War Crimes: War Crimes/Atrocities are More Prevalent in the Modern Era (1 940-Present) than in Prior Periods of History
by
SGMDunn MSG Harris MSGRivera MSG Smith
Haines Research Paper USASMA, Class #55, L-Ol 11
War Crimes: W ar Crimes/Atrocities are More Prevalent in the Modern Era (1940-Present) than in Prior Periods ofHistory
I. Introduction
II. War Crimes of World War II A. The European Theatre 1. German War Crimes 2. Nazi Concentration Camps B. The South Pacific Theatre
ill. War Crimes of the Vietnam Era A. MyLai B. Prisoner of War Camps
IV. War Crimes After the Vietnam Era A. Operation Desert Storm B. Operation Iraqi Freedom C. Possible US War Crimes
V. Counter Argument (War Crimes prior to 1940) A. The Sino-Japanese War 1. The Battle of Shanghai 2. The Nanjing Massacre B. The Southwestern United States 1. The Massacre ofGoliath 2. TheAlamo
VI. Closing 2
War crimes/atrocities are more prevalent in the modem era (1940-present) than in prior
periods of history. War by its very nature is a murderous affair, and is often an extremely dirty
and cold-blooded activity. After all, the goal of war is to kill the enemy, and in doing so, to force
ones will upon another. However, whenever an individual, or a country goes too far and
commits acts so inhumane, indefensible, and outside the rules ofwar, these acts are considered
war crimes. But what is actually considered a war crime?
According to the Geneva Convention: Control Council Law No. 10, a war crime is defined as
"atrocities or offences against persons or property constituting violations ofthe laws or customs
of war, including, but not limited to murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any
other purpose, ofcivilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment ofprisoners
ofwar or persons on the seas, killing ofhostages, plunder ofpublic or private property, wanton destruction ofcities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity"
(Friedman 908).
The belief that there are rules that apply to war is actually an age-old idea that dates back prior to 2,000 B.C. Initially, the rules for war were a series of primarily unwritten traditions and agreements based upon the principles and social norms ofboth that particular period and the participants. The need for specific written rules for war did not take hold in the US until the
1860s. President Lincoln and the War Department recognized the need for a set offormal written rules due to events encountered during the Civil War, among them the South's routine use of guerilla tactics, and their poor treatment ofNorthern prisoners ofwar. The War
Department enlisted Francis Lieber, an immigrant Prussian Napoleonic war veteran turned law professor, working at Columbia University for the task. He created 159 articles to establish 3
General Order No. 100: Instructions for the Government ofArmies ofthe United States in the
Field. Europe followed with several Hague and Geneva Conventions convened over a period of
roughly 80 years. The conventions initially used General Order No. 100 as a basis for their first
articles. The majority of what we know today as the Geneva Conventions came out ofthe Fourth
Hague Convention of 1907. However, formal meetings continued between countries delegates
as new weapons and munitions were developed, or new situations arose (Taylor 366-367).
During World War II the Germans committed numerous, and often horrendous war crimes
against both their own citizens and citizens ofneighboring countries alike. At the end ofthe war these men were held accountable for their part in the rampant commission ofthese crimes at the
Nuremberg Trials of 1945-1949. Over 3,500 people were tried in a world court, in an open
forum. The majority of charges against them were for the mistreatment ofprisoners, or of civilians, in both Germany and the occupied countries. As a result, some 250-death sentences were handed down and carried out (Taylor 370).
