In relation to my other question just asked about WW2?

Question

Regarding the winning countries of WW2 should they have been put on trial for war crimes (back then)?

And if so or not, why?

The civilians who got caught up in the conflict, POW's who disappeared. Things like the A-bomb being dropped etc.

yugnovsky...
How is it insulting? There were victims on both sides. Yes I appreciate what soldiers were fighting for back then (even my grandparents) but how does that excuse war crimes. I am not talking about going on trial now. I am talking about should it have went on trial back then.

Answer 1

At the Nuremberg Trials, the victorious nations chose to consider German war crimes up to 1942, and that was for a reason. The worst war crimes committed by the Allies took place after that. Other than the USA's atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of the crimes against the Axis powers included:-
the RAF's fire bombing of the German city of Dresden (the city was known to have about 100,000 mainly refugee civilians at the time), Moroccan soldiers gang-raping Italian females of all ages, the Russian advance through Poland being deliberately halted until the Germans had suppressed the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the Italian patriots' lynching of Benito Mussilini and his mistress, Czechs forcibly evicting German speakers from their homes in the Sudetenland (an action know called ethnic cleansing), Russian soldiers raping German women, and so on. By using 1942 as the last year under consideration, then embarrassing Allied war crimes could be overlooked. Interestingly the Nuremberg Trials considered all "war crimes" from 1933 onwards (i.e. from six years before the war even started) - but then the victor decides in what way justice is dispensed, and how history is written.

I think that those Allied crimes should also have been subjected to the scrutiny of the law, but, at that time, concepts of international justice and human rights were weak - the League of Nations, having failed miserably to prevent war, had collapsed, and the United Nations had not yet been created. If it's any consolation, modern war crimes tend to get exposed by the media and then tried, no matter what side commits them - hence the recent courts martial of British and American soldiers for crimes in Iraq.

Answer 2

In any war the winners write the history books and decide the guilt behind the war.

The mass bombing of civilians in German cities (and of course British cities) would today be viewed as crimes against humanity, but you can't judge historical actions through 21st century eyes. It was accepted practice in wartime in the 1940s.

Answer 3

The winners decide who commits war crimes. It is one of the incentives to WIN the war.

Answer 4

WW11, FDR and Harry Truman had 99% of Americans backing the war and them,,, Bush either forgot,, never knew,, or just ignorance on his part, and the Republicans,, some of these answers just prove my point,,, your suppose to learn from History,, not repeat it in reverse

Answer 5

what exactly are you suggesting? your quest is ridiculous dont you realise the countries that won the war gave you the freedom you now enjoy. I suggest when you get a little older are more mature you might read up about the war we went through and how it started and ended i think then you might realise how insulting your quest is to the men that came back and to the men that died not to come home to their loved ones

Answer 6

What war crimes?

Answer 7

Australia was incredibly brutal in that respect. But no, they weren't charged with war crimes. You're only charged with them if you lose.

Answer 8

There are no winners in war we all lose out somehow

Answer 9

of course they should have been, but that's not realistic, the victors are never going to hold themselves accountable for any crimes they may have commited

Answer 10

no