The Peculiar Concept of War Crimes

"Who" wins decides whom is guilty.

On November 10^th, 1865, Confederate Captain Henry Wirz stood on the gallows scaffolding at the Old Capitol Prison in Washington D.C. awaiting his execution by hanging. The former commander of Camp Sumter, better known as the infamous Andersonville military prison in Georgia, was convicted for war crimes due to the deplorable conditions and high mortality rate during his time as commander. Out of the 45,000 incarcerated Union prisoners 13,000 perished during his 14 months as commander. (28% mortality rate)

His final statement before the sentence was carried out is said to have been something to the effect of, “I was following orders.” Many questions and disputes still linger to present day as to the validity of his conviction and execution. Witnesses were called during his tribunal to affirm and establish verification of his guilt, but other witnesses that contradicted these claims were turned away and even arrested before testifying in front of the court. What is known is upon taking command of Andersonville, Captain Wirz recognized the dire situation of the camp and immediately began petitioning his superiors for more supplies and resources to adequately house and feed the overcrowded prison. To even call it a prison is generous as it was simply an open-air rectangular stockade of 16 acres (later expanded to 28 acres) with a 15-foot-high wooden fence as the perimeter. A lack of food supplies quickly turned Andersonville into a horrifying Malthusian scenario amongst the prisoners. Even with prisoner exchanges being suspended the year prior, Captain Wirz sent five prisoners to Union forces in an appeal for an exchange to no avail.

It is easy to imagine that if the Confederate South had prevailed, Union General William T. Sherman would have faced a similar situation. Not only due to his infamous “March to the Sea” but for his treatment of prisoners as well. President Lincoln might have tried to flee as CSA President Jefferson Davis attempted.

I bring up this moment from the American Civil War to highlight an interesting exchange from the other day on Twitter (Or ‘X’ if one prefers.) regarding the very concept of war crimes. Many still cannot grasp that the application and processing of war crimes is a form of Victor’s Justice. The post was in response to a story about the trial of a 101 year old German soldier from World War II being paraded in front of the courts for alleged War Crimes he committed as a prison guard. This was not the only example of people being tried over half a century after the ending of hostilities from WWII.

A 96 year old woman who was a camp secretary as an 18 year old was tried before this.

A 96-year-old woman is on trial in Germany where she's accused of 11,000 counts of accessory to murder at a Nazi concentration camp. The trial, which began last week, could be the last of its kind.

It took more than 75 years to get Irmgard Furchner from the Nazi death camp to the courtroom. She was just 18 when she worked as a secretary to the commandant of the Stutthof concentration camp, where more than 60,000 people were killed.

Prosecuting a 96-year-old for being a teenage secretary during a world war is the very definition of Victor's Justice.

That Germany’s laws regarding who could be charged for war crimes had been changed and updated multiple times since the end of WWII, thus expanding the opportunities for more people to be prosecuted as octogenarians received little coverage.

Predictable Online response

I pointed out that the righteousness and virtue on display by present-day laptop historians is hollow because winners make the rules and write the history books. The question of who/whom gets prosecuted for war crimes merely comes down to who wins the ultimate victory. (and who changes the laws periodically is if on a whim)

This said on an online social platform had the predictable result of accusations of excusing immoral behavior.¹

Some replies:

The added hilarity is that some of these replies came from accounts claiming a background in history.

And more:

What’s a “Sympethiser?”

Sigh…

It is not as if WWII history and actions from the major participants is a big secret. The 20^th century conflict that shaped the world we live in today is one of the most documented and studied events. Even The History Channel on tv has jokingly been called “The Hitler Channel” for the many documentaries that highlight and showcase WWII. New books and movies come out every year examining the causes that led to the eruption of this war. Military campaigns and tactics during major battles are debated today. The public is aware of the Allied fire-bombings of Tokyo, the terror campaigns against German civilians in villages and towns from Allied bombing raids, as well as the Soviet massacres of POWs. The Soviet Army rape campaign against German women post-WWII is still considered one of the largest mass rapes committed against a population. The recent blockbuster movie Oppenheimer telling the creation story of atomic weapons faced criticism for not showing the radiation effects and aftermath on Japanese citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most should know that no hands are spotless in a conflict.

The illusions of warfare being composed of an entirely chivalrous side against some Marvel Comic movie bad guy are just that; an illusion.²

So yes, the Axis powers would have in all likelihood prosecuted American and British figures like General James “Jimmy” Doolittle, The crew of the Enola Gay, Winston Churchill, and J. M. Spaight to name a few, for war crimes had they prevailed in WWII.

---

To act in a faux manner of piety and innocence regarding the conduct of war is dishonorable, especially when standards and “morals” only target one faction of a conflict.

1. Which I thought was made clear in the post. The point was missed, judging from most of the replies. The Internet is not known for Dialectical thinking.

2. Oddly enough, this standard is mainly applied specifically to WWII, as it is still considered the “Good War.”