Without a doubt the largest crime against humanity, classified as a war crime, was conducted during this period. It was the genocide ofthe Jewish people ofEurope at the hands ofGerman forces. In the name ofGerman supremacy, Hitler and his followers ordered the extermination of over 6 million Jews. This murderous act actually began prior to World War II, and continued all the way up until Victory over Europe was achieved in June of 1945. It was carried out in the streets ofGermany, its neighboring countries, and the numerous concentration camps scattered throughout Eastern Europe where over 1,000 Jews were murdered each day. They were killed by countless methods: from individual and mass shootings, beatings, to large-scale asphyxiation in concentration camp gas chambers. Many also died of starvation and sickness brought about by the primitive and squalid living conditions found in the camps. Countless others were used as 4
human guinea pigs in inhumane scientific experiments perfonned at the hands of Gennan
doctors. Jewish women were raped, or raped and then murdered by Gennan soldiers on a large
scale.
On the Pacific front it was just as grim, and due to the nature ofsome ofthe crimes quite
possibly even more gruesome. From the end ofthe war through 1948, more than 2,800 Japanese
were tried for their part in the commission ofwar crimes (Taylor 370). Some acts were so horrendous that the leaders ofthe conquering nations purposely kept them quiet at the end ofthe war, so as not to inflame world outrage against the Japanese.
These crimes included the well-documented abuse and murders ofboth enemy paws and civilian non-combatants alike by Japanese soldiers. One common war crime was the murder of
POWs, both at camps, and during forced foot marches. Throughout the war the Japanese routinely moved enemy paws by foot from one camp to another. When paws fell out, and either refused to move, or were unable to move, he or she was murdered on the spot, nonnally at the point ofa bayonet (Tanaka 45-59). Due to the poor accounting ofprisoners, an exact number ofpaws lost in the forced marches will never be reached.
However, probably the most outrageous war crime committed in the South Pacific theatre was the incidence ofwidespread cannibalism practiced by many Japanese soldiers. There are numerous accounts ofJapanese soldiers eating their own dead, enemy paws, and Fonnosan workers brought in as construction workers for projects on the islands. Eating the dead to stay alive, due to the lack offood might be understood in a survival situation. However, some
Japanese soldiers routinely kept individuals alive for days while they ate them, literally piece by piece (Tanaka 112-125). 5
The Japanese military also forced many women (both captured and brought in from China)
into prostitution: the women, known as "comfort women" were forced to work in Japanese rest
and recreation areas. As unsettling as this is, the incidence ofrape by the Japanese could not
compare to the large-scale rape practiced by the Germans in Europe against Jewish women.
All in all from 1945-1950, over 10,000 individuals stood trial for their part in the commission
ofwar crimes committed during World War II. The trials continue to this day in Germany,
although they have understandably slowed down considerably. This is primarily due to the fact
that those involved (from both sides) that are still alive are few, and are becoming fewer
everyday.
Another case in point is the period from the early 1960s to mid-1970s, during the Vietnam
"Police Action". The Viet Cong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) troops, and US
soldiers all committed numerous war crimes/atrocities, both against each other, and the
Vietnamese civilian populace during this roughly twelve-year period.
One ofthe most infamous ofthese acts was the My Lai massacre, which took place in March of 1968, where a US Army unit killed almost everyone in a small village in cold blood. The frustration offacing enemy ambushes and booby traps on a daily basis caused many ofthe soldiers in the unit to turn their weapons on the unarmed old men, women, and children ofthe village. According to eyewitness accounts, members ofa platoon of Charlie Company, commanded by Lieutenant William Calley, which was part ofTask Force Barker, ofthe 11 th
Infantry Brigade, killed approximately 500 villagers without cause. The US soldiers executed many villagers on the spot all throughout the village, and at one point lined the remaining villagers up both in a road and in the ditch alongside the road, and shot them at point blank range. They also pillaged the village and burned down the houses. Even more gruesome were 6
their actions hours later, when the wounded villagers' moans and screams were heard coming
from the ditch, several soldiers went back to the area and killed them. These acts were in
complete disregard ofboth basic human rights, and the established Law of War and the Geneva
Conventions of 1949.
