[Pateeffelty]

Originally posted by onodera
What are the soldiers of your country taught? Better dead than Red.

[Arximedus]

Eat them if you run out of rations.

Russian soldiers are taught that being taken prisoner is bad. So bad that they are forbidden to surrender. Obviously you learned nothing from the Great Patriotic War.

[eEwbYjOH]

"Kill'em all and let god sort'em out"

[sandyphoebetvmaa]

Biological warfare

[lopaayd]

Well, remember those rockets were meant to be used against the western allies. It's bad enough when a V2 destroys stuff and kills people, but imagine on top of that it comes down "contaminated" in that way

[homerdienru]

Switzerland?

I knew you were a tough bunch of S.O.B.s

[Sxedlawb]

Originally posted by Felch
Switzerland?

I knew you were a tough bunch of S.O.B.s Nope! Guess again. I'll give you a hint, we were fundamental in the drafting of many international human rights agreements!

[BypeVupyide]

That is what we wanted you to think! /Zombie Lenin!

Nope, guess again!

[gambleingsites]

Originally posted by Lancer
I've read stories of courageous Russian prisoners pissing on V2 rocket guidance systems in German labor camps during WW2, and paying the price sometimes. Tough people! Then when the survivors got back to Russia, Stalin had alot of them shot for having seen the luxuries of the west. At least that's what was reported here. Whether it is true or not its likely none of us know. As I've said, being taken prisoner and not escaping or dying trying is and was looked down upon. I guess in Stalin's case "looking down upon" was an understatement.

[iH1wMOhE]

Early in WW2 the Soviet armies along the western border were overrun so rapidly that the Germans took huge numbers of prisoners. German treatment of Russian POWs was pretty bad, many enlisted in the SS. Consequently the Soviets issued an order that Russian soldiers who escaped from the Nazis should join partisan troops and not attempt to rejoin the main Red Army. Russian soldiers who were found crossing the battle lines to re-join their comrades were shot because the Soviet hierarchy feared that they might be saboteurs working for the SS. They also wanted to make them an example for troops from units which had not been destroyed by the Germans - that if the troops allowed their formations to disintegrate there would be no coming back for them.

[deethythitoth]

live fast, die young, not much in pension benefits to pay out

doesn't seem to work that well though...

[vRmy0Fzg]

We dress them up like ghosts. It's just like halloween!

[lopezsokero]

Originally posted by onodera
We all know what Geneva conventions say about wars. They imagine them as lines of easily identifiable soldiers cleanly killing each other because their country leaders told them so. If you are hit, lucky you, you can no longer be shot at and can relax in hospital; if you are taken prisoner, lucky you, you can spend the rest of the war in a camp, being cared for. That's a load of bull, to be short.

Russian soldiers are taught that being taken prisoner is bad. So bad that they are forbidden to surrender. If you are surrounded, you should try and trick the enemy soldiers into approaching you and kill as many as you can by blowing everyone up with a grenade.
If you are incapacitated and the enemy soldiers take you prisoner when you are unconscious, then it's probably okay. But still you can't enjoy your life as a prisoner. You have to escape or die trying, and happily labouring away in a prisoner camp is collaborating with the enemy.
Enemy soldiers that are taken prisoner are not your guests that you have to feed, clothe, nurture back to health and so on. They are the spoils of war, free labour force that has to work to pay for what they have done to your country. They are also a commodity to pay for your own captive soldiers.

What are the soldiers of your country taught? Now, why would they be wanted back? Switching valuable workforce to persona non grata, who will just be shot for desertion or somesuch. Or, defeatists! (Godwin #2)

[maonnjtip]

Of couse, when war breaks out, and victory can only be achieved by using a condemned weapon, it will be build and used. To condemn it before-hand, just increases the escalation time by the time needed to build those weapons (probably in the hope, that oneself has by then won the war with other means). Is that why the nastier factions of WWII all used poison gas on the battlefields of the world?

