Are war crimes inherently pragmatical?

Were your mother and father brother and sister? Did they just not teach you how to count at whatever shit school do you go to?

history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf

>Holocaust was high irrational and diverted resources away from the front.

Tanks, guns, rockets, etc. do not build themselves. Hitler's war machine benefited greatly from the use of slave labor in the concentration camps.

Explain to me how you would have produced V2 rockets without Mittelwerk.

Explain to me why you would do any such thing?
Forcing engineers to drive solid gold planes to kamikaze strike the Allies would be more specialist and cost effective damage.
The rocket and jet programmed failed, it was money, manhours and specialists wasted. The german autism forcing them to overengineer everything cost them the war.
>solid welding 3 plates of armor and painting it with 2 coats of paint
>when the other nations can produce 5 tanks with that material and effort
Wow, good job. It was the same in the air, one jet cost as much (research, testing and production) as how many allied planes? And how much damage did it do?

I don't see what strategical gain you get from showing everyone that you're an asshole.
But a war crime can be committed in cases where the soldiers think they don't have a choice. For example: killing captured prisoners because they can't be fed and kept under watch.

Are flamethrowers banned?

Yes, it's a chemical weapon.

Yes, all those sabotaged parts really helped them

Flamethrowers aren't banned, just using them on your enemies is banned. You can still have a flamethrower in your division, to clear foliage or burn corpses or whatever.

disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p3/text

Depends on what type of warcrimes we are talking about. There's a lot of them.

The concept of war crimes is fucking stupid. The point of war is death and destruction to achieve your goals. The LARPers who try to pretend that there's a single shred of honor in it, to try and soothe their guilty conscience, are stupid and responsible for every casualty that they wouldn't have had to take if they had their forces use every resource available to them as savagely as possible.
Prove me wrong. I'll even post the edgelord reaction image non-argument for you so you don't have to.

What if your goal is to minimize death and destruction?

It's useful to have rules when the scales are somewhat balanced; like some kind of bloody tournament. You're both using the same weapons so whoever is stronger or smarter wins without the risk of getting your balls mangled. The winner annexes a worthless strip of land and the loser mends his pride, waiting for the next round.

When you throw away the gloves, it's suddenly all or nothing. There's no more safety net and if you fuck up (often happens in war - look it up you're on a history board) then you might not have a next time, or winning isn't even worthwhile. So you play nice.

Then by going to war you've failed at that already. And by hypocritically attempting to kill people less killingly you'll only prolong the conflict, causing more to die from starvation and disease as supplies and services are disrupted in the invaded country

>war crimes

>Large scale rape
>War crime: yes
>Pragmatic: no

>Pillaging
>War Crime: yes
>Pragmatic: no

>Wanton destruction
>War crime: yes
>pragmatic: no

OP, first decide what forms of conduct constitute a 'war crime' before you start using blanket definitions.

but that is like blowing up a bridge you are trying to capture

'War crime' is a nonsense phrase that doesn't mean anything, like 'human rights'

Pillaging is very pragmatic, especially for mercenaries who didn't get paid.

No, they're often acted upon by sadists or psychopaths, and don't often have a military value.

Well, I mean. If civilians are working in a foreign country, doing any kind of job that contributes the economy of the enemy country, they are helping the war effort and aren't really innocent, are they?

What if going to war is the best way to minimize death and destruction, such when you are trying to prevent large-scale genocide through military intervention?

Nope, in fact they can be massively counterproductive. If soldiers knows that the enemy treats POWs humanely, they'll be heavily incentivized to surrender if the enemy gets the drop on them or their leadership collapses instead of fighting to the bitter end. If the enemy is led by edgelords who murder and torture people that surrender to them, every encirclement turns into a bloody siege and losing units are more likely to retreat than surrender, leaving them to fight another day.

See the Eastern Front in WWII for a perfect example.

Most countries that aren't composed entirely of psychopathic killers (like the mongols) have rules because they expect the enemy to treat their soldiers likewise.

A spectacular display of utter cruelty and carnage against civilians is a good tactic

A prolonged campaign of terror will make everyone hate you

How about an easy one, what do you think of the treatment of surrendering Japanese soldiers at the hands of the frontline US Marine and Army infantrymen during the Pacific War?

If you have any intention of holding onto the captured area, the repair bill for the damages the pillagers inflict and the resulting loss of economic activity becomes your problem.

To say nothing about the effects on discipline...

