Thursday, January 06, 2011
"You Can't Smash Terror by Philosophizing"
As before, please read Gilbert 281-301 and comment/question/ or pose a thought in response to the following questions: (1) Is there really such thing as "war crimes"? If so, who determines guilt, and who determines what is a crime? (2) What would you identify as the official turning point of WWII and why? (3) Given the devastation suffered by the Russians during World War II, what would be their priorities after the eventual defeat of Germany in establishing a post-war settlement with the U.S. and Britain?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there definitely is such a thing as war crimes. War crimes are acts that are unnecessarily violent, committed as part of a war. Killing prisoners of war who have surrendered and are no longer a threat, killing civilians who never were a threat, and killing in a unnecessarily brutal manner or on an unnecessarily large scale all constitute war crimes in my opinion. Therefore, Hitler and Stalin were both guilty of war crimes due to their mass exterminations of both their own people and people of other countries. Also, the Japanese, took many prisoners of war that were later killed, many with extremely violent methods. In the book I read for my book review, the Japanese killed and ate 8 American prisoners of war. I think it is up to the United Nations to come up with a universal code of ethics for war.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinon, the turning point of World War 2 was the Battle of Britain because it was the first major wrench in Hitler's plans. In the summer of 1940, Hitler was nearly ready to close the Western front and shift his focus to the East. He had defeated France and begun aerial attacks on Britain, the last remaining threat. If it weren't for the major British victory in the Battle of Britain, Germany would have been ready for a land invasion and possibly would have defeated the British. This would have been catastrophic because it would allow Hitler to focus on the Eastern front, rather than dividing his armies. Also, without the support of the British, the United States probably would not have entered the war against Germany.
Russia's primary goal post war was to maintain the power they had fought so hard to gain over the last couple decades. The main argument in during the peace conferences was over Stalin taking control of Eastern European countries confiscated from Germany. This dispute is what led to Winston Churchill's comment of "an iron curtain descending" between Eastern and Western Europe.
I think a lot of war crimes comes from involving civilians who have no ties to the war. Mass murdering, torture, and other violence towards innocence civilians is the biggest war crime to me. I think that has a lot to do with the aerial bombing, because they kill everyone in their path. But I definitely agree that prisoners who have willing surrendered and murdered are apart of war crimes. But I'm interested by Kaitlyn's statement that the UN should come up with a universal code of ethics against such crimes. Is that possible? I mean whenever someone tries to make something universal or general for war, it always come down to people saying "it's more complicated than that." War is so complex, I'm not sure how you could make something universal; especially ethics.
ReplyDeleteI would say the turning point of WWII was the Battle of Stalingrad. This was the battle where Germany and its allies suffered a disastrous defeat to the Soviet Union, marking the favoring tides turning towards the Allies. Continuing with war crimes, it was also the bloodiest battle dealing with civilians. Total military and civilian deaths were something like 2 million if I remember correctly??
I think Russia's main focus after WWII was to keep everything together. Before the war they were working so hard to keep power and unity that after the war it was just an intensified continuation.
There are definitly such things as war crimes... or at least to us. In our minds we have a set right from wrong and we all generally think along the same lines but not everyone does. People that take part in mass mudering, and things that we think are horrable may be easily justified through their thought process.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Kaitlyn in that the turning point of the war was the Battle of Great Britain. This was a major flaw to all Hitler had been working toward. If they would have won I think Hitler would have basically become unstoppable, because once he had control of them he could generate all his focus to other places (and eventually rule the world).
Russia's focus was really just to keep everything they had stuggled so much to have. Post war they were building themselves up, they couldn't just let that all go away!
Yes! To say that there are no such things as war crimes--or to claim that such atrocities do not happen--is absurd. The wrongful execution and terrible tortures of civilians and prisoners of war has lasted since battles began. Any unnecessary act of violence against a person during war time is a war crime, and the existence of these crimes and punishment for the guilty should be decided by an international board, such as the UN.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaitlyn 100% that the turning point in the war was the Battle of Britain. Were Great Britain to fall to the hands of the Germans, the countries left would soon follow. Britains fight against Germany weakened the German army enough to give the Allies a fighting chance. This success rides largely on Churchill's shoulders. He rallies the British, and inspired them to fight on even when the government was ready to give in.
The Russians were forced to destroy much of their property to make sure it would be of no use to the Germans, as Germany pushed farther and farther into Soviet territory. After the war, they needed to restore their land to its former pre-war glory. Stalin wanted the power Germany had taken from him.
