Unpopular Opinion: Crime Against Peace

Radhabinod Pal stood among a few that dared to dissent.  Without giving into my normal tendency to joke, he sat away from many others in his judgement during the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. He dared to reject the idea that many Japanese officials were guilty of “crimes against peace”. (These crimes incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and UN Charter). This tidbit in history sent me in to a shallow dive and helped bring about an inconvenient/popular opinion.

I had read about “crimes against peace”, specifically various wars of aggression. The counts mentioned levied against those Japanese leaders, that were the most notable to me, were waging unprovoked war and waging aggressive war against various other nations.

I largely disagree with what I read, at least in a philosophical sense. I believe that a war is always a provoked war. I also belief that the best wars in human existence were aggressive wars.

The vast majority of wars required violent action. Sun Tzu had mentioned that “there is no instance of a country having benefitted from prolonged warfare”. The Japanese knew their limitations and capabilities. They followed them as well as they could, (but transgressed a few of Sun Tzu’s inviolate rules in regard to battle). They fought hard and they used what they could. I made the argument that an army that doesn’t fight with the utmost tenacity is largely dishonest to the other army.

I believe that Japan owed no explanation for the warfare they employed, the same that they didn’t owe us an explanation in why they declared war. The common sense applies here. Man has declared war over territory and resources. (In an alternative reason, people have warred over other things like dignity, sense of self, perceived insults, etc). Picking through the various pieces of evidence given in testimony from the trials, it was easy to see why the Japanese did what they did. It took someone opening up their eyes.

I wanted to close this post with that much of the UN Charter, on face value, is contrary to what has driven history. The charter is not neutral in regards to physical conflict. UN members are to refrain from using threat or force against the integrity or independence of any state.

War is now being prescribed as a self defense mechanism. My eyes don’t see war in its traditional sense anymore. We look at those that engage in conflict for offensive purposes to be the barbarian. I make the argument that those that don’t are a new barbarian amongst themselves. War has been only done right in human existence. Only as of lately have we started giving service to the idea that aggression doesn’t make sense. We looked past our own skill in killing and subjugation to write new rules for relative peace. (Justice Pal talked about the IMTFE being “victor’s justice”). I say that we should honor those that fight and remember our fighting past for the future.

About freemattpodcast

Lead shill for The FreeMatt Podcast
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Unpopular Opinion: Crime Against Peace

  1. Gunner Q says:

    I read a book on the Nuremberg Trials. That often-quoted factoid that “we were just following orders” wasn’t allowed as a defense? The actual defense that wasn’t allowed was tu quoque or “you did it, too”. The Allies couldn’t deny that they’d committed the same acts so that defense was simply not allowed. Without being allowed to point out hypocrisy, the best defense the German leadership could make was that they were following procedures… a very neutral, very German justification.

    It worked for the top Admiral. He only got a prison sentence because “they declared the war and I fought it”. Hermann Goering led a faction that believed the whole Trials were a farce (correctly) and they should stand proud of their actions for their nation’s honor instead of trying to justify what they did without being allowed to cite the reasons for much of what they did. It got internecine because Goering was the closest to Hitler that the Trials could manage so he was totally screwed. Him being right about the Trials being for show ironically made his peers not want to support him because doing so was a guaranteed hanging.

    The most critical part of the book for me was that Winston Churchill didn’t want to bother with the Trials. Just line ’em up for the firing squad, he said, but they who went on to found the United Nations were determined to show themselves pious and noble on the world stage first… early Social Justice. “We don’t want to hurt you but you’re just so evil that we have no choice!”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gunner, can I use your comment as a posting itself?


      • Gunner Q says:

        Sure. The book was Nuremberg : Infamy on Trial by Joseph E. Persico, for the curious. It focused more on the persons participating in the trial rather than the facts of the trial itself, which made the whole process very relatable.


    • Lexet Blog says:

      The entire trials were bs. Not only were they a bastardization of justice, but they weren’t conducted in a fair manner. Not only were defenses limited, but the Japanese were held to a totally different standard, despite the overwhelming evidence there.

      The US had to pretend the emperor had no control over his military for a decade, while blaming hitler for every little thing without any documented proof or testimony.

      Several of the US prosecutors later spoke out against the trials.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: FreeMatt in Review: 11-9 to 11-13 | Mogadishu Matt

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    The memory of justice is a good documentary


  4. Pingback: Supporting Friends Friday: Mogadishu Matt – The Portly Politico

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s