In world war 1, everyone was researching poison gas and it killed a lot of civilians, as a result. They still find mustard gas that has just sat in old trenches and hasn't faded yet. The French used Phosgene which we use in plastic manufacturing as a poison since it is colorless and smells like cut grass to wipe out entire groups of Germans. The Americans, the Russians, everyone was designing them. In terms of war crimes, I would say that world war 1 was when everyone threw conventions and kindness out of the window.
While world war 2 did see 5.5x the amount of civilian death, most of that was caused by one side, while everyone else followed much stricter rules. It wasn't like the first world war where they saw Germany fire chlorine gas then went "Huh, I like this idea, let's make our own!" which didn't happen as much later. This was also everyone breaking a convention that already existed. While a lot of war crimes were committed in world war 2, it wasn't as blatant and done by all sides.
To be a war crime it must be illegal first, and in world war 1 they kind of just walked all over the conventions, which is why they were so serious about them the second time. I am not trying to put the concentration camps down, or any of the other atrocities that the Nazis committed, but I am just thinking in terms of blatant rule-breaking in war. A lot of the people in world war 1 got away with it as well and were never charged for any of their atrocities. I also mentioned flamethrowers, those weren't made illegal in the war until 1978, so I was wrong and they were not illegal, the Winchester 1897 was definitely a war crime already, and America used the shit out of them.
I have just always thought it funny that the first world war gets so little attention when everyone kind of lost their minds a bit and sort of threw out conventions for a while.
With all due respect, but your version of the events is dubious.
"everyone was researching poison gas, and it killed a lot of civilians, as a result. They still find mustard gas that has just sat in old trenches and hasn't faded yet."
Poison gas was never deployed against civilians. It was a pure battlefield weapon due to technical limitations of aviation and the static nature of WWI at the Western front. The Entente never set a foot on Germany proper before the armistice. There simply were mo civilian targets for poison gas.
In general, in terms of civilian victims, WWI, was quite gracious. The vast majority of casualties are attributable to mundane things like hunger, sickness, the British blockade, and some ethnic cleansing in the east, but never to battlefield action.
"The French used Phosgene which we use in plastic manufacturing as a poison since it is colorless and smells like cut grass to wipe out entire groups of Germans. The Americans, the Russians, everyone was designing them. In terms of war crimes, I would say that world war 1 was when everyone threw conventions and kindness out of the window."
The German chemical weapons of WWII makes their predecessors look like jokes. Be glad they were never used.
"While world war 2 did see 5.5x the amount of civilian death, most of that was caused by one side, while everyone else followed much stricter rules. It wasn't like the first world war where they saw Germany fire chlorine gas then went"
Stricter rules? The indiscriminate Allied strategic bombing campaign was a clear war crime by every definition and brought untold devastation over Germany with their systematic dehousing campaign. WWI was nothing in comparison. They also tried out the blockade once again. Didn't work out this time as other nationalities paid the price.
But do you seriously call that stricter rules? Germany claims 720 civilian casualties for WWI, while for WWII, they are estimated 500,000 for the bombing campaign alone. Obviously, this is a testament to following much stricter rules.
"To be a war crime it must be illegal first, and in world war 1 they kind of just walked all over the conventions, which is why they were so serious about them the second time. I am not trying to put the concentration camps down, or any of the other atrocities that the Nazis committed, but I am just thinking in terms of blatant rule-breaking in war. A lot of the people in world war 1 got away with it as well and were never charged for any of their atrocities."
They were no different at all. 99% of the war criminals during WWII. We would have entire armies of criminals if any side was even remotely serious about judging war crimes.
You might know about Kurt Meyer who was judged by a Canadian court to death for the Normandy massacres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne_Abbey_massacre
His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment not in small part to the judge, Major-General Christopher Vokes, who admitted personally in later writing,
"There isn't a general or colonel on the Allied side that I know of who hasn't said, 'Well, this time we don't want any prisoners’."
Of course, such orders were war crimes. Were they ever judged? I doubt so.
Charles B. McDonald, former Army Deputy Chief Historian, was also quite open about it,
"I told him to get out as quickly as he could, “Then move back to the castle and follow us around to the left. You’ll be the support platoon. If you can’t get away soon, we’ll start on up the hill without you. Just leave the Krauts. F company will take care of them.”
We’ve got three prisoners in the basement of a house,” Patton said, “and we have to cross a hundred yards of open field to get back out. We’ll never make it with the prisoners.”
“Roger,” I answered. “Do what you can.”…
Sergeant Patton’s platoon arrived, tired and dusty from the tiring uphill walk from Bendorf-Sayn. The prisoners were not with them.
Company G today committed a war crime. They are going to win the war, however, so I don’t suppose it really matters."
