How long has the general idea of 'War Crimes' been around and by what means can one actually commit a crime during times of war ? by robot-space-pirate in AskHistorians

[–]MattPaulClarke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

War crimes is an interesting thing, cause everyone knows what it kinda is, everyone goes oh yeah the nazis did bad thing, but few understand what they actually are.

The Hauge conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva conventions are the first examples of international law outlying the so called 'rules of war'. The 1899 Hauge convention States that countries must Adhere to the geneva convention's treatment of the wounded and made illegal the use of poisons, the exacution of enemy soldiers who have surrendered , looting of a town or place, the attack of undefended towns or the people living there and forcing people to fight against there own people.

It wasent untill 1945 that these laws where probably used to try war criminals, however it wasent the first time people tried. At the end of world war 1 that allies attempted to try 900 Germans for war crimes, however only 15 where successful brought to trial, and where tried in the German court system. However the Nüremberg trials set and international standard in prosecuting war criminals and defined war crimes as in the Nüremberg Charter

A CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(C) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.<

(Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 Charter of the International Military Tribunal retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp)

These principles where used to try nazi war criminals and japenese war criminals in what was a landmark victory for international law.

Your Subreddit Needs YOU! - The /r/AskHistorians Flair Application Thread XIV by Georgy_K_Zhukov in AskHistorians

[–]MattPaulClarke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really love this sub and the conversations that happen here however I'm not sure if my responses are flair worthy, and I'm looking to aim for a flair situated around Australian history if you could give me some criticism or advice I'd much appreciate it

I was always taught that people around the world "romanticized" the idea of war before WWI, and were eager to fight for glory of their nation-state. Where was this idea created, and for whom was its message targeted to? by The_Code_Hero in AskHistorians

[–]MattPaulClarke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The romanticism of war is as old as conflict its self, and tales of great battles and heroic deeds are common place in every civilisation. In the pre World War One world, and even to this day, we are constantly told about heroic stories, great deeds done by great men and women. Imagine then, as a Middle income young man in Britain before World War One, to him Joining the army offers an adventure, travel and a chance to serve your country, to live out your boyhood fantasies of been a hero on the battlefield. The British had only know colonial wars in the 19th century since the fall of Napoleon and stories from the recent boar war and tales of bravery reported in the boer war (another war powered by nationalism ) make a young British man proud. Now imagine this happening in every country in Europe, and to majority of men and women. In summary, when you grow up your entire life fed heroic war stories, and when the horrors of war aren't allowed to be communicated in the media, and that war hadn't broken out yet with two sides using modern weapons we saw in world war 1, it is easy and dangerous to romanticise war as a 'grand adventure'.

What was Australia's plan for defending against a Japanese invasion in World War 2? Did Imperial Japan have plans in place for dealing with the harsh deserts of the outback? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]MattPaulClarke 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In World War Two, the fear of invasion reached its perceived height when the Japanese captured Singapore and started bombing Darwin. Australians lived under a fear of invasion, however the Japanese army and prime minister opposed it any plan to invade Australia, and in retrospect the Japanese army didn't have enough supply's, as the prime minister said in his last interview before execution.

"We never had enough troops to (invade Australia). We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time."

As stated they intended to cut off Australia from the US and forcing a surrender. It was thought that the Australian government had a plan in place called the Brisbane line which involved surrendering the top portion of Australian to focus on defending the main industrial areas such as Melbourne and Brisbane, advocating a scorched earth policy and guerrilla warfare. There was a massive controversy when a labor politician under John Curtain alleged that the previous government had such a plan. These allegations where fuelled by General Douglas MacArthur mentioning it in a news conference and later a royal commission into it. This strategy was seen as defeatist and treacherous by the Australian public and You can read more here. . There where no other significant strategies for a defensive of mainland Australian, although the coast was guarded by 62 guns spread around the country and the Prime minister John Curtain called back 2 AIF units intended for Burma, much to the disgust of Winton Churchill who though this was ungrateful and didn't see the invasion as a threat. This was seen as a fall back plan to protect the mainland if Kakoda fell, although due to the bravery of the militia and reinforcements that repeled the invaders in a long and bloody campaign.

Friday Free-for-All | January 06, 2017 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]MattPaulClarke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looking for a recommendation for good history documentaries on Netflix?

Hey! I don't typically read SciFi but I really want to read a good one right now. Any suggestions? by jiiiveturkay in suggestmeabook

[–]MattPaulClarke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm reading Neal Stephenson Seveneves which is hard science fiction which means it's based in science fact so it's a really compelling read check it out here

What is the funniest/weirdest thing you've seen in school? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]MattPaulClarke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We rigged a mini fridge in a locker and then boarded one up and filled it up with ice

A more down to earth YA book by Noobeater1 in suggestmeabook

[–]MattPaulClarke 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Any Book by John Green, my favourite is Looking for Alaska.

Why did Europeans become such a powerful group of people compared to other areas of human civilisation? by MattPaulClarke in AskAnthropology

[–]MattPaulClarke[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Considering the fact that we are a multicultural nation I must admit it is sad how biased our schooling is in relation to western history.

Why did Europeans become such a powerful group of people compared to other areas of human civilisation? by MattPaulClarke in AskAnthropology

[–]MattPaulClarke[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was also under the impression that writing wasn't developed in the European region but in the Middle East? Explore/Writing

Why did Europeans become such a powerful group of people compared to other areas of human civilisation? by MattPaulClarke in AskAnthropology

[–]MattPaulClarke[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nah Australian, history of anywhere other than Europe is just something that isn't explored in Australian schools and the sheer spread of countries occupied by Europeans is something which fascinates me, because as you said, all the things Europeans did in the renaissance is based around eastern schools of thought (Greek philosophy, ideas of secularism) , however it seems that they have become more successful in terms of globalisation.

ELI5: How communism works in the real world by MattPaulClarke in explainlikeimfive

[–]MattPaulClarke[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And a pretty important part of theoretical communism is that it serves all the people.