Holocaust Trials

This confuses me, a few posts before you said their actions were justified for joining the death camps to save their families where they killed millions but the mention of kids draws your emotions out?

You can't have a double standard for something like this, either they deserved to be punished or they do not. You can't throw a 'it depends' title on this.

 

So very very true. The russians killed and raped many german civillians when they invaded Germany during the end of the war. This is a horrible thing to do, yet things like this will never come to light.

Also, to the rest of this topic. I don't think we can ever truly understand what was going through these peoples minds. Years of propoganda and the fear of being killed yourself would no doubt play tricks on anyones mind. Of course we can look back now and say how horrible these events were. Many of us may think "Well, why didn't they just refuse to do it?". It wasn't as simple as that.

Hitler for years gained support througout the entire country. He began to re-build up the economy which was effectively destroyed after WW1 and the hyperinflation they suffered after that. He used the jews as a scapegoat, saying they ran all the good businesses etc and were taking away jobs from the hard working German people. If you had been brought up around this propoganda and sense of resentment towards the Jewish people, you'd probably think nothing of locking them away in camps for the greater good of your country.

 

Without backing up your claim I can't see why it's so simple. I consider it very justified.

Very true, noone ever takes the time to understand the mentality of the other side. Maybe that can be looked over if they were that sides enemy but if you have the ability to look from a non-objective point of view why wouldn't you?
I mean hell it was war, I would think that attacking a group who your country has hated for a very long time would make much more sense for a target then say, other soldiers. That way people will be more apathetic.




This man:Ratko Mladic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/ratko-mladic-defiant-faces-accusers

He is one of my new heroes, he had the courage to stand up in front of the thousands of families of people he killed/ordered killed and told them he did not kill for killings sake, he killed for the defense of his country. Then saluted them.

 

^Killing kids and civilians, is defending your country. Ok. Just as bad as the extremists who kill innocents in the name of religion.

 

It really all depends on that person's morals.

 

Are you implying civilians aren't a part of war? I'm sorry but they are. They are encompassed in whole act that both countries are taking part in.

Religion extremists are not being threatened by the individual nor are they being threatened from the group as a whole.In an extremist's case their interpreting their holy book/scripture/etc however they see fit which means this idea comes from an individuals mind and their own morality justifies it.

 

That's total war.

 

Killing one to save one is not honorable. It's criminal.

Following orders is to keep operations smooth. If he had a problem killing innocent people, he would have spoken up. Fuck that old man.

 

Eh your opinion obviously not his and not mine. Please give an actual reason why it's not honorable during wartime to kill another person.

He was just not the way you would of liked it done.

He didn't? He had no problem killing them, he only made it clear that he wasn't killing people to simply kill them, he wasn't killing human beings for being human being he did it because he was defending his country and because they were the enemy.

 

That came out wrong.

Since when are unarmed babies a threat to his country? It was a MASSACRE; not a battle.

Killing off another town so your town can survive is hypocritical and senseless to me.

 

Obviously unarmed babies weren't a threat, nor were they any close to a majority in Srebrenica. Unfortunatly yes some babies did die but when you go into a town to kill everyone, you kill everyone.

When the surrounding Serbian towns are being provoked and then Nasar Oric is hiding in Srebrenica (A general who was training soldiers in Srebrenica who also was a main antagonist towards the serbs in the surrounding encampments) this gives reason for attack. It's a preemptive strike that makes sense when tensions are high but without those tensions it may seem unneeded I will agree but again we can't understand how high the emotions were rising in those times. For both sides not just Mlodics.

 

Killing the innocent is unacceptable in war. Their deaths will surve no purpose to the operations of the general. They are to be avoided at all cost. He felt the need to massacre the town of any and all possible threat.

I'd rather not argue this stance because I will not change my stance and seems pointless to argue. The reason for Crimes against humanity is established is because it prevents the mentality of "ALL is fair in love and WAR".

 

Understandable, I don't see much of a change coming from us reiterating the same points back and forth.

True? I don't see what I'm supposed to discuss with this, I know this is why they are set in place. I don't agree with them though considering both sides will commit these acts but only the winning party or the one with the biggest backup buddies will decide whats cruel and inhumane.

 

Not true. Though possible, both armies are capable of committing it, but both do not have to. It's possible for neither or one of them to do so. I believe the Nuremberg Trials were just and needed. To the winners go the spoils. We're just fortunate the "good" side won the war.

 

Ehhhh the Nuremberg Trials are a debate for another time my friend =P I will say I have a different view on that but won't go much farther into because I don't have much longer till I must go =/.

Yes it is possible for both,one,or none of the opposing armies to commit these acts however I just honestly can't see how one side can be declared wrong when they thought they were right as would any side.

Situation 1:If both opposing armies committed war crimes then they are both at fault for being "wrong" yet the both felt they were right.

Situation 2:If only 1 side committed these acts then they still believed what they thought was right while the other side did the same.

Situation 3:If no sides committed any war crimes then still both doing what they thought was right.

Situation 1 and 3 are exactly alike just with "war crimes" being thrown onto the loser.

 

The reason for Crimes against humanity is prevention of thereof. It wouldn't be a just trial if an evil country was able to trial and punish War "criminals".

 

But thats just it though, there is no evil country, both sides believe they are right and just and because we are humans and base wrong and right on morality. This makes them both right.

 

it IS so simple. anyone could be subject to such psychological manipulation.

For many nazi's, they may not be to blame as much as one might think:

 

But what if they weren't being manipulated, what if they genuinely wanted to commit these acts? Then it is easily justified through their own moral code.

Also this experiment doesn't prove it isn't justified it just proves how some people can be manipulated to preform tasks it doesn't show how it can be justified or not justified lol.

 

"some people can be manipulated to perform tasks".... exactly...

its not really their fault...therefore they should arguably not be held accountable for what they were psychologically/physically forced to do....so charges against them stand unjustified