Question for the Forum
 

If after starting WWII, Hitler had not attempted to exterminate the Jews and the other attrocities (sp) that went with it, would he have been convicted of any war crimes?

Is starting a war, by itself, enough to be convicted of a war crime?

Don't ask me what made me think of this question.

I'm certainly no expert, but it seems he would have been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He would have been convicted and promptly hanged. He wouldn't have spent 25 years on death row and spent millions of taxpayer money with an unending appeals process.

War crimes for what?

I think it's a moot point. Hitler's goal was so far beyond a simple conquest...I mean...hell, the world would have let Germany annex Austria I'm sure, and maybe even Poland. Had he stopped there who knows...

He probably could have been indicted for war crimes for civilians getting killed or abuse of prisoners and such things. But on the opposite side tha allied leaders probably could have been indicted too for the fire bombings of a number of german citys which mainly struck against civilians.

Without the extermination camps, I don't think he gets anymore negative attention then the Japanese or the Italians did after WWII. Nations have started & fought wars throughout history, it's only stuff like the Holocaust that gets you put up in front of a military tribunal.

So... what made you think of this question? LOL....


Who knows is the likely answer ..... I found it, I guess now, not so eye opening that during my recent stay in Paris there still is an anti-American sentiment amongst the French, and probably in most of Europe... and yes even my father whom was a courier on a bicycle during WWII. How quickly they forget, don't they? I will always remember what my American grandfather said to me once or twice about Finland being the ONLY country that ever repaid the USA for its assistance in freeing all of Europe from this tyrant; a small fact I reminded my father and my step-mother about.

... don't forget Hiroshima/Nagasaki ... if they'd go after any Axis/Allied leaders for civilian casualties, FDR would be on the hook for dropping those bombs.

It was NOT illegal in WWII to wage war on the civilian population of your enemy. It was a part of war, tragic as it may have been, it was a part of war. It was not illegal to wage war on civilians until 1949, after the 4th Geneva Convention. So no, the Allies could not be indicted for war crimes for fire bombing Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and all the other Axis Power cities. And the United States could not be indicted on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that it was not illegal to wage war on civilian populations during WWII is the reason the war only lasted 4 years. Also, since we dropped "The Bomb" on Japan saved millions of Japanese and American lives. Can you imaging the death toll and how long it would have taken if we had to invade Japan and fight street to street, house to house along the length of the whole country against an enemy that did NOT know the word surrender? Also, with the current Geneva Convention in place, if we had to fight WWII today, the war would last at least 20 years or longer, cost trillions of dollars, and still end up with no winner. (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) And just wait, another World War is coming. It will be another "Crusade," The Christians, or non-Muslims, against the Muslims. It's inevitable. We can all see it on the horizon. I feel for our kids and grandkids for the future we've left them.

Fourth Geneva Convention
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war. There are currently 194 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this fourth treaty but also including the other three.[1]
In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.[2]

Pretty sure that was Truman, but either way.

When you weigh the cost of American lives versus the cost of the enemy's lives, civilian or otherwise, you have what I believe to be all the justification you need, and at the end of the day we TOLD them to shut it down or else we'd wipe them out, one city at a time. It took two before they believed us I guess.

Not really true, the Anti-american sentiment were a lot stronger during the Bush regime , it usually depend on the current US foreign policy, During the Clinton era USA was really popular in the world.

Most regular europeans enjoy visiting USA and the american culture, books, movies, music, sports etc. the disliking is usually due to pure political reason. Invading Iraq and blaming it on "Weapons of mass destruction" for example pissed off a lot of people, it would have been better to be honest and say "we want your oil".

Europeans hated Bush to be sure, but I had first-hand experience with the anti-American sentiment in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands as well as other countries over there in 1985. Ya'll HATED Reagan with a passion too. LOL

But I was a bit miffed by how we were treated. Not generally speaking, because generally speaking it was good, but there were times when, I think, people expected a certain arrogance from us that simply wasn't there. It's like we were resented in advance or something - before we were able to dispel what I guess was a common viewpoint which was that we Americans were arrogant bastards that looked down on the lesser living standard of the typical Belgium family. Hell, my grandpa was a poor cotton farmer and I grew up with far less than I think was assumed.

But is was a good trip. I learned a lot and met some very friendly people.

Well .. Europe wants Libya's oil for sure ... kind of a parallel one might say.

The B-29 fire-bombing raids were targeted at Japanese civilians and killed many more people than both of the atomic bombs.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally not fire-bombed so that when the atomic bombs were dropped on them, the full effect could be seen.

If the Allies had invaded the Home Islands, losses were estimated to be in excess of one million soldiers and Marines.

I work with people from all over the world, and opinions vary on the 'morality' of dropping those bombs. A particular fellow I work with - and respect very much by the way - is from Russia and in his opinion the United States was only flexing its muscle by dropping those bombs.

Considering the vibe between our two countries at the time - the paranoia both sides held against the other - I can understand why he would feel that way.

However he's dead wrong. Truman had a very heavy heart when he made the call, and we gave them every opportunity. I can understand them refusing to believe the level of destruction we claimed, at least before we dropped the first one, but the second one is entirely on Hirohito.

We save allied lives, both American AND Russian.

I didn't mean to imply FDR, Truman or the US was guilty of anything by dropping those bombs, and they were necessary, I was just using it as an example of how without the Holocaust, Hitler would have been no more a war criminal then the leader of any other belligerant country involved in WWII, none of whom were prosecuted for civilian deaths.

The largest population of muslim peoples outside of the Middle East is right here in Detroit ... some days I would agree with you, some days not, but I don't think we have the problems they do in Europe with the muslim population because American society acts as a unifier of people from many different cultures without asking them to give up their cultural indentities.