Was this the biggest war crime in history?

>crime committed during war
>not a warcrime

Okay Hans.

Don't become a lawyer

>Denying the truth when it's this obvious

Unsurprising for a white supremacist.

Holocaust was mostly unrelated to war and included large amounts of people from Axis countries, hence it was classified as "Crime against humanity".

Doesn’t that make it worse?

You’re not just sinning against the people you’re fighting, you’re sinning against every person who has ever lived.

Holodomor > holocaust

Nah. Still pretty bad tho

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the topic.

That’s like saying that manslaughter is just as bad as first degree murder

The use of chemical weapons in the Texan war of Independence by the M*xishits.

No. We warned them we were gonna drop a really big bomb, we already torched 60 of their cities through fireraids, this was a war that had claimed the lives of over 3 million of their people already. In the context of what was going on, this was just the next step up.

I would say the biggest is the Mongol sacking of Baghdad purely because of how extreme they took it.

This.
I'd say the bombing of Tokyo was the biggest war crime. I don't think there is a military act that killed more civilians.

By the military standard and due to how we operated, it was not considered a war crime. Every target in the city was a legitimate military or industrial target, it's not our fault bombs were inaccurate enough that we had to bomb EVERYTHING and label all civilian death as collateral damage, it's just the way bombing worked back then.

pfft

le may, mcnamara, harris

I don't think "oops" is an argument before the courts, anyway the targeting of a civil area was intentional and publicly assumed, at that time they didn't care about war crimes, killing populations was a strategy. It's only after the war when mentality changed that they justified these bombings as "legitimate military or industrial targets".

Terror bombing was considered a warcrime at 45, but due to the obvious (Everyone, capable of it, did it) no one was prosecuted.

Please show me anything that indicates that terror bombing was considered a warcrime and not just part of aerial war by the end of WW2.

The Nuremberg Trials.

Never before in history have noble men been treated so unfairly under the guises of "law".

SIEG HEIL.

Einzatsgruppen say hello

>Never before in history have noble men been treated so unfairly under the guises of "law".
t. Crispy Kraut

you’re a fuckin idiot

DO

>show me anything that indicates that terror bombing was considered a warcrime
TERROR bombing... What do you think?
Any way, this was common sense even in 1910: avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
Article 25

>Which are undefended
I can't think of any aerial bombing raid in WW2 which attacked an undefended target. The defenses might have been ineffective, but they were always present. Even places like Dresden and Hiroshima had defenses.

American terrorist tactics and actions during Revolutionary War.

>or buildings which are undefended

9/11, because they forgot to declare war first.

Individual buildings were not targeted, which is of course an impossibility given the technology of the time. Cities were, and even entire cities were often missed.

It's okay to admit you're wrong user. Doubling down like this just makes you look stupid.

user, it's prohibited to bomb stuff that are not defended, period, what is the point you don't understand? If there is two buildings next to each other, one is full of soldiers, one is full of civilians, you can't bomb the two...
Obviously carpet bombing a city does not respect this SIMPLE law of war and therefore is a war crime.

>it's prohibited to bomb stuff that are not defended

Cite the law.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You are assuming that there is a choice to bomb one building and not the other, which was not applicable to WW2 heavy bombers. You are also extremely stretching the notion of "undefended".

uwindsor.ca/law/cwaters/sites/uwindsor.ca.law.cwaters/files/nelson_waters.pdf

>The provision fell into practical disuse, however, as it was considered that the term "undefended" was rendered meaningless by developments on the ground (the placement of anti-aircraft guns) and in the air (if airplanes can be scrmabled to fight over a town, how could the town said to be undefended?)

That's not even getting into the notion of reprisal attacks, which only themselves became illegal post-war.

>Obviously carpet bombing a city does not respect this SIMPLE law of war and therefore is a war crime.
Which is of course why it was never codified as such until well after WW2, and nobody during either world war or during the interwar period was charged with it, let alone tried.

>which was not applicable to WW2 heavy bombers
Which is why this strategy shouldn't have been employed, based on the laws.

>nobody during either world war or during the interwar period was charged with it, let alone tried.
Allies were not tried for that. But Goering for example, was.

Read the thread.

Cite the law.

I think there are a lot of contenders from the burning of Baghdad to the Holocaust or the numerous Japanese death marches.

Humans are a fucked up species.

Read the thread.

What does "GP ost" mean?

Cite the post in the thread.