Yes, definitely there are war crimes. Even during times of war, there are things that are not acceptable. Not to get too much into TOK, but there has to be a point where one refuses to compromise his/her morals for a vague idea of country or cause. Genocide (such as what Hitler did to the Jews) or killing of innocent civilians is never acceptable, and that has to go through the minds of the people committing these atrocities. But I don’t know that it’s really up to anyone to decide what a war crime is and what isn’t, because it’s a very thin line, so maybe it would be better to leave that decision to the individual unless it can be reliably proven.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think Winston Churchill’s decision in May of 1940 to continue to fight after France fell to the Nazis was the turning point of WWII. He faced significant opposition in that decision, and if he hadn’t made that decision, and so successfully motivated the British people, the outcome of WWII could have been very different.
I agree with everybody about what Russia wanted post-WWII, but I also think there was an element of wanting to prove to the world how successful a communist country could be. They wanted, like Kaylan said, glory, and I think they were sick of being thought of as dangerous radicals.
I do believe that there are war crimes. I think any time an unarmed civilian is harmed who isn't actively attacking a soldier, is harmed it is a war crime. I don't think there is a set formula for what is a crime though my beliefs would name it an attack on someone who has no intent of attacking you or joining the fighting, however I think the victor of the war is the one who has the power to name crimes and exact punishments. Whether that's right or not...
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Battle of Britain was the turning point of the war. Not only did it throw a wrench in Hitler's plans as we've said, but it was also the first major sign of hope for Britain and the allies. On top of that I'm sure it made the US more confident in entering the war knowing that the allies were holding their own.
I think Russia's main focus after the war was to assert themselves over their fallen sort of ally Germany, and I think they wanted to build a fortress to hide behind by gaining land to distance themselves from Europe to put the pieces back together.
I think there absolutely is such a thing as “war crimes.” Crimes against innocent civilians who pose no threat to you would definitely be war crimes in my opinion. They’re not harming you, so capturing, torturing, and killing them unnecessarily is a war crime. Murdering soldiers who have surrendered and been captured also seems like war crimes to me. Other criteria of war crimes would be unnecessarily but deliberately brutal and harsh treatment of people. I agree with Kaitlyn, Hitler and Stalin are both guilty of committing war crimes in WWII. It would be a good idea to develop a universal code in regard to war crimes; however, I agree with Lauren in that it would be difficult to create a code because war is so complex.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Battle of Britain was the turning point of WWII. By the time that Hitler was preparing to dominate Britain, he had already taken over the majority of Eastern Europe. If he had defeated Britain, he would have had a significantly larger amount of power and the whole course of the war would have changed. The few countries that were left would have fell like dominos, however the fight between Britain and Germany was successful in weakening the Germans enough so that the Allies were able to come back from underneath and give the Allies hope of winning.
Like the others said, Russia’s main goal was to keep everything together and maintain the power that they had. They had worked like crazy to build themselves up and keep their power, and they just wanted to continue that. I think they also tried to distance themselves a bit from the rest of Europe so they could rebuild more peacefully, rather than being under the scrutiny of so many other countries.
All is fair in love and war. im just saying if your going to go around killing people i dont really think it matters in what way you kill them whether its brutal or not.
ReplyDeleteI really hate to go with the flow but I have to say that the turning point was the battle of Britain. this win would have made germany non catchable they would have had world domination if they had won
Russia wanted to get back to normal. after what had happend they just wanted to save what they had left and start reconstruction.
I have to agree with Sarah on this one. In my opinion war is a crime in itself, getting to kill people without being put on trial. Even if its soldiers or civilians you're still killing people. I disagree with many people on this saying that it was the Battle of Stalingrad that was the turning point. After their defeat Germany had to pull their forces out of Russia because of lack of supplies and everything from then on was just a disaster for the Germans on the eastern front. I kinda think Russia wanted to expand after Germany's defeat because the troops they had stationed on Poland on all the other countries they "liberated" were still stationed there.
ReplyDeleteI think there is such a thing as war crimes. When innocent civilians are attacked things get really brutal and messy. That said, I can also see how attacking a countries people may help a country to end a war. Enventuall, at the end of the war I think it's the winner who decides what is wrong and right. So usually, the winner can justify what they did during a the war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with pretty much everyone else about the turning point being the battle of Britain. It was the first real success for someone other than Germany and was kind of the begining of Germany's downfall.
As to Russia, I think they were just trying to keep the lands and things they had gained. They felt like they had taken a step forward and they didn't want to be ignored.
There are war crimes, in my opinion. There are definately certain weapons and techniques that should never be employed, for the good of everyone (the atomic bomb comes to mind here.) However, brutal tactics such as deploying immensly destructive weaponry and killing civilians help to shorten wars as well. Back before guns and bombs were available, wars could take several decades of active army-vs-army fighting just to create a decisive victor. As the weapons get more powerful, the wars become shorter. At some point, however, a balance is obtained- moderately powerful weapons with moderatly long length.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the turning point in World War II is Hitler's premature decision to attack Soviet Russia. It is because Hitler had to fight off both Russia and Britain that the war was prolonged long enough for nations such as France to assist the war effort again and long enough for nations like the United States to join.
