War Criminals

[Jintor]

Doin' research for Short Story because apparently I don't get the delicious marks if I don't do research, which means I can't write purely for fun and shit. So I need some good fiction about War Criminals, preferably after the War but before the Trials. I'll pay you in a few short stories I wrote which all got rejected for 'not enough research'.

 

[Dan]

How about talking about the hypocrisies of the term "war criminal" itself? By declaring certain acts of war as lawful and others as not, the international community has basically devolved back to the mentality of "the good fight". You can only kill people if you do it the right way.

Then there is also the problem with retroactive punishment of Nazi war criminals for their actions before the laws were even made. How can you obey a law that doesn't exist? I mean sure, everyone knows that they were morally terrible actions, but it would hardly be the first time that's happened in human history. Justifying their punishment with laws was an arbitrary act. The Allies just wanted to appear to have a justifiable basis for taking revenge, and they turned a complete blind eye to the atrocities committed by them, mainly by the Soviet Union, which continued to hold prisoners of war for decades after the end of hostilities. Even the German minister that coordinated the division of Poland with the Soviet Union was put to death, but no action was taken against the Soviet side.

Take the story of the Iliad, by Homer. It is considered one of the greatest stories of human struggles, but if you apply today's standards to it, both sides committed uncountable numbers of war crimes: the killing of non combatants, the killing of prisoners, looting, desecrating the dead. If Odysseus was alive today, he would have to be tried as a war criminal right beside Goring and von Ribbentrop.

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV: all war criminals. But seriously, read up on the Nuremberg trials. It still forms the basis for a lot of the international laws about war crime, but the whole thing was just a mockery of law and a convoluted way to punish the defeated Nazi opponents.

If you want a good satirical short story, take any generally revered historical character and apply today's standard of international law to them.

 

[Jintor]

Dan, I love you. Going to steal all your ideas and combine them to get awesome marks. Brb.

/EDIT That probably won't work but **** THIS I CBF'D THINKING.

I've only got about another three months to come up with 8000 words that will get me good marks and then I can go back to writing whatever the hell I want. I already devoured two books on the Nuremburg Trials, but can you think of any story hooks to help about the first point - the hypocrisy of 'War Criminals'? I think that's the line I want to be following here.

//EDIT Well, it's that or use the other Idea i have going - "Shades of Grey", where it becomes apparent through the text that there is no mere binary decisions, there is more than that - that morality has become relative. Or SOMETHING. Please help me out here, I'm going crazy with this shit.

 

[Solaris]

How about talking about the hypocrisies of the term "war criminal" itself? By declaring certain acts of war as lawful and others as not, the international community has basically devolved back to the mentality of "the good fight". You can only kill people if you do it the right way.

It's not about how you kill so much as who you kill. There's a difference between invading a country, no matter how unprovoked. And the systematic, planned murder of six million people because of who they are.

There is absolutely no comparison.

Then there is also the problem with retroactive punishment of Nazi war criminals for their actions before the laws were even made. How can you obey a law that doesn't exist? I mean sure, everyone knows that they were morally terrible actions, but it would hardly be the first time that's happened in human history. Justifying their punishment with laws was an arbitrary act. The Allies just wanted to appear to have a justifiable basis for taking revenge, and they turned a complete blind eye to the atrocities committed by them, mainly by the Soviet Union, which continued to hold prisoners of war for decades after the end of hostilities. Even the German minister that coordinated the division of Poland with the Soviet Union was put to death, but no action was taken against the Soviet side.

I'm concerned at what you're saying here. Are you saying they should not have been punished? Or should have been punished outside the law? The reason that war crimes were not legislated pre-WW2 was because it was not recognised just how low mankind could stoop. The evil of the holocaust was unfathomable, as reports of mass extermination camps were smuggled out to the allies, they didn't believe them, they were "too far fetched".

Whilst I won't accuse you of trying to diminish the significance of the holocaust. What appears to be your efforts to equate it with historical and soviet parallels is strange. I cannot help but make aware how I become suspicious whenever the holocaust is mentioned and someone inevitably brings up 'the soviets were just as bad and they wern't punished'. Is the consequent to this statement that the Nazis should not have been punished either?

