Squire Robertsson said:
You think good thoughts.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is a War Crime?
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
You think good thoughts.
carpro said:
Carpo, you need to read more. I did answer ... or maybe you just do not recognize answers. :laugh:
What is your definition of a war crime?
carpro said:
I have thought about that and at the consider it a rather silly question. Why? Because David was under OT law and I am not familiar enought with OT law to make a decision on that. But, under the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth it maybe he wasn't. What do you think?
And the question is off topic:
The topic of the thread is what constutes a war crime? Do you believe there is such a thing as a war crime?
Please tell me what act you would consider a war crime.:wavey:
Loose definition: two parties at war, that have agreed upon certain conditions (such as, don't shoot at red crosses, don't shoot anyone not carrying a weapon--otherwise known as non-combatants, etc.)
As was mentioned, Japan didn't agree to the Geneva Convention; so although we applied the GC to Japanese prisoners, they had no such restrictions in their treatment of US prisoners (and thus, the horror stories about starving prisoners, etc.). Germany, on the other hand, agreed to several different treaties and broke those agreements.
Japan was not guilty of breaking any agreements; so trying them for "war crimes" was/is difficult. However, Germany clearly was guilty of reneging on promises, and thus was clearly guilty of war crimes.
As was mentioned, Japan didn't agree to the Geneva Convention; so although we applied the GC to Japanese prisoners, they had no such restrictions in their treatment of US prisoners (and thus, the horror stories about starving prisoners, etc.). Germany, on the other hand, agreed to several different treaties and broke those agreements.
Japan was not guilty of breaking any agreements; so trying them for "war crimes" was/is difficult. However, Germany clearly was guilty of reneging on promises, and thus was clearly guilty of war crimes.
Crabtownboy said:
No such thing. We should all approach war like David did. Prayerfully, seriously, and all-out. You may call actions leading up to war "crimes", ie assassinations, piracy, etc, but once bombs start dropping, the goal is the elimination of your enemy.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Bro. Curtis said:
Finally someone with sense. I have never been on a battlefield. I have trained to be on one, but never fought a war. But what Curtis is saying here is true...kill the enemy, every last one of them, until they surrender or are annihilated.
Bro. Curtis said:
Were the Allies wrong in putting the Nazis on trial at Nuremburg? Not arguing, just curious.
Like I said in a previous post, Germany violated an international peace treaty, simply by building up their military. Germany committed many crimes before the war started.
Ever appeasement was made to Hitler and the German people before the war was declared. Roosevelt said Hitler was a great economic leader for Germany; Chamberlan came back to London with "peace in our time" convinced that Hitler was yielding, or was Chamberlain really just giving England time to prepare for war?
Hitler violated the terms of the Geneva Convention when he invaded a sovereign country. It was then that Chamberlain declared a state of war existed between Germany and England. The first bombs fell on England and we had no alternative but to defend ourselves. Mr. Churchill made it clear, even though we were outgunned, that defeat was no option. We would fight them to the end, and fight we did. We were defending England, but more importantly, we were defending the Geneva Convention and the rights of all sovereign countries.
A soldier does not go to war to enjoy a picnic. We did not load our rifles with blanks. They were damaging bullets those 303's. Along the way people, innocent people died and the Geneva Convention was bent on all sides. Why were Germans the only ones tried? Well, it is not advertised, but allied soldiers were tried and some faced a firing squad for blatant violations of war. In the end, however, certain of Germany's leaders were tried for violations as the agressor causing the war. It was this point that seemed to make applying the Geneva Convention correct. I wonder though.
IN battle conditions there is more to right and wrong than meets the eyes of the outsiders. One must be there. All we can do now is make judgments as to what was right and what was wrong based on stories we have heard, but many will never piece together what made this right or that wrong because they weren't in the foxholes, flying the planes or shooting the canons........or dying!
Cheers,
Jim
Hitler violated the terms of the Geneva Convention when he invaded a sovereign country. It was then that Chamberlain declared a state of war existed between Germany and England. The first bombs fell on England and we had no alternative but to defend ourselves. Mr. Churchill made it clear, even though we were outgunned, that defeat was no option. We would fight them to the end, and fight we did. We were defending England, but more importantly, we were defending the Geneva Convention and the rights of all sovereign countries.
