In 2011, maybe. Not then. Not before Geneva Conventions and war movies and Twitter and Anderson Cooper.
I were launched back in time and found myself in front of those men, I’d shoot 'em, too. Or worse.
But you can’t make that decision solely on abstract principles. You have to take specific circumstances into account and decide if the attempt to prosecute might do more harm than good. If there’s little hope of getting a conviction, and the prosecution would only undermine morale and increase tension, then it might very well be best for all concerned to let sleeping dogs lie.
In this case, who would you get to testify? The inmates? Are they going to rat out the men who set them free? The other troops? But that guy they want to prosecute may have saved your life, or you may have saved his, and you may very well need to depend absolutely on each other the next time you’re in combat if you want a decent chance of surviving. You think they’re going to be eager to testify against their buds? You may have a general idea of what happened, but it may difficult or impossible to gather enough evidence against a specific person or persons to have a realistic expectation of getting a conviction. And the investigation and prosecution may tie up resources that are better used elsewhere.
Decisions like this can’t be made solely on the basis of moral abstractions. Practical consequences have to be considered as well.
If something similar were to happen now, yes they should be tried.
Back then, we used to bomb civilians indiscriminately. We may have not been Nazis, but we were monsters of a different sort.
But you asked if MORALLY, we should have, so my answer yes, of course.
Not to say the mitigating circumstances shouldn’t weigh in on the result of the trials, but tried for war crimes, they should have been.
Maybe it is wise to first read up on what actually happened there, before shooting off on how you would do the same.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/DachauLiberation/index.html
I don’t know where you get the idea that shooting prisoners being prohibited is a development of 2011, and that WW2 occurred before Geneva and its predecessors. Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war. Signed at Geneva, July 27, 1929, and before that Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 Ch. II, On Prisoners of War
You’re correct, but normally when people refer to “the Geneva Convention” they mean the one signed in 1949.
That said, executing POWs out of hand was certainly considered a war crime, which is why this particular incident was investigated by the military and it’s why the US military could and did prosecute people for murdering POWs.
Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of dispute as to what happened, how many people were killed, and the circumstances surrounding it.
That said, war has a tendency to cause many people to do horrible things and I can certainly understand why the men would have behaved that way.
I remember lots of people watching the movie Saving Private Ryan, which had a number of instances of American soldiers murdering surrendering German soldiers who had not committed any war crimes and I don’t remember anyone being outraged that the men in the movie were portrayed as being heroes who represented all the US servicemen during WWII.
Most people who use “the Geneva Convention” are unaware that there are 4 of them. The 4th Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was the only part actually added in 1949, the first 3 conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929 were also revised and resigned in 1949 causing a bit of this confusion. For example, the first words of Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949
You know there’s a great scene in that movie that somewhat reflects this situation. The Americans/Private Ryan are moving through the countryside and come across some Germans on top of a slight hill. They move up a cow pasture, an American gets shot; they kill one German and take the hill; the other German surrenders. About now the shot American bleeds out. The other Americans are pissed and desperately want to kill the captured German for killing their friend. Argument ensues: No one would ever know, he deserves it, he’s the enemy, ect ect ect. Tom Hanks, following the law, says no, then further says we don’t have time/resources to take him prisoner, so he lets him go. That’s, unfortunately, the absolutely correct thing, legally, to do. Perfectly fine to kill him before he surrenders, once he does though, you cannot kill him, and a set of laws now “protect” him since he is removed from the fight.
Anyways, it was a great scene showing legalese (morality), without making any overt references to it, played out pretty well in a “real life” WWII situation.
Prosecute the *inmates *for murder?
No.
In fact, make that fuck no.
In fact, make that fuck no, fuck that shit, and fuck anyone who thinks the inmates should be prosecuted.
An investigation was made, resulting in charges being laid. The charges were dismissed from on high. All due process.
Let’s leave the personal comments out of the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Murder is murder. Due process is even more important when dealing with unpopular and disliked people. That is one of the things diffrentiates civilised people from the Nazis. The inmates might have had an excuse. The officers and men who organised had none.
The horror was worse than US soldiers could have imagined. The stories of atrocities that had made their way to the Allies were considered exagerrations until they were witnessed and seen to be understated. It was absolutely wrong for soldiers to execute POWs, but not at all surprising under the circumstances. Prosecuting the soldiers would have been counterproductive under the circumstances, and at best would do nothing measurable to further the goal of justice. I cannot imagine how prosecution of the freed prisoners could be considered at all. I don’t think I would have killed Nazi POWs had I been there, but I would have been sorely tempted to provide the freed prisoners with guns.
It is so totally impossible for anyone to say what they would have done if they were in that situation.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the Jews were unpopular because the Nazis were racist fucksticks; the guards were unpopular because they’d been murdering innocent people by the trainful. So this “if you kill them, you’ll be just like them” spiel is a crock of shit.
Nice try, but no. WWII happened after the Third Geneva Convention of 1926. Which specifically states (my bolding)"[
](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/305?OpenDocument)There’s more in art. 60-65 about judicial proceedings.
So it’s only a crime if it gets reported? Really?
That’s all very well, if that’s the kind of person you think you are. But you do not get to pretend that it isn’t a war crime when you do it.
Really? You think I don’t have enough insight into my own motivations and morals to say I wouldn’t shoot an unarmed man?
Yeah. Just like My Lai…all above board.:rolleyes:
Scratch that, at least My Lai led to 1 conviction
So you want to be like Nazis?
The difference between civilised people and Nazis is that civilised people ensure that even murdering scum like Concentration camp guards are treated according to law and not murdered on a whim and with impunity.
Those men who were murdered most likely deserved all they got. But that does not make what happened to them; right.
Are you illiterate? I just said that what they did doesn’t make them like Nazis.
No, the difference between civilised people and Nazis is that civilised people don’t murder and oppress innocent people. It’s not treating people according to the law that defines them - even when the Nazis were treating the Jews according to the law, they were still acting abhorrently.