How Many WWII Generals Were War Criminals

or even what the Germans and Japanese managed in WW2.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. You can argue that the Blitz was not as bad as the terror bombings, but you can't argue the same for what the Japanese did to Chongqing and other cities. Chongqing was I think listed somewhere as the most heavily bombed city in the war, and there was another city that the Japanese dropped poison gas and bombs carrying the plague on.
 
There is something I don't get. Karl Doenitz, who was named HItler's successor gets 10 years and Rommel should hang because he ordered a French officer shot in a front line setting? Of all the things you mention about Rommel, the only thing I might consider as actionable is what you seem to feel is the least troublesome: his complicity in the Nazi slave labor system and use of slave labor in building the Atlantic Wall.

He used conscript labor, but he directed they be paid with what could be found to pay them with for their labor.

Also, during the construction of the Atlantic Wall, Rommel directed that French workers were not to be used as slaves, but were to be paid for their labour.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#cite_note-99
 
There is something I don't get. Karl Doenitz, who was named HItler's successor gets 10 years and Rommel should hang because he ordered a French officer shot in a front line setting? Of all the things you mention about Rommel, the only thing I might consider as actionable is what you seem to feel is the least troublesome: his complicity in the Nazi slave labor system and use of slave labor in building the Atlantic Wall.

Doenitz trial was two faced. American and British subs didn't operate under the prize law either, plus the British armed their merchants ships (with hurricats and hidden machine gun positions) which ended their prize law protection anway. One can ask all the dead Italian merchantmariners how much British subs and aircraft out of Malta followed the prize law

Rommel is multiple levels of guilt... you order an illegal execution you have committed a war crime

The atlantic wall thing is tricky... he didn't create their horrific working conditions (that honor belonged to Speer who ran the organization todt, and hitler)... nor did he have actual command responsibility over them... his responsibility and orders where to tell them where to build bunkers and to make sure they where proper once complete... now of course he knew the conditions the press ganged labor operated under (which included mericless beatings and executions from the guards and starvation) BUT considering the actual slave master himself Speer didn't get the death penalty, it would be difficult to give Rommel the death penalty for telling them where to put his bunkers (Note I heavily disagree with Speer's sentence and think his ass should have been hung for the nazi slave driving piece of human filth that he was; BUT justice has to be applied equally)

my main issue is during alaric... he had scores to settle with the italian military establishment after africa, and he condoned his troops getting out of control disarming the italian military and shooting unarmed POW's.... death penalty is heavily warranted for this action
 
I agree (and some of them did to) on the moral guilt, but sadly there
was and still isn't an international convention against it.

Even more complicated: The USSR refused to sign the agreement about the treatment of POWs pre-war, so in theory they weren't bound by it and neither were the Germans (with regard to Soviet POWs).

Ah, that makes it all ok then?:rolleyes:

Still you're wrong on that point the U.S.S.R did approach the Germans about the proper treatment of POW and agreed to abide by all the rules of war. Should the Germans do the same. Anyway for the most part it's not like the Nazis gave a shit about such things snyway so...
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=195242&page=2

Here BlairWitch749 argued that virtually every World War II German general could have been charged of war crimes and given the death penalty including men such as Rommel. By the same criteria how many Japanese, Italian, minor Axis, Soviet, and even Western Allied generals were war criminals?

Probably most of the Germans & Japanese, some Italians, and George Patton, but other than that I can't think of any.

{P.S. I'm talking about the generals only. Just to avoid any confusion.}
 
Last edited:
Doenitz trial was two faced. American and British subs didn't operate under the prize law either, plus the British armed their merchants ships (with hurricats and hidden machine gun positions) which ended their prize law protection anway. One can ask all the dead Italian merchantmariners how much British subs and aircraft out of Malta followed the prize law

looking over (quickly) his indictments at Nuremburg, it looks like the main thing he was guilty of was ordering the sinking without warning of neutral shipping

Allied submarines did not target neutral ships (with possible occasional and rare exceptions) and certainly not as a matter of policy. As it was, he was not convicted of a number of charges. The arming of belligerent merchant ships was specifically cited as a reason why he was not convicted of breaking prize law. The only shaky charge in my view was the one concerning the deliberate abandonment of merchant sailors, which he was technically guilty of ordering. However US submarines did the same thing in the Pacific, and in at least one occasion that I have been told of first hand by a sailor from one of those US submarines did also surface and kill survivors deliberately. (the target was a troopship).

The Pacific War was a pretty savage affair though so it is really hard to blame US submariners once it became clear that Japanese military personnel would as a general rule refuse to surrender and were dangerous to approach (having the alarming habit of trying to kill Allied personnel, including medics on many occasions).

All in all though Doenitz and Raeder probably should have been given lighter sentences or possibly not charged at all. However I doubt the British would have been ok with that.
 
Probably most of the Germans & Japanese, some Italians, and George Patton, but other than that I can't think of any.

{P.S. I'm talking about the generals only. Just to avoid any confusion.}

other than using poison gas on the Ethopians, and some likely offenses in the savage partisan war in Yugoslavia, what offenses did the Italians do?

For that matter, except for the one item cited above (in Sicily, where the guilty were indeed punished in spite of Patton's wishes) how is Patton a war criminal?

as for the Japanese, there is pretty convincing evidence that Yamashita (especially) and Homma were judicially murdered. Although technically in authority, they did not have the actual power to stop either Bataan (because of bad information AND political intrigue that cut Homma out of the loop) or the destruction and horrifying atrocities committed by Japanese military (mostly navy) personnel during the Battle of Manila.

MacArthur wanted blood and he got it

That said, the record of Japanese atrocities is long. Excluding China, where it is on a level of barbarism even the Nazis had to work hard to match, the sheer number of atrocities committed against civilians and POWs in Japanese held territory is enough to sicken a reader. If anything, the Japanese got off lightly and purely because of Cold War expediency.
 
other than using poison gas on the Ethopians, and some likely offenses in the savage partisan war in Yugoslavia, what offenses did the Italians do?
You also had Italians on the Russian front and as a general rule of thumb things wernt so clean over there. Would probably be hard to get specifics to actually get a conviction though.
 
Top