I am editing this post to reflect that. He stated, "My personal opinion of a war-crime is a crime commited by one soldier against another... not a civilian. That makes it a crime against humanity." I guess it is now apparent where our differences of opinion come from, and I understand why you are saying that the Japanese were the worst war criminals. Nonetheless, I will remain with my arguments. Convince me otherwise!!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Joseph Stalin

 

[godofthunder9010]

My personal opinion of a war-crime is a crime commited by one soldier against another... not a civilian. That makes it a crime against humanity.

This may be your own personal definition, but its not used by everyone else. It is pretty silly to be debating about the definition and Dean has the right idea: Setup some rules to define "War Crimes". If you don't agree on the definition then the discussion becomes completely pointless very very fast.

 

[AussieNick]

P.S. I re-read AussieNick's last post, and I now realize that we have a difference of opinion. As such I am editing this post to reflect that. He stated, "My personal opinion of a war-crime is a crime commited by one soldier against another... not a civilian. That makes it a crime against humanity." I guess it is now apparent where our differences of opinion come from, and I understand why you are saying that the Japanese were the worst war criminals. Nonetheless, I will remain with my arguments. Convince me otherwise!!

Nah that's cool. It's just my opinion that the Japs commited the worst "war crimes" (by my definition). As for crimes against humanity (by my definition) they don't even rate a mention.

 

[Damien435]

White phosphorous is a chemical, how come it cannot be classified as a chemical weapon when used in war?

Personally I see it as a weapon with a chemical component. Just a quick thought.

Gunpowder is made of chemicals, does that make every round ever fired by a firearm a chemical weapon?

I support US action on this one but after that war US imposed very strong sanctions on that crippled nation and these sanctions continued for 13 years which resulted in deaths of 2 million Iraqi children. An entire Iraqi race was destroyed for enemity with Saddam, why?

Correction, the UN imposed very strong sanctions on that cripples nation and those sanctions continued for 12 years which resulted in deaths of 2 million Iraqi children until these sanctions were ended by the US.

Now in 2003, when everybody knew that IRAQ was not involved in attacks of US soil and North Korea posed a bigger threat to its security, US govt still decided to attack this already crippled nation under the pretext of false claims that IRAQ has deadly weapons when everybody knew that this was fake and entire world was against this move

Tell me, how anxious is the author to die? Any war with North Korea will likely cause Chinese involvement and there is a good chance that the war could go nuclear, especially if North Korea, as so many seem to think , has nukes. There are two different choices here, what we would like to do and what we can do. What we would like to do is take out the dictators in several countries who are committing crimes of almost unimaginable horror, what we can do is take out Saddam. We chose the latter.

 

[sunb!]

Gunpowder is made of chemicals, does that make every round ever fired by a firearm a chemical weapon?

Depends on your approach on the question, Damien. I say no, it is not a chemical weapon. See Bulldoggs reply to my post for further info.

 

[Whispering Death]

Yeah, uh your fecal matter is created through chemical processes, every time you use the restroom are you creating a chemical weapon?

This is stupid.

We all know what chemical weapons are, there isn't any ambiguity there. Sarin, Mustard Gas, and VX are all chemical weapons. White Phosporus, Gunpowder, and poop are not.

 

[AlexKall]

Hitler and Stalins acts

 

[FO Seaman]

Nazis have that one all locked up.

Whether you look at it form numbers, or intent, or crazy sh*t (their science experiments) it doesn't matter. Nazis sweep all catagories.

Very true. I've heard some bad stuff.

 

[Dean]

OK, once again, my 2 cents worth...

A chemical weapon is one that kills when the body reacts to a chemical in such a way that it impedes the functioning of the human body. For example, nerve gas impedes the functioning of the central nervous system, leading to death by respiratory and heart failure. Mustard gas kills by causing intense irritation of the lungs, damaging them so much that they are unable to work, suffocating the victim. They are also area dispersal weapons in that they can be spread over an area and can remain lethal for a long period of time. But the method of killing remains the same. It is the chemical itself that kills.

A gun is not a chemical weapon. The chemical reaction drives a projectile and it is the projectile that kills, not the chemical reaction. Likewise with bombs, the explosion is caused by a chemical reaction, but it is not the reaction that kills, but rather shrapnel or the shock wave. In addition guns, bombs and white phosporous they are not area weapons, and can be very precisely controlled. In each of these cases, it is the projectile, the shock wave or heat that kills, thus none of them are chemical weapons.

Now, I may be headed off on a tangent here, but, now I'm going to get on a pulpit for a few minutes. This is, I believe, one of the most interesting discussions going on at the moment on this site. However, it is being badly affected by a number of people who are making statements that are frivolous and without merit. There is a case for those who say that the US is guilty of crimes against humanity in Iraq, but those alleged crimes have NOTHING to do with the weapons used, how they were used, or who the targets were. Before you decide to take a position, please ensure that you know the following:
1. What a war crime is,
2. What a crime against humanity is,
3. Have enough of a grasp of history that you can understand the posts of others before you start talking about other, less important incidents.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are subjects that I believe should be discussed at length and well understood by everybody, as only then can we begin to avoid them. But when people start saying that a soldier is guilty of a war crime simply because he or she has used their rifle, all you are doing is trivializing a hugely important subject.

Thank you, I will now get off my pulpit and go away.

Dean.

 

[JulesLee]

Id have to say the Japanese during and before WW2 when they took over most of asia..

many cruel tests.. like running a human over a car and test how much he will live or drop chemicals down a person's (insert whatever you want here) and see them dying slowly and painfully and opening a person up and getting live organs out to see and test while the person dies of extreme pain....

 

[LeEnfield]

I think the title could go to Nobel, you invented much of the explosives used in munitions during WW1. He made so much money out of the war he introduced the Nobel Peace Award.

 

[Dean]

I think the title could go to Nobel, you invented much of the explosives used in munitions during WW1. He made so much money out of the war he introduced the Nobel Peace Award.

Actually that is not quite true. Nobel invented dynamite, which was needed as the only explosive in common use up to that time was nitoglygerine. As you probably know, nitro is very highly unstable and can explode if shaken. At that time explosives were in common use on construction sites, and remember that this was one of the golden ages of construction. The use of nitro in construction caused many deaths, and Nobel thought that by inventing a stable explosive, he could save lives. He became very embittered when his invention was used as a weapon, and it was out of this bitterness that he left the legacy of the Nobel prizes. AFAIK, he did not do any more work on explosives afterwards.

Dean.

 

[LeEnfield]

Rome during the time of the Roman Empire....

 

[redcoat]

Yeah, uh your fecal matter is created through chemical processes, every time you use the restroom are you creating a chemical weapon?

After going into the restroom soon after my eldest son had used it, I think you can