>Which is why this strategy shouldn't have been employed, based on the laws.
No, because there was no targeting of undefended buildings. You have yet to even prove that there were undefended buildings, but a bomb falling on one when targeting a defended building is not a war crime even under your ridiculous definition that nobody historically actually adopted.

> But Goering for example, was.
No, he was not. avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judgoeri.asp He was charged with

avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count1.asp
Conspiracy to use the Nazi party to usurp legitimate political control of Germany

avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count2.asp
>participated in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.

>avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count4.asp
Holocaust related stuff

And finally, the war crimes themselves in Indictment three (presented somewhat out of order)

avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp
> MURDER AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS OF OR IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY AND ON THE HIGH SEAS
>DEPORTATION FOR SLAVE LABOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS OF AND IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
> MURDER AND ILL-TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR, AND OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE COUNTRIES WITH WHOM GERMANY WAS AT WAR, AND OF PERSONS ON THE HIGH SEAS
>KILLING OF HOSTAGES
> PLUNDER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
>THE EXACTION OF COLLECTIVE PENALTIES
> WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY
> CONSCRIPTION OF CIVILIAN LABOR
>FORCING CIVILIANS OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO A HOSTILE POWER
> GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Of those ten sub-counts, only #7, the "wanton destruction one" could even come close, and you'll see that the indictment focuses on occupation destruction of towns, not aerial bombing.

Gay Penetration East

45 posts are too hard to read?
>only #7, the "wanton destruction one" could even come close
Well, it's not "close", it's exactly that.
What I mean is that bombing cities in which everyone knows there are civilians was considered a war crime even before WWII. Carpet bombings were done with this in mind, they knew it, and actually the terror was fully part of the stategy.

I found the Scouring of the Shire to be more devestating.

>The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Dresden wasn't undefended.

GG no re

>b-b-b-but the buildings were

That's great, but it's pretty obvious that you can't bombard a town without bombarding buildings in it.

If they meant individual buildings then they wouldn't have included the verbiage about towns and villages.

Sorry, but enemy war production is a legitimate target, and there were absolutely no rules requiring that you minimize collateral damage while attacking a legitimate military target.

Cry more

>furiously redditspacing while his position is BTFO
wew lad

>Well, it's not "close", it's exactly that.
No, it isn't. Goering was NOT charged for any of his aerial bombardments. You are completely, 100% absolutely wrong. I don't know why you are so ressitant to the notion.

>What I mean is that bombing cities in which everyone knows there are civilians was considered a war crime even before WWII.
Then why wasn't it codified as such? Why wasn't anyone ever charged with it? Why wasn't anyone even charge with it IN WW2, well after "it was considered a war crime".

Why do you keep repeating your same idiotic assertions over and over again in the face of actual, presented evidence against it? Are you too stupid to read? Too proud to admit you're wrong? Too ideologically blinded to admit that your personal convictions were not shared by people in the past?

>Goering was NOT charged for any of his aerial bombardments.
What? You wrote it yourself in big capitals. What kind of mental gymnastic leads you to think that "WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY" was not about bombing cities?

>Then why wasn't it codified as such?
It was. You just don't want to understand it.

>Why wasn't anyone ever charged with it?
There were.

the continued existence of wh*te people

>What kind of mental gymnastic leads you to think that "WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY" was not about bombing cities?
The fact that it is not mentioned. If you bothered to read the link (hard, I know), you would see that the bombing of towns is not mentioned.

>The defendants wantonly destroyed cities, towns, and villages and committed other acts of devastation without military justification or necessity. These acts violated Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

Particulars by way of example only and without prejudice to the production of evidence of other cases are as follows

1. Western Countries:

In March 1941, part of Lofoten in Norway was destroyed.

In April 1942, the town of Telerag in Norway was destroyed.

Entire villages were destroyed in France, among others Oradour-sur-Glane, Saint-Nizier and, in the Vercors, La Mure, Vassieux, La Chapelle en Vercors. The town of Saint Die was burnt down and destroyed. The Old Port District of Marseilles was dynamited in the beginning of 1943 and resorts along the Atlantic and the Mediterranean coasts, particularly the town of Sanary, were demolished

In Holland there was most widespread and extensive destruction, not justified by military necessity, including the destruction of harbors, locks, dikes, and bridges: immense devastation was also caused by inundations which equally were not justified by military necessity.
1/2

2. Eastern Countries:

In the Eastern Countries the defendants' pursued a policy of wanton destruction and devastation: some particulars of this (without prejudice to the production of evidence of other cases) are set out above under the heading "Plunder of Public and Private Property

In Greece in 1941, the villages of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Messovunos, Selli, Ano-Kerzilion, and Kato-Kerzilion were utterly destroyed.