I doubt it, but I don't see what else you could advocate, if we could have put Stalin on trial we would have, no one would oppose that.

Take the story of the Iliad, by Homer. It is considered one of the greatest stories of human struggles, but if you apply today's standards to it, both sides committed uncountable numbers of war crimes: the killing of non combatants, the killing of prisoners, looting, desecrating the dead. If Odysseus was alive today, he would have to be tried as a war criminal right beside Goring and von Ribbentrop.

And rightly so? Or are you trying to trivialise war crimes here?

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV: all war criminals. But seriously, read up on the Nuremberg trials. It still forms the basis for a lot of the international laws about war crime, but the whole thing was just a mockery of law and a convoluted way to punish the defeated Nazi opponents.

If you want a good satirical short story, take any generally revered historical character and apply today's standard of international law to them.

The Nazis weren't just our opponents, they were opponents of humanity and the rich German culture they inherited.

For your recommendation of a short story, I find it atrocious. The fact that the story would be satire, for daring to suppose that when Genghis Khan plundered and raped half a continent was criminal is revealing of your attitude. You wish to trivialise the idea of war crimes at a time when concentration camps still exist in north Korea, genocidal tyrants and thugs are on trial for their roles Cambodia, Serbia and many African countries. To attempt the trivialisation of the punishment of these atrocities is something for which you should be ashamed.

 

[Jintor]

Recommend a short story idea or STFU man, demolishing what I have already does not help me.

 

[Solaris]

It helps you in the sense that you won't have to explain to your classmates why you decided to plagiarise the defense Nazis's gave at the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Jintor]

But in a very real sense it doesn't because I won't have handed anything in.

Man with enough bullshittery I could probably hand in the defense the Nazis gave at Nuremberg and get a 50/50, but if you have a better idea by all means present it.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The holocaust was not the only crime on trial at Nuremberg, there was also the conduct of and blame for starting the war and treatment of occupied peoples.

It was hypocritical to try and charge Donitz for unrestricted U-boat warfare when the allies also carried out unrestricted submarine warfare.

 

[Dan]

I'm concerned at what you're saying here. Are you saying they should not have been punished? Or should have been punished outside the law? The reason that war crimes were not legislated pre-WW2 was because it was not recognised just how low mankind could stoop. The evil of the holocaust was unfathomable, as reports of mass extermination campus were smuggled out to the allies, they didn't believe them, they were "too far fetched".

I am saying that they were punished outside the law, and the whole concept of making up laws to punish the Nazis was farcical. What is the point of a court that has judges appointed by the prosecutors and laws created just to suit the crimes? If you want to execute Goring, just hang him and save everyone some time and money. And don't give me bullshit that the Holocaust was the worst thing in history. Lots of atrocities of similar evilness were committed before and continue to be committed after WW2. Here are just a few of them:

146 BC - The entire Carthaginian population was meticulously exterminated or enslaved by the Romans after the Punic Wars.
1220- Genghis Khan routinely exterminates the population of entire cities that refuse to surrender to his forces
1845-1849 - England continues to export Irish food and closes ports during the Great Irish Famine. The population falls from 9 million to 4 million between starvation and emigration.
1862-1873 - China is cleansed of several million Muslims by the Manchu government
1886-1906 - Leopold II acquires The Congo and viciously dehumanizes the native people for profit. Estimate 8-15 million dead.
All through the 20th century, the Balkans have been a hotbed of almost too many ethnic genocides to list here. Tens of millions have suffered and died. The victims of these ethnics cleansings were the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Serbians.
1975-1979 - Pol Pot decides to purify the history of Cambodia by eliminating undesirable elements. Estimated 2 million dead (1/4 of the population).
1993 Rwanda - we all know about the Hutu massacres now.
Present day - Darfur, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Dem. Rep. of the Congo.

So don't say that the Holocaust was unfathomable or unrecognizable. We have always known just exactly what humankind is capable of.