[Amoniustauns]

Originally posted by onodera


The problem I have with Geneva conventions in particular and laws of war in general is the fact that imply that the war itself is a good thing. That having people kill each other because of someone else's interests is perfectly fine as long as they all wear easily recognisable uniforms and use straightforward tactics and gear. War is madness in itself, but when you are told, "okay, go kill people you've never seen before because your president could not agree with their president, but do it by the rules," it's much worse. Of course, war is ****, but I wouldn't see attempts to limit at least the worst excesses as a bad thing.

[Fellionas]

Nothing against Clausewitz, and sure victory is the goal in war, but that doesn't mean some kind of "absolute" or "total war" is the logic consequence in every war. We only had this in WWII in such a distinctive form and scale, in WWI only in some aspects.

Firstly it depends pretty much what goals you have in a war. Wars of extermination (like WW2 in the east) are actually pretty rare between entire states in modern times - mostly you have limited goals, which mean that both sides don't have to fight to the last for their naked existance.

Then there's the question what is after the war - as long you don't want to wipe everyone off the map you need to take into account that you have to live with them sooner or later again in peace, if you win or not. In Europe, where you had over long several big powers plus their alliances quite close to eachother this was a limitating factor.

Large scale atrocities in WW2 were IMO not so much done because they had to come as a consequence of war as such. Then there would be the question why they didn't took place in every modern war.

Also I don't think they were done just because the capabilities/resources of doing them were there, but mostly as result of the underlying extreme ideologies resulting in a view that identified victory with extermination (or at least complete subjugation of the other), and that often denied the other side the entire right to even exist (as state/political system/people). You have certainly elements of that in some of the recent conflicts (for example those with ethnic or religious backgrounds) as well, and there are often tendencially much more atrocities, but these are mostly not classic state vs state wars.

[km2000]

Now I understand why my officers insisted on teaching me how to use my rifle butt on cocky Russian prisoners.

[boltondd]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
But what was the goal of WWI ? For any nation in the conflict it differs. For many, one has to restrict oneself to formulating a very vague goal - like preserving national honor (Russia or Germany). Of course there were multiple and various smaller goals for each nation, but none of which was so vital for the future of any country, that, had the people anticipated how long and intense the fighting would be, would have entered the conflict for it (except the US). But fact is, that most people thought the war would be over within 6-8 weeks at the most - a short cleansing thunderstorm... had they known the price they really had to pay to (not - for the vanquished) achieve the goals, probably none of the (official) decision makers would have rendered the price worth the cost. But once you start, how do you stop...? there is just one thinkable way: by victory you stop - no sooner, no later. IMO it was mostly a political failure to end the war not earlier. For example, in 1905 Russia was by no means decisively beaten insofar that it's total military and economical capabilities were destroyed by Japan. And otoh Japan couldn't even hope for achieving that and hadn't such a goal. But it had several land victories, and the final naval victory at Tsushima, so it "won", but it was by no means decisive in the sense described above. In the end both sides realized that there wasn't much to gain in continuing the war.

As for goals in WWI, yes they varied, but they were political or - "Clausewitzian" if you will - goals like getting this part of land, access to resources, dominating Europe, whatever. This however isn't automatically the same as exterminating the people or committing large scale atrocities. Conquest was pretty much common throughout history, but for example in 1870/71 Prussia didn't try to wipe out France or the French people.

The underlying ideology before WWI was pretty much the same in all european states. I think what you mean is the hatred among the states. But that was to the biggest part result of the war itself, or to be more specific, the result of the propaganda conducted during the war against the enemy in the various nations. Like the german soldier on posters killing innocent babies with his bayonette. This example also shows how much the argument of reconcilliation after the war was given a thought during the war - none, pretty much (as can be seen in the following peace treaties as well). Ok, but what are we debating now here - the escalation of war into a bigger/longer/more intense war? I'm not arguing against this - but even WWI as an example for such a bigger/longer/more intense war is otoh not per se an example for large scale atrocities against non-combattants and POWs (where we started) if we mean by that something outside the battlefield like massive use of POWs or foreign civilians as slave labour, mass executions, etc. These are IMO different levels.

Even in such an intense war like WWI, with certainly more casualties than before it was not the case that POWs were generally mistreated or massacred in large numbers by all sides, so there was still some basic regard for "rules of warfare".

