Worst Crime Against Humanity?

[KillZone]

Worst Crime Against Humanity?
Stalins Soviet Union
Hitlers Holocaust
Pol Pot's Cambodia
Mao's China
The Rwandan massacre
The Spanish Inquisition
Armenian genocide in Turkey
Nanking Massacre by Japanese forces
Darfur/Sudan
The Bosnia conflict
The U.S colonies slaughter and destruction of Native Americans

I thnk your question is interesting but impossible to answer.

WHY? How does one define "worst"? You have to be specific and those that reply have to agree on your definition.

If I go by sheer numbers of the death of innocent people, Stalin would easily be the "winner." Hitler is almost nice compared to Stalin, who via his camps and other methods "did in" perhaps 3 times more than did Hitler, but no doubt at least twice as many as Hitler. Of course, he had a LOT more time than Hitler and used it.

Mao? "The Great Butcher" would rank as my #2, based upon sheer numbers.

[Sangroid]

The term "crimes against humanity" is stupid because I am, arguably, a part of humanity and I couldn't give a shit about the people on your list.

[Charles]

I couldn't give a shit about the people on your list.

You have validated your post.

[Cd.]

But never comleted. CD. We've got good evidence for the annihilation of perhaps half a dozen cities but the archaeological evidence suggests there were more than a dozen. Both the Bible and currently avaiable arccaeologial evidence strongly suggests that the Caananites were bred out of existence rather than slaughtered and that there awful culture lingered on for more than a century after them.

Why do you say it was an awful culture? Its true that the Bible vilified the pagan people of Canaan but since they won they got to record the history. The Philistines were reviled as well, but its important to remember that the Philistines were actually Greek colonists.

The Egyptians did not really enslave the Israelits as they constripted them for manual labor. The Israelits were a warlike people who were enlisted as mercenaries. When Egypt became more stable and pursued a period of peace there was little work for the Israelite mercenaries so thy were put to work on building projects. The reason why the Pharo pursued Moses and his people was because they pillaged and looted Egyptian villages on the way out of the country.

[josephdphillips]

The more important question is why some actions are "crimes against humanity" and some aren't.

The other question would be what purpose is served by declaring such crimes if no agreement can be reached among nation-states about enforcement.

[Charles]

The more important question is why some actions are "crimes against humanity" and some aren't.

Which are and which are not? Examples of each?

[josephdphillips]

That's my point -- it's all too subjective and meaningless in a world where the nation-state is the dominant political construct.

[KillZone]

TruthTell Posted in part:
I don't like pissing contersts about "the worst ", they are all artrocious and should be condemened equally.

I agree.

Not only are they atrocious, they cannot be compared. "Pissing contests" may be something to talk about, but indeed, in the end, that means nothing.

One wonders how much I have been a part of those crimes? I hope not at all. But until I was about 15, I was a racists (I am not proud of that, and I was not raised like that; my parents, deplored; hated; condemned racism, so I can only blame myself).

So, what did I contribute to those crimes, especially against black people, until it dawned on me that my skin tone did not make me better than anyone else? If I contributed, what does that make me? Or, what DID that make me?

Racisms is one of the most glaring types of sheer stupidity. So I was stupid, blind, and just flat wrong. Thank God something got my attention and I changed.

Sangroid posted in part:
The term "crimes against humanity" is stupid because I am, arguably, a part of humanity and I couldn't give a shit about the people on your list.

Did you read your post? You are part of humanity and you don't care? Your lack of compassion is both breath-taking and telling. You are either joking or you are as dumb as a box of brick. I think it is the former, unless you really are as dumb as a box of bricks.

[9ball8]

To pretend that it doesn't matter is to not care about the future of humanity. Fine if you are a misanthrope and don't have children, I guess.

In the context of total warfare (WWII), mass killing is the price of failed diplomacy. So many resources devoted to winning or losing, and there are no limits outside of self-extermination when it comes to total warfare. Entire cities are fair game, which is probably why no large region has engaged in total warfare since WWII.

I'd disagree about a lack of consequences. We've had war-crimes trials for several decades now. One can argue that they are not applied to all cases, but the fact that former state leaders and top military command are -potentially- subject to criminal justice is a step toward eliminating mass murder organized by the state.

[KillZone]

To pretend that it doesn't matter is to not care about the future of humanity. Fine if you are a misanthrope and don't have children, I guess.

In the context of total warfare (WWII), mass killing is the price of failed diplomacy. So many resources devoted to winning or losing, and there are no limits outside of self-extermination when it comes to total warfare. Entire cities are fair game, which is probably why no large region has engaged in total warfare since WWII.

I'd disagree about a lack of consequences. We've had war-crimes trials for several decades now. One can argue that they are not applied to all cases, but the fact that former state leaders and top military command are -potentially- subject to criminal justice is a step toward eliminating mass murder organized by the state.

WW2's death total is almost beyond belief, and yet humanity has learned nothing from history.

Wikipedia (a decent estimate):

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...locaust_deaths

Scroll down and see how many more innocent Russians died than did Jews, gypsies Hitler cared not for, and a slew of other what seemed to be "misfits" only good for croaking for Hitler.

War can only make sense if a nation is attacked by another. But the Allies, far after Germany was finished, punished the German cities by carpet-bombing them when they had no defenses. Nor was it only the Americans or only the Brits.

