At Nuremberg, Großadmiral Karl Döenitz was prosecuted for "prolonging the war" - much to the puzzlement of many Allied officers. WTF? That's a crime?
Exactly. Though that's an oversimplifaction.
Döenitz was
charged on three counts:
- Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression
- Crimes against the laws of war
He was convicted only of the latter two, serving 10 years.
Of course the terminology is mostly retrospective but the first charge is the interesting one, the definition of a crime against peace - a 'mere' act of planning or undertaking aggressive military action or invasion being construed a war crime. This concept was incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter in defining such actions as war crimes:
(i)
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii)
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
This could never be made to apply reliably at a strictly military level. And, at a political level given that practically such war will involve activities encompassing one or both of the above even one fought in strict accordance with the 'laws of war' would at face value make almost anyone invovled a war criminal.
At the time of Döenitz' trial; given such principles were not yet fully formed, it's not hard to see why the allies were perplexed and why Döenitz was aquitted on count (i). In some respects it's hard to see how he was convicted of anything at all.
On counts (2) and (3):
- His alleged breach of the 2nd London Naval Treaty (to which Germany acceeded) - Döenitz denied this as a policy and such the charge was unproven - though some submarine commanders clearly acted on their own 'initiative'.
- The accusation that from 1945 he while he was not in agreement with Hitler's wish to denouce the Geneva conventions he was willing to disgregard sections 'at will' thus preventing German soldier from surrendering under the accords but more sinister to thus enable reprisals against POWs for allied air raids - Germany never did denouce the Geneva Convention and Döenitz insisted the measures taken were disciplinary and intended to curtail German troops from surrendering and, that such measures were in fact never taken.
I don't think there was a reasonable case against Grand Admiral and Reichs Praesident Doenitz, perhaps revenge for being overly successfull in the submarine campaign, he wasn't a NAZI, after Hitler named him successor as head of state, he was very actively trying to surrender to the US and Britts.
I was thinking of the political leadership, they are primarily responsible.
Exactly, combine the above charges with his relationship with Hitler and later political status as German President for a short while after Hitler's sucide no doubt made him an unmissible target for a conviction of
something. His comparatively light sentence suggests that there was less than resolute confidence in his guilt.
General Tomoyuki Yamashita was convicted by another tribunal of, apparently, not being in command of the Japanese troops who sacked Manila - also to the puzzlement of more than a few American officers.
Interesting, I didn't know that. But I can understand the confusion!
The question of "war crimes" is really not a fertile field for amateurs. The philosophical and legal underpinnings are - well, let's just be charitable and call them "somewhat unsound." Telford Taylor, the chief counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg after Justice Jackson went home, wrote quite a bit about it. His reasoning tended to be convoluted, and clearly meant to support a conclusion already determined.
I agree, and the term is bandied about too casually.
The idea was that the evidence of barbarism uncovered in the wreckage of the Reich elevated the war far beyond merely conventional disasters. It was important that WW2 be about something. And to some degree, the war crimes trials were that something.
Again, I think there's a lot of truth in that. The demonisation of a few to satiate the needs of the many for some form 'revenge' or accountability must have been a powerful motivation indeed. I don't entirely agree with you contention that it was an
aim of the trials to assign false blame intentionally, or even arbitrarily though I don't doubt that it happened.
..The very nasty Communist-fomented civil war in Greece was a clear sign that Soviet expansion was no mere paranoid fantasy.
The rest, as they say is history.
The point is that WW2 was a backdrop not easily draped behind other scenarios, and the entire modern concept of "war crimes" can't be easily inferred, at least in any sensible way, from the immediate postwar experience.
Not as such, perhaps but the modern concepts (and laws) are based at least in part
on those events. Of course these have been refined by numerous acts, charters, conventions and sundry works since then, notably with regard to biological, indiscriminate coventional and nuclear weapons.
While it's convenient to make such a sweeping conclusion I don't think it's entirely accurate. I
do agree than any discussion of them here would of necessity be a gross over simplification if not a downright dumbing down.
And of course, most of all I'm not an expert in these laws and conventions, merely an interested observer.
