Do commiting war crime against oponnet who committed it's ..

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder dooes if opponent commit war crime it's good retaliate in the same kind?

For example Nazi Germany(because nazism come from Germany regardless contemporary German like it or not ) not only killed Jews but also attacked civilian population of countries they fought or conquered like Poland (my country ) or France for example. They launch V-2 with killed many people in London.

At the same time Germans historians complian that fire bombing of Dresden or Dam buster raid was war crime! I think they don't have moral rights to complian they started that damn war they behave inhuman in first place! So when allied forces them like animals whith the ware at that time of history they shouldn't call that a war crime, Because they behaved much worse.

I can't truly understand the meaning of the term "War Crime".

War is a war - people are killed there by weapons, and not only soldiers but civilians as well. The essence of any war is killing enemies to take superiority, and if killing only soldiers on battlefields for some reason can't bring needed outcome of the war - then there could be acts like Holocaust or Dresden bombing, and of course on any war there are crimes done by common soldiers. We have now some international laws about how the war must go on to harm civilians the least - but they doesn't work, and would never work because despite all rules and laws if one side is losing it will rather try to win via violating rules than surrender. That's just the nature of humans and of the war.

So I believe that people can complain about war in general but not about that civilians are dead during the war, or prisoners are killed during the war.

Based on Kurt Vonnegut Jr's description of the bombing of dresden, I would agree that it was a war crime.

Dresden had no military installations (other than the POW camp) and had no strategic significance.

Almost all of the victims were civilians.

It was over-bombed to the extent that the pavement boiled and burned, and civilians who hid in their basements were roasted alive.

There are such things as "war crimes".

I agree that the historians from Germany aren't in a position to complain about a war their country started, and during which they made an industry out of genocide. Though other parties can criticize the allies. And there are some things the allies did that are worthy of criticism-like carpet bombing cities.

But its a complex issue. The V-2 was named that because "V" stands for "vengeance weapon". The weapon itself was supposed to be retaliation for the allies bombing civilians in Germany. And the allies bombing Germany was in turn revenge of the Germans accidently bombing civilians in London one time when they were actually attacking an airbase. So yes- warring parties do retaliate for acts by the other side, but whether that's wise or not is an open question.