A soldier does not go to war to enjoy a picnic. We did not load our rifles with blanks. They were damaging bullets those 303's. Along the way people, innocent people died and the Geneva Convention was bent on all sides. Why were Germans the only ones tried? Well, it is not advertised, but allied soldiers were tried and some faced a firing squad for blatant violations of war. In the end, however, certain of Germany's leaders were tried for violations as the agressor causing the war. It was this point that seemed to make applying the Geneva Convention correct. I wonder though.
IN battle conditions there is more to right and wrong than meets the eyes of the outsiders. One must be there. All we can do now is make judgments as to what was right and what was wrong based on stories we have heard, but many will never piece together what made this right or that wrong because they weren't in the foxholes, flying the planes or shooting the canons........or dying!
Cheers,
Jim
Bro. Curtis said:
Is that a yes or a no on the war crimes trails in Nuremburg?
Jim, I know you must have held the hands of young men who were dieing, and if I can jump into your head a bit, I imagine at the time you were very young yourself. God bless you for doing that. Nobody here can imagine what you went thru.
Getting back to Chamberlan for a minute, if you can offer some historical perspective, is it true that he kind of gave half of Poland, or the future Czech republic to Germany, to appease them, during the military buildup. If I understand that correctly, it sure does shoot a hole in the "talk to them" mentality, I feel.
Getting back to Chamberlan for a minute, if you can offer some historical perspective, is it true that he kind of gave half of Poland, or the future Czech republic to Germany, to appease them, during the military buildup. If I understand that correctly, it sure does shoot a hole in the "talk to them" mentality, I feel.
\Crabtownboy said:
I answered you, CTB.
Bro. Curtis said:
BC, there is a temporary exhibition here in Prague in the National Museum with a display of the three copies of the Munich Agreement ... that which Germany held, that which the British held ... and a copy of the American one. It is a copy because through some carelessness the US lost their original. It is the first time the three have been displayed together.
Bro. Curtis said:
Hardly. You gave an opinion that said all is fair in war ... that is you want to do anything you can to defeat your enemy. Then you say Germany broke a treaty implying this made them war criminals. So, clarify please. You cannot say in one reply that there are no war crimes .. and imply in another there are war crimes.
In your opinion what constitutes a war crime?
Brother Curtis, I was a teen in London during the 2nd World War and I was 23 when I went to Korea as a chaplain in the Canadian Army. I lost family members in the first war, and we lost 550 Canadians in Korea, many from my unit, the PPCLI. I jumped into battle with the fighting men, and yes, held many a hand of a kid...many were only 18 or 19 yrs...as they lay dying on the battle field. Not an experience I want to repeat, but if freedom was at risk, I would gladly volunteer again.
Yes, Mr. Chamberlain did offer concessions to Hitler and he was severely criticized by some for that. Given the situation, however, what alternatives were there? This is one of the biggest military mights on earth. America was not involved at this point. England had nothing by way of war machinery and we were only 20 miles off, as it were, from German aircraft. Chamberlain did all he could to "settle Hitler down" as it were. So, he offered a piece of the pie, to save the whole.
The important thing to remember is that Chamberlain did not slack when Germany actually violated another country and he quickly declared a state of war.
As a point of interest, because of he time difference, Canada actually declared war before England, as a commonwealth country.
As another point of interest, I vowed to visit the mother of every soldier who died in my unit when I got back to Canada. It took me two years, but I tell you, that was much harder than holding the lad's hand in the field.
Cheers, and thanks for asking,
B179755 (One never forgets his number)
Jim
Yes, Mr. Chamberlain did offer concessions to Hitler and he was severely criticized by some for that. Given the situation, however, what alternatives were there? This is one of the biggest military mights on earth. America was not involved at this point. England had nothing by way of war machinery and we were only 20 miles off, as it were, from German aircraft. Chamberlain did all he could to "settle Hitler down" as it were. So, he offered a piece of the pie, to save the whole.
The important thing to remember is that Chamberlain did not slack when Germany actually violated another country and he quickly declared a state of war.
As a point of interest, because of he time difference, Canada actually declared war before England, as a commonwealth country.
As another point of interest, I vowed to visit the mother of every soldier who died in my unit when I got back to Canada. It took me two years, but I tell you, that was much harder than holding the lad's hand in the field.
Cheers, and thanks for asking,
B179755 (One never forgets his number)
Jim
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
In determining how one ought to conduct himself in battle, I would consult the Scriptures.