Talk:Victor's justice

And the Question Is...

...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)

NPOV

Hey! We need more NPOV here... -- The Anome 13:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article has so many problems. flux.books 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a segment on Japan after WW2. This is utterly, clearly victors' justice. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fire bombing of Tokyo- and Dresden, Germany - to name a few. Then there is the matter of helping to avoid justice some class A war criminals (from Germany too) so they could come work for the US. One even became Prime Minister of Japan later. There is more. My research needs more. That's why I havn't edited article. But this is just the tip. This article by Gavin McCormack has in it a clearer laundry list. -SatSun April 3, 2006 C.E. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/rewriting-an-ugly-past/2005/08/14/1123957950490.html

statements about the U.S.

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)

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)

This is ridiculous: "For the U.S., the main economic beneficiary of WWI and WWII, establishing the Marshall plan was no real problem, was useful in encouraging good relations in Europe and in the end by no doubt they earned much more money than they could have ever obtained from Germany and Europe by conventional reparations." Edited the paragraph, against my usual policy of doing partial edits on profoundly flawed articles. flux.books 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

argument about article naming

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

US vs. ICC

Removed, again:

As of 2003, there are concerns about the refusal of the United States to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Many non-Americans believe that this is due to an American belief that "might makes right", and that they refuse to abide by international law because they feel that, as the world's sole superpower, they can prevail in any conflict by force of arms.

This may be a widely-held view, this may be a related concept, but can we talk directly about the original concept, of which there are any number of more indisputable examples - for instance, what happened to collaborators in France after WWII. If you then must bring this view in, at least it will then be in context.--Robert Merkel 13:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent victor's justice whithout bringing people accused of war crimes to trial at an international court? If the victorious power's courts decide about these accusations, it is impossible to prevent victor's justice.62.46.183.82

The term is in current usage about many other wars, such as Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Rwanda... see http://www.google.com/search?q=victor%27s.justice and http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=victor%27s.justice&sa=N&tab=wn -- The Anome 14:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the paragraph. That is certainly how most of the world views it. The fact that the U.S. is almost alone in opposing the ICC while so many other countries seem to have no problem with a "law superior to their own domestic law" suggests that it has to do with the fact that the U.S. is in a position of military dominance that would normally leave it as the victor, so that victor's justice is preferable to a neutral justice. The claims about political stunts are demonstrably bogus; there are sufficiently high hurdles for any case to be accepted by the ICC. And the U.S. government at least (if not the average American) knows better than to think Americans have never committed (or would never again commit) war crimes. While there are of course many other historical examples that could be mentioned, the U.S.-ICC situation seems to be particularly timely and relevant. --Wik 14:14, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Wik. I think before we bring in a related, but IMHO slightly different concept the article should discuss a selection of the many examples of "traditional" victor's justice like those the Anome has alluded to. --Robert Merkel

edit conflicts

Sorry about any edit conflicts. I have copy-edited victor's justice a bit. Also, I redirected Siegerjustiz to victor's justice, because I think the English term victor's justice is more readily understood by our readers than the German word. Hope I'm not stepping any toes here. --Ed Poor

Hi Ed. We have a bit of an edit war around this article, with one editor strongly inclining to the opinion that the article should be called Siegerjustiz. The argument descended into name-calling, and has been deleted. -- The Anome 14:16, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Anome. Seems to be a bit of "anomie" and "poor attitude" going around ^_^ -- but it's like water running off a duck's back for me... --Ed

By the way, David J. Scheffer, senior vice president of the U.N. Association of the USA and former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues, wrote:

"The International Criminal Court can hear only cases relating to crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Thus, even if it could overcome other jurisdictional hurdles, that court would not be able to deal with most of the Iraqi regime's crimes." [1]

What is the point of this? The ICC was never particularly designed for Iraq. --Wik 14:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs a lot of NPOV editing, so it represents the opinions of all sides fairly: pro- and anti- German, pro- and anti- U.S., balance of world opinion, yadda yadda. -- The Anome 14:31, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Scheffer, it honours you that you broke anonymity, so I will do too. My name is Bernhard Reuss, I'm living in the city of Göttingen in Germany. My father was from his 16th year on for four years POW in France and learnt during that time what is considered to be justice by those who call themselves winners. You can believe it was not too pleasant. Indeed many germans believed that with the end of WWII a period of real justice is starting, unforuntately remarking too fast, that in the end again the rule of the right of the stronger has continued. The last prove for this is the Iraq story, where the U.S. again fought a dictator they established themselves or at least strongly supportede as long as he was useful. And now you tell the world you freed that country from a beast, wich your secret services established themselves. Sorry, that I don't keep this for a real honourable way of acting.

Best regards

Herr Reuss, I'm sorry your father suffered in an Allied prison camp. Also, I agree that it would be hypocritcal to apply one standard of justice to losers and another standard to victors. --Uncle Ed 14:57, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is my deep hope and my strong belief that the ICC will come to work properly even under the contribution of the U.S. (and other yet not convinced nations) and our planet thus moving from the age of power to the age of justice.