There were some aspects where it was different (unrestricted sub warfare, rudimentary strat bombing, some warcrimes in certain areas - though the really serious Armenian genocide cannot simply just be counted under "WWI" since the conflict was older and more complex), but overall they weren't comparable to WWII, and the reason is IMO to quite some extent the absence of fundamental ideological differences.

As for hatred between states - no, this not exactly my argument. That they had in WWI propaganda painting the enemy as bad is clear, but it was IMO more a result of nationalism and a tool to mobilize the own side than something resulting from a conflict between sides that deny eachother the basic right to exist because of fundamental ideological differences. As you wrote, ideologies in WWI were rather similar.

In WWII however they were not. Some sides were fundamentally opposed to eachother, and that was reflected in the defined goals (well, I think we can't exclude WWII completely since I need it for comparison). Hitler didn't want to defeat the USSR for some land or resources only (though 'Lebensraum' was certainly one goal) - he wanted to fight against Communism. It's a so-called systems conflict, where the sides buy into completely opposing world views and fight not only for something like resources or so, but to "finnish off" the other side. It can manifest itself via hate surely, but it's core reason isn't just hate between countries, but the fundamental differences between the sides. Here any "rules of warfare" are willfully ignored. But because I think of WWII as special in this regard I think "rules of warfare" are something which can be maintained to some extent in wars.

But a lot of the escalation depends, as i said before, on the relative strength and determinations of the opponents. If two countries fight over, say, a goldmine, and one country is twice as strong as the other, there simply is no need for the strong country to make use of atrocities and the point of reconcilliation you made, comes into effect. The weak country may (or may not) refrain from atrocities, since a simple goldmine wouldnt be worth the international condemnation, the loss of potential allies and the wrath of the stronger opponent. It might be better to give in to the will of the stronger (by Clausewitz definition the ultimate goal of any war), before that.

So in summary, the amount and likelyhood of atrocities in a war do not solely depend on the goals and design of the war itself, but also on the relative ratios of strength and determination of the opponents. When both are roughly equal, it forces both opponents to climb up the ladder of escalation, where on the higher steps of it, means do not have to relate to goals at all anymore. Here is where I disagree. Equal strengths can also mean that I'm aware that the enemy is capable of doing to me what I am capable of doing to him. One core element in "laws" of war expressed in the Geneva Conventions etc. is indeed reciprocity- if I don't want my POWs to get killed by my opponent I agree to those rules and don't kill his POWs in return. And even in WWII these rules were in general - again with some exceptions - respected towards the western Allies (and they did so towards the axis POWs). Similarly the use of chem. weapons in WWII was AFAIK precisely not done because of fears the other side could do the same.....and the two nuclear strikes were done in complete asymmetry, with only one side owning nukes, without any fear of a possible retaliation.

edit: just realized your last post....well, for today I'm out

[Oxzzlvpg]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Not only did they break the law, when they felt they needed to, but also did they stick to it in the beginning only due to the fact, that the US didnt like unrestritcted sub-warfare and threatened to join the allies. In other words: The fact that unrestricted warfare was forbidden by international law never really was an issue for the decicion wether to use it or not. Imagine, in a german war council somebody had opposed unrestricted sub-warfare (a potential war-winner) ONLY on the basis of it being illegal - it would have been his last statement in this council probably... OK, I basically agree, though I think some pointed indeed to the problem with attacking neutral ships, but I don't remember the specifics right now. However I'd point to another consideration. IMO there is as well an element of reciprocity here - the fact that there was a harsh naval blockade (not only about directly war-important stuff, but also for example regarding food) established against Germany very early in the war. This was generally 'legal' but similar to the results of the sub warfare later it affected mainly non-combattants (though surely not those of neutral states).

Sub warfare as a reaction and a tool to hurt the enemy economy in similar ways was rather a result of inequality IMO: the UK could only establish the blockade because the Royal Navy was vastly superior at that time. From the other side the size of the German navy didn't allow for a similar 'legal' step against the UK, the subs allowed for an escalation that promised similar effects on the UK's economy, but not on the basis of equality, but just the opposite. One could ask if any side had tried a blockade at all if both had equal surface forces, but of course that remains open.