Lastly, I think it understandable that the Soviet Union would want Germany to suffer after World War II- I believe that this is why it wanted as much of Germany as it could get, and it is why they created the Berlin Wall- really, the Berlin Wall benefited nobody except for German civillians.
War crimes are kind of a confusing idea. In a moral sense, there are war crimes. There are certain actions a person could take that are just wrong. I would say that a war crime is any suffering inflicted on a person or persons that does not aid in the war effort. The problem is, there is no all seeing force to decide when a war crime has been commited and by who. Not doing war crimes is more of a gentleman's agreement. My opinion as to the turning point of WWII was definately the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany. Forget the reason why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it was a bad idea. Soviet manpower far outweighed any amount of troops that Germany could muster. This combined with the fact that Germany now had to split its troops over two fronts, made the invasion a recipe for disaster. The Russians basicly wanted to get as much as possible out of the final agreements when the war was over. Stalin was able to use the fact that his army had faced the brunt of the Germaan army to his advantage, getting multiple seats in the United Nations and favorable land claims in Post war Europe.
ReplyDeleteDrawing the line between what's fair warfare and what's a war crime, it's all violent and destructive. I do however believe that violence and brutality when it will do nothing or nearly nothing to help win the war is wrong and should be punished accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAtrocities and horrible acts did happen during WWII, by both individuals and counties. I think that Kaitlyn mentioned both Hitler and Stalin as well as Japan and these are all good examples.
In my opinion the turning point of the Western front was indeed The Battle of Britain, but I believe that the turning point in the Eastern front was Stalingrad. With the two fronts totally separate and divided it was almost as if Germany was fighting two separate wars, and it's interesting how the war comes into perspective when you look at it like that.
Russia did indeed have it's eye on the post-WWII world and how to gain power in it. Russia was a bit of the third wheel when it came to negotiations and planning with essentially the U.S. and Britain, and Russia definitely would have to be assertive in getting what the wanted after the war.
I believe that there are such thing as war crimes. Although all is supposidely fair in war there are common courtesies to be followed, such as only attacking soldiers, not civilians. This code was obviously broken during WWII with the Holocaust and the Nuremburg trials were the repurcussions the Germans indured for that because the winners get the spoils.
ReplyDeleteI believe D Day was the turning point of WWII because it was the beginnning of the end. Germany was already loosing the war but it began the western push to meet the Russian push from teh east and destroy the Germans.
The Russians wanted to maintiain all of the territories they worked to hard to gain during the war, they wanted their share of Europe so they could spread their communist ideals.
I agree with Kaitlyn, there are definitely such things as war crimes. However, the system is a little unfair because usually the winning side gets to hold the losing side responsible for their war crimes; usually no one holds the winning side responsible for their war crimes. This can be seen in WWI, when Germany had to pay huge reparations for their war crimes; however, the allies didn't make themselves pay reparations for their war crimes. I think the winning side can usually claim that they didn't committ war crimes. The turning point in the war could've been the battle of Britain; it was the first real non-victory and prevented Germany from taking over Britain. If one thing went wrong in Hitler's carefully constructed plan, it would be difficult for the rest of the plan to go right. Lastly, Russia and the Western world argued heavily over the division in Germany, which led to the Berlin Wall, splitting the country into democratic vs. communist.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Maddi’s idea, I think a war crime is an act of that creates great sympathy in the winner’s population to a tragedy in the loser’s side. This is such because you need the winner’s justice to have the loser’s injustice. In war the acts that the winner’s commits are for the most part just but the acts of the loser are for the most part unjust. Therefore, the great tragedies in the loser’s that the greater winning population can relate to, genocide for example, will be viewed as a war crime. In short side A won, the acts of side A are just, because they are stopped the terrible side B, side B lost, the acts of side B are war crimes, because they are the terrible side B. This idea always has exceptions but it is a fun general rule I see to post war ideology.
ReplyDeleteI think the turning point of the war was in April of 1941 when Hitler delayed invading USSR for several weeks to help Italy from losing to Greece. I think this delay allowed for USSR to survive until the winter and push German forces out of USSR.
Post-WWII the USSR wanted to keep the lands that they gained as well as the power they gained. I think the USSR took this time as a time to act and become a global power.
"War Crimes" do exist. They aren't black-and-white though. The victor determines the punishment for the crimes and what qualifies as a crime. There is always additional bias against the country defeated in the war, and this can affect how the trials are handled. A basic definition of a war crime would be mistreatment of a civilian not involved in the war.
ReplyDeleteI think the turning point was when the U.S. entered the war, because this increased the troops and supplies available to the Allies so much.
I agree with what pretty much everyone else said, that Russia was just trying to keep her grip on the countries she had taken over in the past years, so that there was a vast territorial area for communism to flourish in.