These acts were not even directed towards the enemy. These were innocent civilians who
were caught up in the war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the heat ofbattle. Many
years later, three soldiers, Hugh C. Thompson Jr., Lawrence Colburn, and Glenn U. Andreotta
received the Soldiers Medal for their actions at My Lai. The helicopter crew put their helicopter
in between the firing soldiers and the innocent civilians in order to stop the massacre, and then airlifted several of the rescued villagers to a US field hospital. The three stated that the orders received by Charlie Company from their higher were vague at best. LT Calley understood his orders were to kill everyone in the village and its vicinity. During the trial it was substantiated that the orders were weak, unclear, and open to interpretation. Calley was court-martialed and found guilty of pre-meditated murder. He was sentenced to hard labour for the rest ofhis life, discharge from the Army, and forfeiture ofall pay and allowances. However in 1974, then
President Nixon paroled him.
The Americans were not the only ones that committed crimes against the people of South
Vietnam. The VC and NYA were known to retaliate against villages that in their view provided aid to American forces. In many instances they killed the village leaders, and sometimes the entire village in order to make an example ofthem for other Villages. They would also routinely kill all the educated people in a village to include teachers and doctors. They saw them as a threat to their communist rhetoric and its goals. 7
Conditions and actions in the prisoner of war camps in Vietnam also accounted for numerous
Geneva Conventions violations. The 1949 Geneva Conventions are very specific regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war. Article 27 states that "protected persons are entitled, in all
circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious
convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely
treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts ofviolence or threats thereof, and
against insults and public curiosity" (Geneva Convention of 1949). Although the Geneva
Convention of 1949 calls for the decent and humane treatment ofprisoners ofwar, these terms
for the most part did not apply in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were accused ofbrutally torturing
their captives -- beating them with fists, clubs, and rifle butts, flaying them with rubber whips,
and stretching their joints with rope in an effort to uncover information about American military
operations.
American POWs gave the camps names like Alcatraz, the Zoo, Dirty Bird, and the Plantation.
The most infamous and atrocious ofall, the Hoa Lo prison camp was known as the Hanoi Hilton.
Conservatively, close to 500 soldiers were tortured in these camps and in many others located throughout the jungles of both South and North Vietnam. Many prisoners were forced to live in sub-human conditions for many years. Most ofthe men kept in these prison camps were pilots who were captured after being shot down. They were tortured during interrogations, given spoiled food to eat, and denied medical treatment, a requirement under the Geneva Conventions.
Many died in captivity, both from wounds sustained in combat prior to their capture, and at the hands oftheir captors.
Unfortunately as with most wars, rape was a fairly common occurrence during this period also. In one instance, an American military intelligence interrogator of the Army's 196th 8
Infantry Brigade raped a 13-year-old Vietnamese female in August 1967. The accused soldier
was later convicted ofindecent acts with a child and assault. He served seven months and
sixteen days for his crime.
The main difference between war crimes/atrocities in the modem era (1940-present) and
those from prior periods ofhistory may be found in the results ofa recent investigation. The
people conducting the investigation interviewed over 150 honorably discharged soldiers, many
ofwho were highly decorated veterans. They acknowledged their common participation in acts
that could be characterized as atrocities and war crimes. The investigation concluded that their
actions culminated from a combination ofmental anguish, frustration, and more importantly,
from a lack ofleadership: leadership that failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions and the Law
of War. This void contributed to the substantially prevalent amount ofwar crimes committed
during the Vietnam War.
The issue ofwar crimes came to surface in the later half ofthe 19th century, but it was not until the end of World War II that a more comprehensive definition ofwhat constitutes war crimes was developed. The 1950 Charter ofthe Nuremberg Tribunal was one ofthe first to address this issue. Its fundamental premise was that the conduct ofwar in violation of international treaties was a crime against peace. Mistreatment ofprisoners ofwar, killing hostages, plunder ofpublic or private property, and the unprovoked and malicious destruction of cities, towns, or villages was a war crime. Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, deportation, and prosecution based on political, racial or religious grounds.