If you win then yes, if you lose they make your defeat worse. But then again, war is by its nature all-or-nothing, moderation in warfare is imbecilic.

>moderation in warfare is imbecilic.
Dumbest shit I've heard this week, thanks for that

>moderation in warfare is imbecilic
You have never heard of a "phyrric victory", have you?

It doesn't matter that you won if you lost so much that you are too weak to enforce anything of it and defend yourself after it. Britain after the world wars is a good example of that.
Besides is it really worth it? To win one war by all means necessary if the whole world hates you afterwards?

Going all in, unless it truly is needed, is imbecilic.

Enjoy losing a war because you decided to "fight fair", you dumb prick. Also it's not my slogan, it comes from Bismarck.

>Bismarck
>"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
>Lord Arbutnoth Fisher of Kilverstone (1841-1920) First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty

T. Sherman

So we should be launching nukes and chemical weapons at the commencement of any kind of conflict, even if the opposition are iliterate peasants with rusty Nuggets. Well meme'd, friendo. :^)

If you can win without them then it's best to do so. Victors don't get tried for warcrimes but public opinion is another matter.

when was the last time a war wasnt all or nothing?its either one side wins and dominates the other or a stalemate.

warcrimes are made up. it is something the victor uses to further punish the loser.

Franco-Prussian War and Russo-Japanese are some Examples. The loser lost some territory and was humiliated, but it was nothing like the later war, were States got dismantled as a whole (WW1) or peoples were threatened by total annihilation (WW2 eastern front). If the Vietnam and Korean Wars are examples, that seem to prove that the time of "casual" war is over though.

Nigger that shit stopped happening after the Nazis found out and murdered the entire factories, then brought the replacements in to drag out the bodies as an example.

>The concept of war crimes is fucking stupid.

Again, there are certain duties that we owe even to those who have wronged us. For there is a limit to retribution and to punishment; or rather, I am inclined to think, it is sufficient that the aggressor should be brought to repent of his wrong-doing, in order that he may not repeat the offense and that others may be deterred from doing wrong....Not only must we show consideration for those whom we have conquered by force of arms but we must also ensure protection to those who lay down their arms and throw themselves upon the mercy of our generals, even though the battering-ram has hammered at their walls. And among our countrymen justice has been observed so conscientiously in this direction, that those who have given promise of protection to states or nations subdued in war become, after the custom of our forefathers, the patrons of those states.

This

War 'crimes' and war economies have one purpose - winning the war. If a nation's locked in total war and really really wants to win it, it will stop at nothing from achieving that goal, even if that means going against their own citizens and making diabolical decisions.

>scapegoat aristocrats, take their shit, use money to fuel the military
>train the military in brutal ways so that they're better than the enemy
>torture prisoners of war in savage ways to obtain crucial information
>force your citizens to work more to fuel the military
>enslave prisoners and inmates to fuel the military
>sack the villages,towns and cities your armies marches through for resources to fuel the military
>curfews and checkpoints to prevent revolts
>burn your own land and poison the wells so that the enemy armies passing through will be less supplied
>kill your mercenaries after winning battles to avoid paying them
>pay to incite rebellion in the enemy's country

The nazis weren't the first to scapegoat aristocrats so they can confiscate their shit and use that money to fuel military, and they weren't the first to do all the dark shit they did, this has been going on since ancient times.

>Lord Arbutnoth Fisher of Kilverstone (1841-1920) First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty

Was he someone that made Gallipoli possible?

No because they make a return to amicable relations between two nation states next to impossible.

I'm not very familiair with the treatment of those soldiers, so please forgive me the Wikipedia analysis here.

>In practice though, many Allied soldiers were unwilling to accept the surrender of Japanese troops due to a combination of racist attitudes and reports of atrocities conducted against Allied troops.

Both highly understandable but not pragmatic. The old 'do onto others as others do to you' approach. However, this has to be with anger at the japanese, not pragmatism.

>the Pacific War, there were incidents where Japanese soldiers feigned surrender in order to lure Allied troops into ambushes. In addition, wounded Japanese soldiers sometimes tried to use hand grenades to kill Allied troops attempting to assist them.
>Incidents in which Japanese soldiers booby-trapped their dead and wounded or pretended to surrender in order to lure Allied combatants into ambushes were well known within the Allied militaries and also hardened attitudes against seeking the surrender of Japanese on the battlefield
Its pragmatic do decide to rather kill the prisoners instead of taking chances of them feigning surrender.