In Yugoslavia on 15 August 1941, the German military command officially announced that the village of Skela was burned to the ground and the inhabitants killed on the order of the command.

On the order of the Field Commander Hoersterberg a punitive expedition from the SS troops and the field police destroyed the villages of Machkovats, and Kriva Reka in Serbia and all the inhabitants were killed.

General Fritz Neidhold (369 Infantry Division) on 11 September 1944, gave an order to destroy the villages of Zagniezde and Udora, hanging all the men and driving away all the women and children.

In Czechoslovakia the Nazi conspirators also practiced the senseless destruction of populated places. Lezaky and Lidice were burned to the ground and the inhabitants killed.

2/4?

Do you see anything in there about the bombing of any town from the air? Or, we could look at his conviction on the section of war crimes avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judgoeri.asp

>The record is filled with Goering's admissions of his complicity in the use of slave labour. " We did use this labour for security reasons so that they would not be active in their own country and would not work against us. On the other hand, they served to help in the economic war." And again: " Workers were forced to come to the Reich. That is something I have not denied." The man who spoke these words was Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan charged with the recruitment and allocation of manpower. As Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief he demanded from Himmler more slave labourers for his underground aircraft factories: "That I requested inmates of concentration camps for the armament of the Luftwaffe is correct and it is to be taken as a matter of course."

As Plenipotentiary, Goering signed a directive concerning the treatment of Polish workers in Germany and implemented it by regulations of the SD, including " special treatment ". He issued directives to use Soviet and French prisoners of war in the armament industry; he spoke of seizing Poles and Dutch and making them prisoners of war if necessary, and using them for work. He agrees Russian prisoners of war were used to man anti-aircraft batteries.

3/5?

As Plenipotentiary, Goering was the active authority in the spoliation. of conquered territory. He made plans for the spoliation of soviet territory long before the war on the Soviet Union. Two months prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler gave Goering the over-all direction for the economic administration in the territory. Goering set up an economic staff for this function. As Reichsmarshal of the Greater German Reich " the orders of the Reichmarshal cover all economic fields, including nutrition and agriculture." His so-called " Green " folder, printed by the Wehrmacht, set up an " Economic Executive Staff, East." This directive contemplated plundering and abandonment of all industry in the food deficit regions and from the food surplus regions, a diversion of food to German needs. Goering claims its purposes have been misunderstood but admits " that as a matter of course and a matter of duty we would have used Russia for our purposes," when conquered.

And he participated in the conference of 16th July, 1941, when Hitler said the National Socialists had no intention of ever leaving the occupied countries, and that "all necessary measures-shooting, desettling, etc.-" should be taken.

4/5

Goering persecuted the Jews, particularly after the November, 1938 riots, and not only in Germany where he raised the billion mark fine as; stated elsewhere, but in the conquered territories as well. His own utterances then and his testimony now show this interest was primarily economic--- how to get their property and how to force them out of the economic life of Europe. As these countries fell before the German army he extended the Reich's anti-Jewish laws to them; the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1939, 1940, and 1941 contains several anti-Jewish decrees signed by Goering. Although their extermination was in Himmler's hands, Goering was far from disinterested or inactive, despite his protestations in the witness box. By decree of 31st July, 1941, he directed Himmler and Heydrich to bring "about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe."

There is nothing to be said in mitigation. For Goering was often, indeed almost always, the moving force, second only to his leader. He was the leading war aggressor, both as political and as military leader; he was the director of the slave labour programme and the creator of the oppressive programme against the Jews and other races, at home and abroad. All of these crimes he has frankly admitted. On some specific cases there may be conflict of testimony, but in terms of the broad outline his own admissions are more than sufficiently wide to be conclusive of his guilt. His guilt is unique in its enormity. The record discloses no excuses for this man.

Not a SINGLE word concerning aerial bombardment. Your claim, as made here that

>Allies were not tried for that. But Goering for example, was.
Is 100% baseless. Why are you unable to admit you are wrong.

>It was. You just don't want to understand it.
No, it wasn't.