Another and more recent example ofwar crimes/atrocities can be found in 1991, during
Desert Storm I. When it came to war crimes, Saddam Hussein's reputation preceded him. In the first Gulf War, the Iraqi dictator racked up 16 violations ofthe Law ofWar under The Hague and 9
Geneva Conventions. He and his henchmen in this current war are on a path to break. their old
war-crimes record. So far, Iraqi troops and irregulars loyal to Saddam have among other things:
- abused the flag oftruce by pretending to surrender and then fIring on U.S. Marines
- executed, and likely tortured prisoners of war
- disguised themselves as civilians, and then fIred on U.S. troops
- Iraqi forces systematically carried out grisly acts oftorture against Kuwaiti citizens with the
approval ofthe national leadership in Iraq.
The Iraqis responsible for 1991 war crimes never came directly under Coalition control and
therefore were never brought to trial. There remains, however, no statute oflimitations on these
charges and the Army Judge Advocate General will almost certainly try any wanted individuals captured for alleged war crimes committed in 1991. Since his capture Saddam Hussein has been awaiting trial for his part in the commission of a vast array ofwar crimes. As a 1992 report outlines "there are war crimes for which Saddam Hussein, officials ofthe Ba'ath Party, and his subordinates bear responsibility. However, the principal responsibility rests with Saddam
Hussein". On March 15,2003 the Bush administration identifIed nine Iraqi officials, including
Saddam Hussein and his two sons, who if captured during an American-commanded attack on
Iraq, would be tried for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Many ofthese are either dead or in custody awaiting trial along with Hussein.
The evidence establishes that there were at least two-dozen torture sites in Kuwait City, most ofwhich were located in either police stations or sports facilities. The gruesome evidence confirms torture by amputation of, or injury to various body parts, to include limbs, eyes, tongues, ears, noses, lips and genitalia. Electric shock was applied to sensitive parts ofthe body
(nose, mouth, genitalia). Electric drills were used to penetrate the chest, legs or arms of victims. 10
Invading Iraqi soldiers also allegedly beat Kuwaiti civilians, crushed bones, skulls and disfigured
their faces, according to the catalog ofabuses. Some victims were soaked in acid, and others
were beaten while suspended from ceilings. Axes were also allegedly used in some beatings.
Women taken hostage were often repeatedly raped. Eyewitnesses reported "Iraqis torturing a
woman by making her eat her own flesh as it was cut from her body"(Darwish). Some of the
Kuwaiti accounts have since been challenged as exaggerations designed to whip up international
sympathy for their cause. The charges ofwar crimes were a result ofevidence collected by the
United States Army. Here is the carnage by the numbers:
- a total of 1,082 Kuwaiti civilians were killed
- some 120 babies were left to die after being removed from incubators that were taken to
Iraq
- more than 150 children between the ages of one and 13 were killed "for various reasons"
- fifty-seven mentally ill individuals were killed "simply because oftheir handicap"
- among U.S. military personnel, 21 individuals were captured and held as prisoners ofwar by
Iraq. All of the POWs were victims ofwar crimes committed by Iraq.
After the Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi hospitals recorded a surge in cancer and birth defects.
Hospital statistics from Basra show that in 1988 there were 11 cancer cases per 100,000 people.
By 2001, after schools, homes, and entire neighborhoods were leveled from the air bombings, the number had increased to 116 per 100,000. Breast and lung cancer, and leukemia showed up in all areas contaminated by depleted uranium. Dr. Jawad al-Ali, cancer specialist at the Basra
Training Hospital, noted that, "The only factor that has changed here since the 1991 war is radiation" (Darwish). Thirteen members ofhis staff, all present when the hospital area was bombed, are now cancer patients. 11
The Christian Science Monitor recently sent reporters to Iraq to investigate long-tenn effects
of depleted uranium. Staffwriter Scott Peterson saw children playing on top of a burnt-out tank
near a vegetable stand on the outskirts ofBaghdad, a tank that had been destroyed by annor
piercing shells coated with depleted uranium. Wearing his mask and protective clothing, he
pointed his Geiger counter toward the tank. It registered 1,000 times the nonnal background
radiation. The families who survived the tragic decade of sanctions, even the children who
recently survived the bombing ofBaghdad, may not survive the radiated aftennath ofmilitary
profligacy.