The nature of jungle warfare also contributed to prisoners not being taken, as many battles were fought at close ranges where participants "often had no choice but to shoot first and ask questions later".

Pragmatism at its best here.

So all in all, I guess about 60% pragmatism in 40% racism and anger. Mind you, this is based on a 5 minute Wikipedia research. The point i'm trying to make is that pragmatism has no place in the definition of war crimes. War crimes are considered such severe crimes that no reasonable explanation (pragmatism) can form an excuse to commit them.

Using civilians as a meatshield? Sure, its pragmatic to use living persons as a shield. But it does not matter.

You argue continously that war crimes consist of rational decisions. You mention 'diabolical decisions', 'one purpose', 'achieving a goal'.

But that is not always what war crimes are about. The examples you gave were decent pragmatic uses of war crimes to win a war, but can be flipped into stupidity easily.

>scapegoat artistocrats, take their shit, allow your nations economy to fall into pieces, lose the war
>train the military in brutal ways so that you spend way too much on their training and produce highly qualified but few soldiers and lose the war
>torture prisoners of war in savage ways so that they provide faulty information or the public loses faith in the war or you spend way too much time and attention on torture and you lose the war
>force your citizens to work more so that they rebell or refuse to work and you lose the war
>enslave prisoners and inmates to offer them opportunity for sabotage or escaping and you lose the war
>sack the villages, towns and cities... you now what, I'll refer to this guy
>curfews and checkpoints to prevent revolts, pretty clever, not a war crime at all
>burn your own land and poison the wells, not a war crime
>kill your mercenaries after winning the battle so that no other mercenary will ever want to fight for you
>pay to incite rebellion. again, not a war crime (debatable though).

So the rationale behind these decisions doesnt matter. What matters is if they are ethically and morally wrong.

but korea was a stalemate,and vietnam was dominated by the US until congress decided not to hold the promises of paris.Modern wars are pretty much those all or nothing conflicts with high stakes.

Close to the mark user, but those largely are done for pragmatic reasons that fail to actually be pragmatic. Things such as in where racism played a part are examples that are not intended to be pragmatic and are done primarily for vengeance, prejudice, or emotion. They may have some benefits or they may backfire, but that isn't the primary consideration.

Yeah, I stand by my first post more than my second one. You're right in this. Still, I don't believe rationality is often involved with war crimes. Sure, momentarily pragmatism might be there as actions of last resolution (hey, we are losing this war! what can we do to stop it?) irrational decisions made by supposedly pragmatic people (fuck i hate japanese, lets shoot this one and claim he tried to run), etc.

Shouldn't matter to find war crimes. Intend is just not relevant, which renders OP's question moot.

No, I think OP's question still has a point. War crimes are inherently immoral, but if they were also inherently pragmatic then there could be some justification for them as seen in edgelord here But as there are many examples of war crimes which have little to no pragmatic justification and no pragmatic intent, there is less justification for them in general and the rules of war cannot be handwaved by claiming what needs to be done as often it does not need to be done.

Ah, we seem to view justification differently. I'm not really interested in justifications of war crimes. Imo they are none. Pragmatic intentions may serve as excuses or provide insight into the reasoning of the person committing the war crimes. However, they can never serve as justification. Might be I am too much invested in the legal point of view. Which (basically) considers that only military necessity may serve as a justification ground for war crimes.

Good discussion. Now back to my shitty thesis on justification grounds for excluding undertakings from public procurement. See, justification is fun everywhere.

This is utterly retarded nonsense of the highest calibre. War, just as any other competition, works much more efficient under rules. The goal is not to annihilate the enemy but to extract resources from him. With no rules this goal might quickly become shaded by the innate edge lord
within every human who just wants to satisfy its sadistic kicks. That shit is highly contraproductive. You should fleece your sheeps and not skin them.

the italian army still use them

Ummm sorry sweaty?
>implying the hall of cocks happened
How much did your rabbi pay you to say this?

Not necessarily, but not untrue. Cluster bombs, white phosphorous, napalm, and mustard gas are all effective in their own right and certainly can be useful in specific scenarios, but going out of your way to kill with these weapons or something similar isn't the most effective strategy. Low-yield nuclear weapons would be quite effective in many combat scenarios, but there are other considerations you must recognize before employing them.

This

Then you don't go to war, you surrender

no. you can shoot yourself in the foot if you suppress a compliant populace with unnecessary brutality, as it'll stir them up against you.

certain weapons and tactics do not actually work as a force multiplier, and all they do is make war more needlessly cruel.

