If soldiers of the army of" good " commit crimes in the territory of the country of the army of "evil", should these crimes be condemned on an equal basis with the crimes of the army of"evil"?

By Category :

2 Answers

  1. The answer lies in your very wording.

    It's one thing for the “Evil Army”to commit crimes. That is, the entire organization structure is generally criminal, with orders to shoot Jews, drown kittens, and rape small boys without fail. That is why it is considered an “army of evil”, in fact, as I understand it.

    Nearby is the “army of good”, whose task is to break off the tentacles of the vile war hawks and protect the kittens. If there is a reptile in this army who drowned a kitten in the territory of reptiles in revenge for his own, then he must answer for his crime in accordance with its severity – and this is indisputable.

    Question : will it be considered “on par”? A complex term. A Fascist massacred a village, and a Soviet soldier accidentally drove a tank into a German grain field at night. Well, a pest, you need to shoot him as well as the murderers of an entire village? Or is it enough to send him to a camp, to a logging camp? Or just scold him not to do that? Or is it no longer on par?

  2. I will answer the question from the point of view of law.

    Modern international law provides the following list of international crimes:

    (a) The crime of genocide;

    (b) Crimes against humanity;

    (c) War crimes;

    (d) The crime of aggression.

    The conditional division of the parties to the conflict into the armies of “Good” and “Evil” is not entirely correct. In international law, there is a concept of a subject. The main subject is the State. Therefore, in this case, we can talk about a hypothetical international armed conflict between States A and B.

    Suppose that State A treacherously attacks State B. Aggression is already an international crime for which State A is likely to be held responsible. Further, State B takes measures to repel this aggression, which is quite legitimate and in accordance with the UN Charter. State B repels an attack, moves the battle to enemy territory, and commits genocide or any other international crime there. In this case, State B, regardless of the fact that it was attacked by State A, will fully answer for its crimes. To sum up, every State will be held accountable for the international crimes committed.

    And now a little bit of the truth of life: In fact, this does not always happen as required by international law. If we talk about international tribunals, there is even an opinion that this is more a court of victorious states over the defeated. This is not entirely true. From the history of the same Nuremberg Tribunal,we have witnessed that the accused were granted almost all the procedural rights that are necessary for their own defense in court. There was no terrible discrimination. Some were even acquitted: Hjalmar Schacht, Hans Fritsche, Franz von Papen. There was an element of competition when considering cases.

    On the other hand, we have to admit that no one will judge the winner.Agree, it would be a little strange if the United States was responsible in the tribunal for the destruction of civilian ships in the Pacific Ocean, and the USSR for the invasion of Poland or Katyn. Unfortunately, in practice, politics very often harms the law.

Leave a Reply

Categories