The international dispatches about the U.S. invasion and occupation ofIraq are replete with graphic details about overcrowded hospitals, U.S. cluster bomb shrapnel buried in the flesh of children, babies defonned by U.S. depleted uranium, fanns and markets destroyed by U.S. bombs. They do not make pleasant reading. Some believe that there is mounting evidence from the invasion of Iraq which establishes what many Americans may not want to face: that the highest leaders of our land violated many international agreements relating to the rules ofwar.
They believe that unless we address the purported war crimes ofthe Bush administration we betray our conscience, our country, and our own faith in democracy. The United States is bound by customary law and international laws ofwar: the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the
Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Nuremberg Conventions adopted by the United Nations,
December 11, 1945-all ofwhich set limits beyond which, by common consent, decent peoples will not go. Under the Constitution, all treaties are part ofthe supreme law ofthe land.
Humanitarian law rests on a simple principle: that human rights are measured by one yardstick. Without that principle, all jurisprudence descends into mere piety and power. Nor do violations ofthe laws of war by one belligerent vindicate the war crimes ofanother. Of all the 12
violations of the laws of war by the highest officials ofour country, none is more alarming or
portentous than the widespread, premeditated use ofdepleted uranium in Iraq. Eleven miles
north of the Kuwaiti border on the "Highway ofDeath," disabled tanks, armored personnel
carriers, gutted public vehicles-the mangled metals of Desert Storm-are resting in the desert,
radiating nuclear energy. American soldiers who lived for three months in the toxic wasteland
now suffer from fatigue, joint and muscle pain, and respiratory ailments-a host ofmaladies
often known as the Gulf War Syndrome. Ever since the end of Desert Storm, when the Pentagon
unloaded 350 tons of depleted uranium, American officials have been well aware ofthe health
hazards ofthe residue that is collected from the processing ofnuclear fuel.
Some believe that when President Bush and the Pentagon authorized the use of depleted
uranium for the shock-and-awe campaign against Iraq, the Bush administration not only
committed a war crime against the people ofIraq, it demonstrated reckless disregard for the
health and safety of American troops. Article 23 ofthe Geneva Convention IV is clear and
unambiguous: it is forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons, to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army, to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 explicitly prohibits asphyxiating, poisonous or other gasses, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices. The radiation produced by depleted uranium in battle is a poison, a carcinogenic material that causes birth defects, lung disease, kidney disease, leukemia, breast cancer, lymphoma, bone cancer, and neurological disabilities.
Depleted uranium is much denser than lead and enables u.S. weapons to penetrate steel, a great advantage in modem warfare. However, under the Geneva Conventions, "the means of injuring the enemy are not unlimited. When DU munitions explode, the air is bathed in a [me 13
radioactive dust, which carries on the wind, is easily inhaled, and eventually enters the soil,
pollutes ground water, and enters the food chain. Unexploded casings gradually oxidize,
releasing more uranium into the environment. Handlers ofdepleted uranium in the US are
required to wear masks and protective clothing, a requirement that Iraqi and American soldiers
lacked.
Wartime/atrocities may be more prevalent in the modern era than in prior periods due to the
fact that no government wants to be out smarted by another, or in Hussein's case, a cruel tyrant
will do anything and everything he can to hold onto power. Saddam Hussein was responsible for
untold numbers of war crimes/atrocities committed throughout his reign. He gave orders to use
poisonous gas on both Iranian forces and the Kurds ofhis own country; in these two instances
thousands of people died a horrible death.
