Talk:Victor's justice

message: ...an encyclopedic article what is Victor's justice. We need a definition here. We do NOT need a comprehensive list of occurrances of the Victor's justice. The real life examples are only needed as an examples of different kind of Victor's justice, and only that. Please keep that in mind. --Whiskey 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And the Question Is...

message: Removed until it's reworded:
:Fear that the same juridical standards might be applied to U.S. soldiers as the U.S. government is applying to judge the rest of the world (see also Camp X-Ray or Guantanamo Bay) seems to be the most important point why the present U.S. administration (see also George W. Bush) opposes with all its might the functioning of the International Criminal Court.
For a start, this claim is unattributed.  Secondly, it seems to me to be a misstatement of US opposition to the ICC.  IMHO the real crux of the matter is that most Americans don't seem to think there is any law superior to their own domestic law (except maybe "God's Law" but that's an entirely different discussion ;) ), they believe any trial not conducted by a US government is not fair, and they don't believe their citizens have ever committed or could ever commit actual war crimes and any prosecution would invariably be a political stunt.  Now, all of those are arguable points (and could be stated a great deal more sympathetically than I have), and I think closer to the real US position.  The view from supporters of the court might be that the US is hypocritical, but that's not how the US sees it.--Robert Merkel 23:56, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're not talking about how Americans think, we're talking about how the American government thinks. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: statements about the U.S.

message: Removed argument about article naming. -- The Anome 13:57, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: argument about article naming

message: Much of what has been written in the article seems to assume that the victor has won an with an unconditional surrender. The looser has to rely much more on the magnanimity and mercy of the victor if there is an unconditional surrender. Otherwise terms can be negotiated as they are in any other international treaty.  It seems to me that this needs to be highlighted in the document because there have only been one international war between European nations in the last 100 years which has resulted in the unconditional surrender of one side. Philip Baird Shearer 22:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not actually helpful.  The nature of WWII was so profoundly different.  And rather than counting the number of "wars", one might just as readily count the number of fatalities, and conclude that (when measured by total military and civilian deaths) most wars end in unconditional surrender.  flux.books 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the issue is not so much the unique situation with Unconditional Surrender, although that certainly plays a part in what followed.  The issue, which helps to define whether the Nürnburg trials were or were not "Victor's Justice" is a better look at the way the International Tribunal was created and the charge it was given.  Many of the crimes did not exist in any treaty or legal system prior to the end of the war so the tribunal was prosecuting crimes that didn't exist before.  I'm not suggesting they weren't "crimes" just that they had no prior "legal basis."  In addition, the creation of the Tribunal specifically stated that only Axis personnel could be tried, effectively denying any chance to look at similar "crimes" committed by the allies.  Collectively they did many of the same things...terror and fire bombing of civilians, the atomic bombing in Japan, the forced relocation of civilians (unrelated to any wartime goal) genocide (in the case of the Cossacks that were forcibly returned to Russian custody where they were promptly killed en mass) and the looting, rapes, and murder committed by Russian troops both during the Battle of Berlin and during the subsequent occupation.  If Germans could be tried for such things and the allies couldn't it clearly smacks of Victor's Justice and not some higher approach.  Wood Artist 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconditional surrender

message: In a current form article concentrates too much to war crimes and the legal framework of the victor's justice. The more common way victor's justice has been seen through history is the way victors have interpreted the treaties they made with their opponents contrary to initial agreement, which was discussed or additional demands were presented after the treaty was signed. --Whiskey 13:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vae Victis behaviour

message: We should expand the list of examples for victor's justice. The behaviour of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan towards supporters of the old régime ist also victor's justice. The accusation of the former President Saddam Husayn by a court of a country under US-American occupation is victor's justice.
Additionally, the article needs more NPOV towards the Soviet Union. It depicts the USSR as the only Allied nation committing war crimes, which may be, but isn't necessarily true. The article has a very antagonistic approach to the USSR, which has to be changed. 62.46.183.82, 21 May 2005
:I don't think its necessarily antagonistic towards the Soviet Union, perhaps in this case  - To this day the former East Germany still has not recovered its former prosperity which probably should be removed since thats a very complex issue. However, the article simply cites the cases where the Soviet Union or its forces (allegedly) committed war crimes. If you have sources for the United States committing unpunished war crimes in Iraq or Afghanistan, please add the info and the sources to the article. --kudz75 02:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in ignoring the fact that the worst of the crimes (and the postwar political actions listed here - which don't really fit in as war crimes, don't belong here, and are thrown into the random list of "war crimes") were committed by the Soviet Union / Stalin.  The way the list is presented is really poor.  flux.books 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USA/Iraq; USSR

message: Do we have articles about victor's history, i.e., victors telling History to their benefit?
This article is related but not quite it.
--Error 00:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Victor's history

message: The list of occurrances of war crimes Allied Control Comission provided to Finnish government is so called Lista N:o 1 (List No.1) late 1944, which contained only cases which fit to the traditional definition of war crimes, and Finnish military justice system took care of those cases according to existing Finnish laws. These cases and trials had nothing to do with War-responsibility trials in Finland. The War-responsibility trials started at autumn 1945, and major contributor to them was Finnish Communist Party, which proclaimed loudly the necessity of the trials. --Whiskey 22:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But surly the War-responsibility trials in Finland were trials of those who had committed crimes against peace and (to quote the article) the "Allied Control Commission that had tight grip over Finland set up an observing committee to observe these trials and interfered on numerous occasions". --Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The War Crimes are different than Crimes against peace or Crimes against humanity, like they were defined in the Treaty of London. The War Crimes were NOT judged in War-responsibility trials, but they were judged by normal courts for military personnel, with normal, existing laws and judges. For War responsibility trials a special laws and special court were created. The court had only three jurist members (Presidents of two highest courts in Finland and one professor of law from University of Helsinki) and all the rest were politicians selected by the parliament. So these are two different courts, two different sets of laws and two different methods of working. --Whiskey 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Pehapse you did not notice that I included the term "crimes against peace" before reinserting the link.  As to who sits in the court see Bill of attainder#Word War II --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War crime trials in Finland

message: This section seems out of date and should be updated to reflect the recent Hamdi Supreme Court decision. Also the wording could use some work to improve clarity of the subject. --Cab88 10:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current allegations of victor's justice 

message: Wouldnt WWI's resolution be considered an example of victor's justice, seeing that the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles  denied Germany and other Central Powers seats to the deliberation and imposed severe fines, reparations, territorial dissections, and federal limitations on the new Weimar Republic, which would lead to public animosity in Germany and the Rise of Hitler and WWII?Xlegiofalco 05:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in RE to the following from the article;
"Prior to World War II, most international wars ended in a conditional surrender and/or armistice followed by a peace treaty."Xlegiofalco 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI an example of Victor's Justice? 

message: I removed this section
:The Coalition Provisional Authority passed a law making occupation forces and contractors employed by them immune from Iraqi prosecution, so they can presently only be tried by court martial or their domestic courts. So far several countries have tried some of the military personnel for committing war crimes, for example both the United States and the United Kingdom have tried soldiers for physically abusing prisoners in Iraq.
Immunity from local prosecution is normal in occupation situations following defeat (it's also in effect in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example).  Since the people who committed the crimes in the latter example are being punished by their respective nations (and not all cases are from the US or UK), it does not appear to be a case of VJ. CsikosLo (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Piece regarding CPA in Iraq