Josef Mengele/Debate Guide: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Added "Maybe", which is more my argument -- 1940s historiography and legal usage, as opposed to current international law) |
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards (→No) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Thus, war crime is a legal term, as is war criminal -- meaning someone who has been convicted of such crimes in accordance with the international legal procedures prevailing at the time of trial. There are implications -- of a very serious nature -- in descrbing as "criminals" those who have never been tried, let alone convicted of crimes. Such is the case with comtemporary trials which are proceeding as we speak: it is contrary to CZ neutrality policy to determine the guilt of such persons without trial. Equally, although less obviously, it is contrary to our policy to describe historical persons who were not tried as criminals. | Thus, war crime is a legal term, as is war criminal -- meaning someone who has been convicted of such crimes in accordance with the international legal procedures prevailing at the time of trial. There are implications -- of a very serious nature -- in descrbing as "criminals" those who have never been tried, let alone convicted of crimes. Such is the case with comtemporary trials which are proceeding as we speak: it is contrary to CZ neutrality policy to determine the guilt of such persons without trial. Equally, although less obviously, it is contrary to our policy to describe historical persons who were not tried as criminals. | ||
Notwithstanding the tremendous political backing provided to the Nuremberg Trials, and their wide-reaching powers, many historians have blithely described some of those who committed Nazi atrocities as "war criminals". Regardless of our personal moral positions on this, it is careless and sloppy terminology, which I find to be unnecessary (it is obvious what these people did) and definitely problematic in influencing public attitudes to more recent atrocities. Nevertheless, it is evident that many historians are quite happy to use this terminology without reference to legal processes. | Notwithstanding the tremendous political backing provided to the Nuremberg Trials, and their wide-reaching powers, many historians have blithely described some of those who committed Nazi atrocities but were not convicted of anything as "war criminals". Regardless of our personal moral positions on this, it is careless and sloppy terminology, which I find to be unnecessary (it is obvious what these people did) and definitely problematic in influencing public attitudes to more recent atrocities. Nevertheless, it is evident that many historians are quite happy to use this terminology without reference to legal processes. | ||
My objection in the specific article [[Josef Mengele]] is that the quotation in the introduction originally described Mengele as a war criminal (as if this were a clear fact). (That quotation has been redacted by me, using an ellipsis.) Furthermore, later in the same paragraph there was another reference to him as a war criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to note somewhere in the article (but not in the first one or two sentences) that Mengele is considered by many to be a war criminal, despite not having stood trial. It is not acceptable -- and contrary to CZ policy -- to put the description "war criminal" in the lead and give an impression to the reader that all is "cut and dried". Furthermore, the whole thing is pointless, since anyone reading the details of the atrocities is going to reach strong conclusions and the simplified terminology of "Nazi war criminal" is completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedic. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | My objection in the specific article [[Josef Mengele]] is that the quotation in the introduction originally described Mengele as a war criminal (as if this were a clear fact). (That quotation has been redacted by me, using an ellipsis.) Furthermore, later in the same paragraph there was another reference to him as a war criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to note somewhere in the article (but not in the first one or two sentences) that Mengele is considered by many to be a war criminal, despite not having stood trial. It is not acceptable -- and contrary to CZ policy -- to put the description "war criminal" in the lead and give an impression to the reader that all is "cut and dried". Furthermore, the whole thing is pointless, since anyone reading the details of the atrocities is going to reach strong conclusions and the simplified terminology of "Nazi war criminal" is completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedic. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
===Maybe=== | ===Maybe=== | ||
Revision as of 11:11, 22 November 2010
Was Josef Mengele a War Criminal?
Yes
No
The concept of war crime has its substantive origins (notwithstanding some earlier minor issues) in the immediate aftermath of WW II and specifically within the Nuremberg Trials. The victorious Allied powers resolved to establish within the international legal framework the personal culpability of those involved in atrocities -- including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter established duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as states, the principles of which were affirmed by the UN General Assembly in 1946. This was followed by the Genocide Convention of 1948, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II. Recent times have seen the creation in 1992 and 1994 of specific War Crimes Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, under the aegis of the UN Security Council, and the establishment by the Rome Statute of 1998 of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, effective from 2002.
Thus, war crime is a legal term, as is war criminal -- meaning someone who has been convicted of such crimes in accordance with the international legal procedures prevailing at the time of trial. There are implications -- of a very serious nature -- in descrbing as "criminals" those who have never been tried, let alone convicted of crimes. Such is the case with comtemporary trials which are proceeding as we speak: it is contrary to CZ neutrality policy to determine the guilt of such persons without trial. Equally, although less obviously, it is contrary to our policy to describe historical persons who were not tried as criminals.
Notwithstanding the tremendous political backing provided to the Nuremberg Trials, and their wide-reaching powers, many historians have blithely described some of those who committed Nazi atrocities but were not convicted of anything as "war criminals". Regardless of our personal moral positions on this, it is careless and sloppy terminology, which I find to be unnecessary (it is obvious what these people did) and definitely problematic in influencing public attitudes to more recent atrocities. Nevertheless, it is evident that many historians are quite happy to use this terminology without reference to legal processes.
My objection in the specific article Josef Mengele is that the quotation in the introduction originally described Mengele as a war criminal (as if this were a clear fact). (That quotation has been redacted by me, using an ellipsis.) Furthermore, later in the same paragraph there was another reference to him as a war criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to note somewhere in the article (but not in the first one or two sentences) that Mengele is considered by many to be a war criminal, despite not having stood trial. It is not acceptable -- and contrary to CZ policy -- to put the description "war criminal" in the lead and give an impression to the reader that all is "cut and dried". Furthermore, the whole thing is pointless, since anyone reading the details of the atrocities is going to reach strong conclusions and the simplified terminology of "Nazi war criminal" is completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedic. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)