" Decode Darfur was to build the evidence that will corroborate victim reports and witness testimony that shows civilians have been systematically attacked and show the international community that it has ignored Darfur for too long."
The attacks on civilians are being carried out by the Sudanese government and their militia allies - the notorious Janjaweed. These atrocities have been happening for decades, and the number of victims runs into hundreds of thousands, as the "Crimes of War" website says:
"Government security forces and their proxy militias—the Janjaweed—orchestrated a campaign of mass murder, rape, forced displacement, and destruction of livelihood. At least 200,000 people have died in the conflict, and more than 2.5 million have been driven off their lands and into camps for the internally displaced. The international community’s failure to protect civilians in Darfur echoed the failure to respond in Rwanda a decade before".
And, please note, part of the international community's failure includes the tens of thousands of well intentioned people who protest vociferously about the actions of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, yet cheerfully ignore the horrors of Darfur and Assad's crimes against his people in Syria. Still, as AI says, they are not alone, so let's not single them out. Instead, I want to focus upon the issue of war crimes and, given the recent controversy about British troops facing accusations of war crimes in Iraq, I would like to look at two incidents from WW2 which might be considered by some people to be British war crimes.
The legal definition of "War Crime" is clear, but lengthy. Anyone interested in this can do no better than consult the Red Cross website on this issue. For this post, though, let's use this basic definition from Wikipedia: "A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.[1] Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.[2]".
The first happened in July, 1944, during the bitter post-D-Day fighting around Caen. An isolated battalion of the Hampshire Regiment was attacked by a troop of Tiger tanks which, to use an archaic phrase, did "fearful execution" among the Hampshires. During the fighting, one of the Tiger tanks overturned and the crew baled out, trying to surrender. Furious at their own losses, the Hampshires shot the Germans down.
The second incident happened in 1945, shortly after the collapse of the Third Reich and concerns the capture of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of the Auschwitz death camp. After the German surrender, Hoess went on the run, disguising himself as a Kriegsmarine sailor. His wife and son, however, were captured and interrogated for Herr Hoess' whereabouts. Frau Hoess, like the good Nazi wife she was, refused to talk at first, so her British Intelligence Corps (Icorps) interrogators tried a more forceful type of persuasion. The interrogation centre was located near a railway station from where trains ran directly to the Russian Zone, so the Icorps men told Frau Hoess that if she did not disclose her husband's hideout, they would put her son on a train to Moscow and she would never see him again. She talked. Hoess was tracked down and arrested, put on trial in Poland and, unrepentant to the end, was hanged publicly in the Auschwitz camp in 1947.
Now, both these events can be construed as war crimes. In the first, the Hampshires violated the Geneva Convention by shooting troops who were surrendering; in the second, it is clear that psychological torture was employed. But, surely (for God's sake!) there are extenuating circumstances here? In the first case, the surviving Hampshires had seen many of their comrades dying horribly under onslaught from a far more ruthless enemy. Besides which, let's not forget that the German armed forces were not exactly famous for merciful treatment of their enemies either, and there is no need to labour that point. Personally, I understand completely why the Hampshires did as they did, and do not condemn them.
In the second case, the psychological pressure applied to Frau Hoess is a molehill to a mountain in comparison to the atrocities committed under her husband's supervision at Auschwitz. It was a matter of utter urgency that Hoess be caught, and I believe the Icorps men to have been right in what they did. Only a doctrinaire humbug or a neo-Nazi could argue otherwise.
So, in anticipation of a stupid question, do I believe that British troops should be exempted from prosecution for war crimes? The answer is emphatically "No". However, I do believe that all extenuating circumstances must be allowed for, if the term "Justice" is to mean anything. The danger is, at least in the case of British troops accused of crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the trials will become politicised. Politicians of Left and Right are becoming involved, and these trials may well become partisan affairs, with the truth treated as being of secondary importance.
Rudolf Hoess on the scaffold; cap badge of the Royal Hampshire Regiment.
"... tens of thousands of well intentioned people who protest vociferously about the actions of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, yet cheerfully ignore the horrors of Darfur and Assad's crimes against his people in Syria."
ReplyDeleteYour evidence to support this allegation which is, in my opinion, an utterly partisan and inaccurate slur?
Sorry, Nev, my statement is not groundless and not a slur on anyone. It is undeniable that, while people, as is their right, demonstrate in their thousands against punitive Israeli action against Palestinians and illegal settlements on the West Bank, there are never any mass demos or pickets outside the Sudanese, Syrian or Russian embassies. That is conclusive evidence, in my view. I am sure that there are many anti-Zionists who are angry about Darfur and Syria - but they don't seem to be doing anything about it. I know BoJo said something similar to this recently, but he was scoring political points; I am stating irrefutable facts.
DeleteI agree with your views Geoff on the lack of mass demonstrations outside embassies belonging to countries that are involved in crimes against humanity, such as Sudan/Syria/ and Russia. It is possible that this is because demonstrators do not demonstrate against states that they have no chance of changing public opinion within, which says something about Israel, Syria, Russia, etc. ( Mind you, if the demonstration is anti - insulting the Prophet - world wide demonstrations against the publication of a fictional work can have an effect upon how free speech is portrayed in Western Media - I shouldn't comment upon Mohammed's waist size because some person may take offence and declare a Fatwar against me).
ReplyDeleteYour comments about war crimes committed in WWII are interesting as they impinge upon morality. Granada TV's The World at War episode 'Remember' starts and finishes with Oradour - an indictment of Hitler's regime and the Japanese militaristic state, which makes any so called war crime by Allied Forces pale into insignificance - and there were some.
The book 'Forged in Fury' depicts an indiscriminate revenge attack upon Nazi officers after WWII and a targeted murder of a Nazi officer who was responsible for the transport and death of a Frenchman's family. In my mind, both were understandable but the first would tarmac a path to mass murder of innocents.
What is undeniable, but extremely difficult, is to learn from history. One of those lessons is that if you destroy a Nation State, such as Iraq/Poland/Latvia etc. minorities are greatly at risk.
ps Poor syntax in above comment, it obviously was not Geoff's comments but Hitler's attack upon Poland that impinged against morality - and all great German war leaders, such as Guderian etc. who wrote their war memoirs with no trace of guilt should have been taken out and shot according to Stalin. An opinion declared abhorrent by Churchill but I would endorse.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Phil, and for clarifying what you meant. I would never knowingly impinge upon morality (I'm not sure how I'd do it. either). I think you make a very good point when you say: " demonstrators do not demonstrate against states that they have no chance of changing public opinion within". In all fairness, if crowds did demonstrate outside the Sudanese, Syrian or Russian embassies, it would probably have no effect.
Delete