>There were.
Name one. If you want to bring up Goering, cite to where in the Nuremberg trials he was indicted for any bombing raid.

It wasn't oops, it was "oh well shit happens". Just because they were aiming for legitimate targets does't mean they CARED how many died in the process.

All arguments aside, the reality is that it doesn't matter what you do, war crimes are meaningless when you win.

Then why don't you just go balls to the wall every time?

There's always the chance that you might not win, or you win but are too weak to resist prosecution from the UN. I mean the German troops on the front line were given crates of poison gas that were stated to only be opened and used under authority of the Fuhrer, but they never got used because they knew what would happen if they did.

It will strenghten morale of your enemy, damage your international standing and possibly popular support too. On top of that enemy might apply eye for an eye principle.

>On top of that enemy might apply eye for an eye principle.
Pretty much this. Brits had a plan to use anthrax on German cattle to poison the entire civilian population and cause a food shortage simulatenously if the Germans themselves tried pulling an Anthrax attack on Britain.

Rape of Berlin

>aiming for legitimate targets
>334 B-29
>aiming

It wasn't committed as an act of war and that's why it's classified as a crime against humanity but by all means show us your true agenda by shitposting on Veeky Forums

What war was Holodomor committed in the name of?

Communism

>be a gook
>rape and murder your way through china
>bomb shit out of chinese with conventional, chemical, and biological weapons
>have beheading competitions
>perform sadistic medical experiments on civilians
>execute pows for shits and giggles
>regularly engage in acts of cannibalism, even when there is plenty of non-human meat available
>usa gets sick of your shit and drops couple bombs against you
>reeeeeeeeeeeee waito devirs be pure evir!1!!!1!111! nuke innocent peacefur nipponese for no reason!1!!!!111! nukes=war crimes

NANI!?

tl;dr japs deserved Fukushima Daichi

Lolz, war is hell kid.
There are no crimes in hell.
There are no bad guys when you are in hell.

>have beheading competitions
Got source on that one? Never heard of that.

They really did. It was followed in the Yomuri Shimbun weekly.

People always think the Japanese chimpout in China is exaggerated, but Japanese sources attest to the claims.

The Japanese soldiers are our primary source on what happened in Nanking, as much as some civilians like to deny it these days. The guys who did it bragged about it.

Mau Mau uprising could be in the top ten

I've never actually heard a Jap whinge about the atomic bombings except to their own government for survivor gibs, they bitch a lot more about the fishing boat that America accidentally nuked in the post war tests

>they bitch a lot more about the fishing boat that America accidentally nuked in the post war tests

The Lucky Dragon No 5 incident was a complete accident, the boat was not supposed to be anywhere near the h-bomb test site when it happened.

How many times have I told you to look for fisher boats before playuing with that thing. Off to your room!

>but yea, no biggie, the US kill civilians all the time

I mean if a person walks into a place that has a sign that says it's an active minefield, well that's what can happen. The US specifically stated where the Castle Bravo test area was and what the danger zone was, and that if you wandered into it, well you could die.

Though I should note, only a single member of the crew didn't recover since it was only acute radiation syndrome. Sadly the radio operator didn't make it.

The boat was outside of the danger area given by the unites states, but the bomb was more powerful than they had predicted. That and changing weather patterns. It was more of a "whoops, our bad" than anything else.

If they want to bitch about that, maybe they should stop treating like shit radiation victims like they're goddamn lepers.

I sincerely wonder what your motive to defend that might be.
>please don't fish here, we're testing weapons of mass destruction far away from our own turf because we can.

Ustashe genociding Serbs in Jasenovac, and other concentration camps, killing pits, etc.

It wasn't even a crime in the first place

As a single event? In relation to number of people committing this crime? Yes!

Winners don't commit war crimes. Vae victis.

War crimes don't exist.

>boo hoo the meanie pants anti-partisans shot us just because we sabotaged their railroads and waged war on them without wearing uniforms!

NICE meme

>Atomic bombs on Japan
I don't know, in terms of loss of life and destruction the firebombings were far more disastrous.

>Terror bombing was considered a warcrime at 45
No one legally defined what a war crime was until the war was over, and basically boiled down to "Things they did that we didn't also do."

>No one legally defined what a war crime was until the war was over
It was very well defined.

Continued existence of USA.

Imagine being this anally annihilated

Indeed. Five long posts to contradict himself, that's a nice self fistfucking.