Dear Bernhard, thanks for your note. Where there is controversy about an issue, ee have an "NPOV" policy of simply presenting both sides of the argument, with attribution as to who is saying it. This has let us work on highly controversial topics such as abortion or creationism, by slowly working towards an article that both sets of partisans can accept as fairly stating their positions. We do not intend to ignore the suffering and death of German people during and after World War II, just as we do not ignore the suffering of all the many other people who suffered and died in World War II. We would appreciate any positive contributions you can add to our encylopedia. Please see Welcome, newcomer for a guide. -- The Anome 14:58, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of accusations of victor's justice about countries other than the U.S., or coalitions of which they were a part? -- The Anome 15:19, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• Communists after the October Revolution
  
• Brasilian government after the Canudos inssurection around 1900 Muriel Gottrop 15:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There should probably be a note that this is a modern concept; the ancients seemed to have been generally comfortable with the idea of different rules for winners and losers. Dunno if this is 20th-c though; perhaps connects to just war concept? Stan 16:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the whole thing has to be put into the context of the dichotomy between those who believe:

• that the US is the best country ever, although not perfect, and should be the chief leader of the world
• that the US is so corrupt, selfish and hypocritically that it should be condemned rather than followed

Once you recognize that most opinion tends to fall into (or gravitate towards) one of these polar opposites, it's much easier to write a balanced article. (BTW, can you guess which camp I'm in?) --Uncle Ed 19:19, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have to jump in here - it doesn't really help to frame the question with two erroneous alternatives. flux.books 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed my comments which were veering off-topic: they can be found in the history for this page. We need to keep this article on-topic, and not a vehicle for pro- or anti- American rhetoric: the problem is that of late America has been among the victors in many recent wars, so this article will mention America many times. What about other examples of "victor's justice"? Or is this concept only directed towards the U.S. in current usage, in which case it needs to be said so. -- Karada 09:26, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Im convinced that the U.S. are a free and democratic country for the majority of U.S. americans it is by no doubt a pleasure to live in a country with such a glorious history! However, thinking about the democratic tradition of this land it is the more astonishing that U.S.-americans want to force themselves by pure military and economic power to be the leader of this world.

Due to my idea of democracy leaders should not be determined by violence and warfare, but by free and equal elections. It is therefore hard to understand, why the U.S. weaken and disregard the U.N. as a secondary instrument for their power politics, than to enforce U.N. to be a real forum for a democratic process leading to a fair determination of leaders not only for U.S. americans, but for all people on this planet.

The problem of the american revolution may be, that, although the original concept of the U.S. has been an internationalistic one (immigrants from almost all countries of this planet have contributed to the formation of the U.S.), in the meantime U.S. have trapped themselves in their nationalism making it impossible for people in other nations to take part in their values.

Therefore the present situation for the U.S. and continental Europe may be to a certain extent comparable to that after the german revolution of 1848, where the conflict between the german nationalistic prussia and the multiethnic austrian state have prevented a peaceful solution of the german question which later on lead to the catastrophic developments of WWI and in the end of WWII.

A similar dualism due to particular power interests of the U.S., the EU and other great powers of our planet might lead to a similar tragic development as it has started for Europe two centuries ago. To prevent this there should in the interst of all people an agreement been achieved. The U.N. would provide a forum to discuss this successfully.

--134.76.145.47, 12:05, 8 Aug 2003

Unconditional surrender

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)

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)

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)

Most international wars do not end in unconditional surrender. Apart from the Second World War which other international wars in the modern era have ended in unconditional surrender and a debellation? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vae Victis behaviour

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)

Eg Treaty of Limerick (1691) it has been said that "the ink was not dry on the treaty before the English started to break it". Philip Baird Shearer 09:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SUDDENLY, 2022 REPORTING IN. Please add the very "Vae vitis" saying to the article. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

USA/Iraq; USSR

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)

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)

Victor's history

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)

War crime trials in Finland

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)

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)

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)

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)

The current wording is totally wrong: War-responsibity trials did NOT handle a SINGLE war crimes charge. On war crimes trials, there were NOT a SINGLE charge of crimes against peace. Current wording (and linking) gives an impression all of these charges were handled in a same court.

What the Bill of attainder has to do with an issue? --Whiskey 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Current allegations of victor's justice

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)

WWI an example of Victor's Justice?

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)

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)

Removed Piece regarding CPA in Iraq

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)

Victor's Justice means the defeated country had No Honour

Victor's justice can only be administrated where the defeated country had No Honour. A war crime is a war crime. The man who committed the crime broke the law of his own country - there by dishonouring himself, his family, his unit and his country. To regain (some) honour his country has to arrest, try and punish him. Failure to enforce the Laws of War publicly dishonours the police and judges of the country.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. In victor's justice the victorious country has no honour, not the defeated one. Victor's soldiers are not prosecuted from the war crimes, victor's politicians are not prosecuted from the same actions the politicians from the defeated country are prosecuted. The victorious country doesn't keep it's part of the peace treaty and commitments agreed there while the defeated one has to fulfill the treaty punctually. --Whiskey (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Untrue. In WW2 the British and Americans prosecuted their own troops for rape and looting. For instance there were 971 convictions for rape in the U.S. military from January 1942 to June 1947. Reference: Brownmiller, Susan (1993). Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. p. 81. ISBN 0-449-90820-8.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And the point is? This article is not about WWII or Brits or Americans doing that or not doing this, but this is about the general concept which is known as victor's justice. In victor's justice the basic question is if there is a legal framework which should be followed before, in and after an armed conflict and is there a moral obligation to be followed in such case. --Whiskey (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Post WW2 an international legal framework was set up. "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal sanctions. I. General observations" in ARTICLE 129.

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the present Convention."

Ref: [2]

Andrew Swallow (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)