vinnie71
Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008 Status: offline
|
As far as I know the Russians were not signatory to the Geneva conventions so from a strictly legalistic point of view, whatever happened was also partly their fault too. Red Cross was not allowed in the USSR either as far as I know and therefore it became impossible to monitor anything. Plus the Russians gave as good as they took. They didn't even have mercy on their own compatriots, let alone on foreign invaders. In fact there is a probability that Stalin's regime took a heavier toll of the Russians than the Axis invaders. As to the war crimes, keep in mind that convention more than law, holds power in military circles. For example for a long time, an occupier had the right to keep (and if necessary shoot) hostages to terrorise the natives. That was accepted and no law/tribunal or what have you will ever change that, even today. Secondly we must not see everything from today's perspective. If we did so, Nazi atrocities on the Eastern front, the bombing of cities in Germany, the obliteration of Carthage and the pyramids of skulls of Ghengis Khan can be roughly equated. Why? Because these were all state sanctioned acts of terrorism intended to cow an enemy which was portrayed as being barely human. They were nothing more than state sponsored acts of terror designed to break the enemy's resolve. WWII on the Eastern front was war to the knife, no quarter given or taken, since this war was more a clash of civilisations/ideologies/races than a mere limited war for definite objectives. On the Western front, combattants tended to adhere to accepted norms of warfare and the Red Cross acted as a neutral go between the warring powers. Then there is the question of scale. We are talking about huge armies, millions strong. How do you police such a mass of men? Its clearly almost impossible to do so. Incidentally, as a previous poster has said, it is mostly rear echelons who perform most of these atrocities since the guys up front tend to see and shed enough blood already. But no comparisons can be made with today. In essence, the bulk of warfare that takes place today are either guerilla warfare, which is by its very nature very messy or extended colonial campaigning. There is no comparison with WWII, with possibly only the Iran-Iraq war matching WWII in intensity and brutality since 1945. All these rules, laws etc mostly came in existence in a period of time when warfare is limited in scale and intensity. The next apocaliptic conflict, which I hope never to see, will see all these rules discarded without a second thought and the Hague tribunal being seen nothing more than a farce... Besides throughout history there are many examples when civilised warfare reached a peak (with rules and what have you) to be suddenly set aside by new comers. Ex the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the arrival of the Mongols, the rise of the Swiss, the Thirty Years War and the French Revolution were all bloody shocks to the 'ritualised' legal forms of warfare. The same can be seen in other continents as well (the best example would be Shaka here who wrought a revolution in military thinking in his own corner of the African continent). Personal perspective and time tend to colour our judgements. It is interesting to note that in our day and age, when there are strict laws on warmaking and so forth, the largest powers which have the highest probability to engage in any sort of warfare, tend to shun binding documents/declarations/international tribunals etc. Again, why? Because they write their own lawbook and do not feel bound by what lesser states want. This century, like every century before it, might still makes right...
|