You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Why cold blooded murders in a war are not treated as a crime?

    The estimates of death tolls in various wars vary greatly e.g. in the World War II, the estimates range between 158 lakhs to 850 lakhs. Nonetheless, the World War II has been the bloodiest war ever waged by the humans on this planet earth.

    Within India, death toll wise, some of the notorious wars have been Mughal–Maratha Wars (46 lakhs), Indian Rebellion of 1857 (23 to 33 lakhs) and Maratha expeditions in Bengal (4 lakhs).

    My question is simple. Why cold blooded murders in a war are not treated as a crime?

    Is there any justification of such wars which are nothing but stories of destruction, revenge, hatred and vengeance?
  • #633530
    Intially they were not but the world later has started to and is still treating crimes agianst humans as 'War Crimes'.

    When we see the history of the major wars from the ancient wars up to world war II, that the world has witnessed, human rights, civilian rights and even the rights of the men/women in war were not a matter of key concern.

    It was only after the Geneva Convention of 1949, that the world started to pay attention to the humanitarian angle in major wars. There are numerous reports of atrocities under the Nazi rule and other parts of the world. Now we also have the International Criminal Court that tries war and genocide crimes.

    The landmark trail in relation to war crimes was the 'Nuremberg trail's (1945-1946), wherein Nazi German officers were tried and sentenced for their crimes against humans in the second world war. The most recent one was the Hague tribunal that tired Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, he died during the trail in 2006.

    The world is paying the due respect these innocent civilians and honorable soldiers deserve but it comes at a price of justice delay. These cases take a long time to gather evidence, the accused to be arrested and then the trail to complete.

  • #633534
    War is to be won by one party among the two. In the war whatever methodology is applied one side has to establish its superiority and see that the second party will surrender to the winner. So whatever they do is legal only. But the remaining world is looking at the entire episode and can understand who is wrong and who is correct. To have a halt to these wars various international courts and other organisations in the world are trying their best to find out the culprit and punish him so that nobody else will do a similar act.
    always confident

  • #633572
    Just imagine the plight of soldiers injured with sharp edged weapons in the medieval period but without proper facilities for medical treatment at the end of the day. They had to simply wait for dying in the pool of blood.
    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #633588
    What I believe that when a king or his troop or even a group decides to fight for a cause, that cannot be treated as murder or crime through which the deaths occur. Most of the world wars and big fights were for a cause and the fighting spirit was well explained to the enemies with much death toll which cannot be imagined as there cannot be head counts and the funerals were held in mass and there was no census taken in those period. And I can understand the agony and pain of the soldiers who fight from the point blank and there was no ambulance to rush them for immediate attention. All of them were left to the mercy of their own life and the fittest were able to get attention and also survived from the brutal attack. And what was more interesting that in spite of such risk for life, the soldiers used to charge against the enemy forces and give their lives for the cause of King's sole ambition which may be inappropriate ?
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #633615
    #633572. Given the battle conditions and the primitive medical care, in olden days, these sharp injuires would get infected soon, get septic and die a painful death.

    If you read through the history of wars, what happened at the end of the battle is very demeaning, the dead would be checked for valuables, arms, clothing, and the booty would be divided among the victorious armies, their bodies would be in mass graves or pyres.
    "Waterloo teeth" is one such example of the disgraceful treatment, dentures were in great demand in Europe, so people would use pliers to pull teeth out of the dead soldiers and sell it later on to denture makers. Such was the plight of the soldiers after being killed/murdered in ancient wars.

  • #633637
    While the time you are defending your loved ones or take for example your mother land, then this becomes your duty to go the extreme actions & let not the enemy come inside. So if you have to kill someone for the sake of this then you can't be called as a murderer.

    The most important aspect is your intentions. Here the intentions is not to kill but to save your motherland so nothing goes wrong here.

  • #633641
    #633637 - Wars were waged for reasons other than protecting the motherland also. The invaders used to attack other nations just for plundering and looting. Besides killing innocent people, they used to commit almost all types of crime mention in nowadays penal coded including gang-rape etc.
    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • Sign In to post your comments