Poison gas is the perfect example. For one thing: you can't control the wind, so you have no real way of stopping a stiff breeze from blowing it back into your ranks. It could very well go off course and hit a city full of innocent civilians and cause an unimaginable amount of human suffering, or it mighty hit your enemies who brought their NBC gear along and rendered your poison gas weapons a gigantic waste of resources. Did the mention that basically the entire civilized world hates your guts, now?

Indoctrinating your soldiers with a political ideology is also a giant waste of resources. Zealotry will never be as useful as cold, calculating professionalism.

The point of war is NOT death and destruction you edge-lord. It's to knock out your enemy's ability to wage ware in the first place. You need to specifically target his means of production and prevent him from being able to replace battlefield losses. Shermans weren't designed to go toe to toe with Tigers and Panzers. They were designed to drive around the heavy tanks and shoot the vehicles bringing them fuel.

why would you samefag though?

I do agree they're ethically and morally wrong, and yes those decisions can backfire.
That being said they're always pragmatic, even when they're derived out of pure hate they have a practical purpose. If you want to control your people and you know most of them hate the blackjapjews, you start treating the blackjapjews poorly and your people will see you as a good leader because you're catering to their desires.

I don't know if you think dropping the atom bomb was a war crime, or even dropping regular/nalpan/chemical bombs on civilian-heavy areas.
The deeper you get into what a crime really means the more you realize that all sides have their level of evil. War forces regular solders as well as political and military authorities to take harsh decisions in order to end it.
There are no noble knights in shining armor fighting demons and protecting women and children - women get raped, children get killed, forced to work, or conscripted if they got hair on their balls, the noble knights take off their helmets and eat the food they took from hard working foreigners, and shoot them if they complain.

I'd say war itself isn't moral, even if (people think) it's for a good cause.

Yeah what were they thinking?

What's up with the pic?

>Zealotry will never be as useful as cold, calculating professionalism.
Are you forgetting the part where the Nazis whooped up the German's rage into one ideology. Are you forgetting the part where, despite having less men, worse logistics, worse technology, and fewer resources, it took the combined weight of the rest of the planet to crush them?

It's the swimming pool at Auschwitz. A rather odd construction, since it's in the prisoner area. You can tell since the barbed wire is folded inwards to keep prisoners from trying to climb over.

There is nothing wrong with taking a few liberties from a conquered foe after months on the front

Are you dumb?

The holocaust wasn't an evil cartoon guy meme where people were just sent to die in, they might as well as shoot every jew in his doorstep (which they did alot when there were no means of transportation). The camps were used for forced labor. They benefited alot from it.

This is sometimes but not always true. Were there to be war amongst first world countries then yes some degree of honor is expected over brutality. However, I dont quite see why first world countries bend over backwards to play by the rules against hostile insurgent groups who target civilians.

That's because while every other nation in the planet was heavily investing in civilian infrastructure, Germany was investing in Military infrastructure, so they had an initial edge when they started blindsiding people with it. But as soon as Germany started taking battlefield losses, the quality of their soldiering declined dramatically and once the allies were able to switch over their economies to a war-time footing, Germany was totally fucked.

The USSR alone would have crushed the Nazis, it just would have taken longer. The fact that Hitler had managed to turn the entire world against him except for a few sub-par allies is more a reflection of how shitty zealotry works on the diplomatic front.

>every other nation in the planet was heavily investing in civilian infrastructure
yes tovarisch soviet union was of peaceful nation ignore finalnd ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Have you ever wondered why Russia got spanked hard in WWI, but a generation later in WW2 was doing the lion's share of the heavy military lifting?

It's the difference industrialization makes

The protocol just say Dont do it again bomber Harris

War crimes are a problem for war effort. They fuck up discipline and cause resistance. They make your enemy fight harder basically. Point of war is not slaughter, point is to win while suffering and inflicting as little damage as possible.
>m-muh intimidation
Name one example in history where enemy was intimidated into surrendering by brutal behaviour. People still fought Mongols despite how they acted. Partisans still fought Germans despite how they acted. Brutality most often has the opposite effect. And when you allow soldiers to act like that, it's extremely hard to control it.

>Using them on your enemies are banned
Did you even read the link you posted??

You can use incendiary weapons (Napalm, Fougasse, Flamethrowers) against enemies as long as there is no chance civilians will be affected.

Flamethrowers are definatley allowed to be used to kill enemies, it's just that there's been very little need for them in the modern day.