(In this, i find a tendency, that the vanquished nation is, after the war, the villian not only do to ´the winners write the history´, but also due to the fact, that the weaker side is more likely to be in need to break rules first, in order to retain some hope for victory during the war - btw for the same reason terrorists are always ´bad´) Well, I have never been particularly happy with the phrase of the winners writing history. I certainly agree with it when the winner is 'setting the terms' after the war (so in the sense of 'making history', since the winner is mostly able to dictate what happens next). Otoh it is often not the case that the winners' view on the war, who the 'bad guy' was etc becomes automatically the universally accepted view or the mainstream view in historiography from there on. Otherwise we wouldn't still debate such issues for many wars today....But that just as an aside

I guess what i am aiming at, is not so much atrocities per se, but rather the neglectance of any rules, be they common sense of civilized people or formulated by convention. If one side needs to break a rule, any rule, in order to win (or avoid) a prolonged and costly war, it will do so. In that case, using this weapon despite it being forbidden can even yield an additional advantage - that of surprise. And it can even be argued that breaking the international law in order to serve and to protect its own people would even be the duty of the government of the nation in question.

I mean, honestly, if i was the pres of a country that felt seriously threatened by some big neighbour, and the international community said: ´we condemn landmines´, i´d say ´yeah, right so do we´ and ´hey mr. armaments-minister, we need 5 million more of those ´immobile, pressure-sensitve explosive devices´ (IPSEDs - not Landmines... those are condemned)´... As for things like debates about landmines or cluster bombs - IMO this is rather a sign that there are more attempts to regulate war. Nobody cared much about land or seamines being used on large scale back in WWI or WWII, it simply wasn't 'on the radar' so to speak. Also some things that were earlier seen as justified under the rules of war would be totally unacceptable today (for example killing people in retaliation for partisan attacks was actually seen as justified for quite some time since it was thought as a means to limit 'irregular' war).

About rules: I'd agree that there's often a certain 'drive' to break more or even any rules, but if it's actually done depends on a number of factors, and isn't just an automatism of war. And we see also contrary effects: the French in Algeria as well as the US in Vietnam had to deal with increasing domestic criticism and conflict about the ways in which they conducted war in those countries or their general presence there, and many say this was in the end a main factor in ending those wars, not primarily the purely military situation.

In the last paragraph you do give the reasons, why some rules are respected in some situations: Because i fear my enemy might do the same, if i do it first. But that has hardly anything to do with ´law´ or ´legality´ - it is simply avoiding an unneccessary side-step to another branch of the escalation ladder, which would not benefit my side to any meaningful extent (if i let my POWs starve, i might save some food, but risk embargos or even DOWs by third countries, in addition to giving the other side the opportunity to do the same without such punishment). Respecting a law means to do what i do not desire to do, or not to do, what i would like to do. If i dont do, what i dont want to do anyways, it can hardly be called obeying a law. But if i act against the law, as soon as i think it yields an advantage for my side, and if that is common practice, then the law is useless, meaningless, not worth the paper its been written on... I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here: first I'd say the primary thing is if 'the rules' are followed at all. There are always a number of reasons to follow a rule, it's hardly ever the pure view that a rule is 'good' or 'ethical'. In fact quite often 'good' here is closely related to 'giving a benefit' or 'avoiding harm' etc.

People don't crossing the streets when there's a red light showing probably aren't all thinking that the red light has to be respected just because it's written down that you stop then, but because it actually avoids harm to themselves (for example the possibility of being overrun by cars). I would *not* say this is disrespect for the rule, just because they think on possible bad consequences for themselves and act accordingly. It's actually why the rule was established that way.

In that way I see nothing wrong with respecting the Geneva Conventions because of considerations regarding enemy reactions towards violations of them. Overall I'd say that the general call for respecting rules of warfare puts some limits on those who agree to it (which today at least theoretically all states do): you'll blow your credibility totally if you still act against this, which can lead to international consequences, and even if you can get away with it, you still can run into domestic problems. Usually sides in war claim their causes are justified, but when they openly violate commonly acknowledged principles it's difficult to maintain that position, and they can still lose politically which becomes increasingly important IMO.

[Trotoleterm]

Well, I doubt I can write so much in the coming days as well - so