Man has advanced modern warfare in the past 60 years to a point where weapons have
become very effective and efficient at killing. It has become an exact science. Nations have created weapons so accurate and capable of destruction to a level ofthat which the world has never seen before. Single weapons oftoday are capable oftotally annihilating tens ofsquare miles of landmass, and rendering it literally unusable for centuries, ifnot millennia. However, these weapons still fall under the control ofman, and a man has to implement them and take responsibility for their use. Oddly enough, these weapons ofmass destruction do not account for the large increase ofwar crimes over prior periods. It is the inhumanity of man himself: the cold, unbending, and often hate-ridden side of his dark nature that would have him mistreat or kill another human being, at times in an almost sadistic manner for his own purpose(s). The history ofthe world is filled with acts ofinhumanity that man has visited upon his fellow man; acts committed by many: men, soldiers, governments, movements, and causes. All carried out for 14
various and numerous reasons, and in the name of many causes. Stalin killed an estimated 20
million of his fellow countrymen around this same period, and Russia was not at war with
anyone, therefore it is not considered a war crime, but what an atrocity. He did it solely in his
quest for total and unopposed supreme power.
The argument can be made, but it is somewhat debateable that war crimes/atrocities are more
prevalent in the mordem area (from 1940-present) than in prior periods ofhistory. There have
been many other wars and battles throughout our planet's history where heinous war crimes and
atrocities were committed by all parties involved. The world has always been violent, and there are numerous instances of war crimes/atrocites prior to 1940.
The Battle of Shanghai (August 1937) is one. It was one ofthe first battles of the Sino
Japanese War, and the first major battle after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Shanghai was a cosmoplitan city at the time and had many foreign investments and assets, including American,
British and Japanese. To Chiang Kai-shek, the Japanese attack on the city would provide an impetus for the United States and the United Kingdom to enter the war on the side ofChina.
Before the attacks, the U.S. and Great Britain had been unwilling to condemn Japan for its encroachments upon China because oftheir similar anti-Soviet Union political agenda. In addition, Chiang understood that the war would affect their investments and would force them to propose a settlement on terms acceptable to China, and that Japan could not sustain herself against America, the greatest economic power, and Great Britain, the greatest colonial power.
To prove that an independent China was inseparable from the continuation ofAmerican and
British interests, Chiang understood that he needed to make the Battle of Shanghai a grand battle in order to raise the stakes even higher. While a Chinese victory would be desirable, defeat would not be so bad either, because it might force the British and the Americans to intervene to 15
prevent China from aligning with the Soviet Union. However, ifthe British and the Americans
did not intervene, then Chiang would have to fight a war ofattrition with its home front moved
into the interior. In addition, the national sentiment geared heavily towards Chinese patriotism
and that further retreat was simply counter-productive to the troops' morale. These formulations
were the basis of Chiang's decision to place his most capable, German-equipped troops to fight
in the battle to draw international attention to China's side (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Although, it was likely that, as with most periods in history, China held the largest army in
the world in terms ofsheer numbers oftroops, compared to the Japanese army, the Chinese army
was poorly trained and equipped. Some Chinese regiments were armed primarily with swords
and hand grenades, and with virtually no anti-tank weaponry whatsoever. The Japanese army
was faced with strong resistance and suffered heavy casualties in the Battle ofShanghai
effectively destroying any possibility of realizing the Japanese proclamation of conquering
China in three months. The battle in Shanghai was bloody as soldiers fought house to house, with both sides pouring into the battlefield to replenish those who fell. Many historians today believe that the situation in Shanghai nurtured the psychological conditions for Japanese soldiers to march on a berserk rampage in Nanjing later on. By mid-November the Japanese finally captured the city with help ofnaval bombardment, but the General Staff Headquarters in Tokyo decided not to expand the war due to heavy casualties incurred and the increasingly low morale ofthe troops. However, on December 1, headquarters ordered the Central China Area Army and the 10th Army to capture Nanjing, the capital ofChina.