No telling how many innocent Germans died during that. If that is not genocide, what is it?

I am not real hip on War Crimes for the reason you stated: They are unfair since many are never tried. And what "fair" criteria can you try people under? It is subjective. Patton was against it and I can almost understand why.

BTW, dropping the 2 bombs in Japan probably saved 500,000 lives of our soldiers for we would have had to invade. Saved Japanese lives, too, for if we had invaded, they would have fought to the death as they did on the South Pacific islands. People that continue to harp on that forget:

A) Both the Germans and the Japanese were not far from developing what we did, and if anyone does not think Hitler would have destroyed Britian with the Bomb. Those that think he would not have used all of them Germany could produce are forgetting whom Hitler was and what he wanted.

B) It saved Allied solders lives and a lot of them. The battle took 72 days. The Army's method of slow movement with the use of extreme firepower resulted in a siege-like approach, and that finally exhausted the Japanese troops. Their leader committed suicide. The Bloody Hills of Peleliu were a frank lesson in how the Japanese would die rather than surrender, and also how many American Marines it cost. The video is brutal, but it valuable to watch as history. The History Channel website has it. What was thought to be a 3 week operation took 72 days with the following dead:

1) The US suffered 10,463 casualties, with 1535 dead.

2) 14,000 Japanese were killed.

It was one of the largest strategic blunders of WW2, for we could have just ignored it. But an admiral felt differently.

C) Dropping those 2 bombs ended the war.

[9ball8]

WW2's death total is almost beyond belief, and yet humanity has learned nothing from history.
...
C) Dropping those 2 bombs ended the war.

I disagree that humanity learned nothing from WW2. We did not fight another war, on any scale like that one, since 1945. That was due in part to the mass slaughter that you noted, and due in part to invention and use of the atom bomb. Political will to avoid war on that scale -since- has been 100% effective. Likely because politicians know they or their loved ones will be among the first incinerated if such a war would break out. A psychotic disregard for the masses still persists, along with their own -predictable- emphasis on their own survival. Same as always, but the will to desist from total war has changed the behavior of leaders of most every state.

The atom bomb: best thing to limit war, ever.

[86Dùde]

Worst Crime: The election of Barack Obama.

[KillZone]

I disagree that humanity learned nothing from WW2. We did not fight another war, on any scale like that one, since 1945. That was due in part to the mass slaughter that you noted, and due in part to invention and use of the atom bomb. Political will to avoid war on that scale -since- has been 100% effective. Likely because politicians know they or their loved ones will be among the first incinerated if such a war would break out. A psychotic disregard for the masses still persists, along with their own -predictable- emphasis on their own survival. Same as always, but the will to desist from total war has changed the behavior of leaders of most every state.

The atom bomb: best thing to limit war, ever.

How many did Stalin and Mao directly or indirectly "rub out" without being troubled by any outside force? Concentration or "shocker" or reeduction camps killed millions of Soviets, and Mao, among other methods, starved his beloved worshipers. Nor did the deaths ended about both Butchers died in those two nations.

Nations keep up the arms race, and I don't refer to nukes, although that's a big part of it. Even excluding those, America keeps spending bucks on arms, MY BUCKS, and so do many nations, including China.

If we learned, we don't seem to act like we did. We learned to invade Iraq twice, fight forever in Viet Cong, get involved in Korea, and keep involved in Israel/Palestine's affairs which are none of our business. We spent time in Latin America overthrowing juntas only to reinstall the same junta, and it wasn't open warfare, it was overtly covert (which defeats the notion of covert, eh?) We have more covert operations on-going than we've ever had in nations we need to get the hell out of. Our military spending budget sure hasn't dropped.

Maybe you are right and I am wrong, which I don't mind admitting, but the continued agression in this world, not just by America, but by a slew of nations, makes me think if nations learned, they soon forgot. Or, acted as if they did.

As for the Bomb, either we used it or it would have been used on us. The Japanese were not that far, and if Hitler had beat us, he would have decimated Europe. Besides, dropping it saved (some "experts" claim) 500,000 Allied service men since the Japanese fought to their deaths when we had previously engaged them, and it would have been worse if we had invaded their mainland. Horrible as it was, it saved a lot of lives.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

I disagree that humanity learned nothing from WW2. We did not fight another war, on any scale like that one, since 1945. That was due in part to the mass slaughter that you noted, and due in part to invention and use of the atom bomb. Political will to avoid war on that scale -since- has been 100% effective. Likely because politicians know they or their loved ones will be among the first incinerated if such a war would break out. A psychotic disregard for the masses still persists, along with their own -predictable- emphasis on their own survival. Same as always, but the will to desist from total war has changed the behavior of leaders of most every state.

The atom bomb: best thing to limit war, ever.

Yes, and far more than 200,000 or so Japanese civilians would have died if the mainland were invaded, not to mention the million or so Japanese soldiers still active in China and elsewhere, still with the capacity to slaughter many more civilians, or hold them as hostages.

However, it won't last forever as a deterrent, not with savages like the Iranian mullahs getting hold of few, and of course the Pakistani tribesmen currently possessing some now, and willing to spread them around, so the future deterrent factor is diminishing rapidly. Of course, biological weapons are now probably a bigger threat than nukes; unfortunately we'll probably live to see both used.