The Japanese army contained many army reservist who had families back home that expected them to return home once the campaign in Shanghai was over. As the Japanese troops, already burdened with casualties in Shanghai and the possibility ofbeing mired down in China 16
indefinitely, began projecting their inflamed animosities on Chinese soldiers and civilians
throughout their march to Nanjing, which, according to many historians, was a prelude to the
massive atrocities that would take place later in Nanjing. The Nanjing massacre, took place from
1937-1939 and was perhaps the most brutal event in the Japanese invasion ofChina. It is
estimated that the Japanese army massacred well over 300,000 people (civilians) by the time the
city fell. Oddly enough there is a huge movement that continues to deny that it ever took place,
and that it is simply a lie perpetuated to place the Japanese in a poor light.
The Massacre of Goliath took place in 1836, in the border region along the Texas-Mexico
border. Colonel James Walker Fannin Jr. commanded about 450 volunteers. As they were
withdrawing from Goliad toward Victoria, they were defeated in a battle on Coleto Creek by
General Jose Urrea's force of 1,200 infantry and 700 cavalry. Colonel Fannin surrendered, but
he and 352 ofhis men were marched out on the roads near Goliad and brutally shot down by order of Santa Anna. Actions at the Battle ofthe Alamo might also be considered war crimes, especially ifthe soldiers surrendered, but again in early 1836, Mexican Army General Antonio
Lopez de Santa Anna marched a conscripted army across the Rio Grande river through inclement weather, including a rare snowstorm in the mountain passes, to suppress the new Texas rebellion. San Antonio de Bexar (known today as San Antonio) was one ofhis intermediate objectives; his ultimate objective was to capture the Texas government and restore the rule ofthe central Mexican government over a rebellious territory, as he had over the State of Zacatecas the previous year. Before the battle, Santa Anna ordered that a red flag be raised indicating to the defenders that no quarter would be given. Several defenders not killed in the battle were captured and executed. 17
War crimes/atrocities are not more prevalent in the modem era (from 1940-present) than in prior periods ofhistory. Throughout time our world has seen numerous wars and battles prior to this period where the incidences and number ofwar crimes were just as large and brutal. The world has always been a violent place, and history is full ofnumerous examples of atrocites and inhumane actions visited by one man on another. 18
Works Cited
Darwish, Ade1. "War Crimes: Desert Shie1dlDesert Storm". 2002. www.mideastnews.com
Friedman. Leon, ed. The Law ofWar: A Documentary History. Voll. New York: Random
House, 1972. 2 vols.
Friedman. Leon, ed. The Law of War: A Documentary History. Vol 2. New York: Random
House, 1972. 2 vols.
Geneva Convention of 1949. http://www.worldnetdaily.comlnews/article.asp
Lears, Jackson. "Why the Vietnam War Still Matters" In These Times (October 22,2004)
http://www.inthesetimes.comlsite/mainlprintlI4211
Mahr, Joe. "Ex-Officer May Face Justice for Atrocities" The Toledo Blade (200S). http://
www.toledoblade.comlapps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2004090S/SRTIGERFORCE/4090S041 0
Russell, Bertrand. "Testimony and Questioning" 911 Review Organization (1971).
http://www. 911 review .orglWgetlwww.homeusers.prestel.co.ukllittletonlv121 Odun.html
Tanaka, Yuke, Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1998.
Taylor, Telford. "War Crimes." War, Morality, and the Military Profession. Ed. Malham M.
Wakin, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986. 36S-379.
Wallace L. McKeehan. "Fannin's Fight & The Massacre at La Bahia (Goliad)".
http://www. tamu.edu/ccbnldewitt! goliadframe.html
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. "Nanjing Massacure".
http://en. wikipedia.orglwikilNanjing_Massacre
WWWMemorial Hall ofthe Victims in the Nanjing Massacre (1937-1938).
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hklNanjingMassacreINM.html