this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
378 points (98.5% liked)
Avatar: The Last Airbender
1280 readers
6 users here now
A community for all things related to Avatar: The Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, cartoon or live action TV, movies, comics, novels, etc.
Rules:
- Be kind, regardless of nation or tribe
- Credit artist(s) when possible
- Post relevant content
- No spoilers in title, mark spoilers
- No spamming or trolling
- Only relevant posts
- Let people like what they like
- Follow all Lemmy.world rules
Please report any rule violations.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure siege is considered a war crime. Isn't that just standard medieval warfare?
The other nations wouldn't see it that way.
There's no central authority, but it's not a machiavellian free-for-all like medeival Europe. The rest of the world was rather unhappy with the Fire Nation's aggression, even in light if the world's long history of warfare. He would be tried for that, no doubt.
And his reputation/nickname is subtext for crimes he did commit but that the cartoon couldn't spell out.
I mean, that's essentially saying it's a war crime to be in the military during a war. Which is kind of silly to put it like that.
He's Ozai's brother and a general, a leader of the Fire Nation, not just some regular soldier.
A general isn't just some regular conscript, or enlisted soldier.
I mean really the existence of war crimes relies on the existence of treaties between the nations defining what those crimes are. Gonna guess the Fire Nation was not a signatory.
The Nazis weren't signatories to the Nuremberg charter, yet they were judged by it. So there is precedent for judging war crimes without pre-existing law.
I'm also not exactly sure how international law works in a world that only has ~~four~~three countries.
Maybe it's like original sin, and any general in the same army that destroyed 25% of the world's nations, is automatically a war criminal?
No, it's not a war crime that I can find, however we can attribute harm caused to civilians through these actions, such as starvation due to supply lines cut off. So he did some vile shit, had a moment where he realized the error in his ways, then did everything in his power to make things better.
Except there no evidence of starvation in Ba Sing Se. After all, there was so little impact that the citizens could be convinced that there was no war.
As to supply lines, earth benders cannot be locked in by a siege. They can create tunnel networks with a literal wave of the hand.
So you're inventing crimes that didn't exist.
Depends on the culture The Japanese viewed siege tactics as cowardly and armies at the gates would deliver food and supplies to the people in the walls. Ba Sing Se was able to convince it's citizens there wasn't even a war going on, I don't think they were starving or being killed with siege weapons.
Siege warfare of a city is absolutely a war crime.
Additional academic reading on the subject.
The source you provided makes clear that sieges are lawful provided non-combatants aren't affected (so starving civilians, barring humanitarian aid, etc. makes a siege unlawful). Furthermore, it states that sieges where non-combatants are affected were lawful prior to the 20th century.
In the context of ATLA, there's not really enough known about the geopolitics of the world to properly gauge whether or not besieging a city is a war crime. The frequency of sieges in the show (North Pole, Ba Sing Se) can't be used as an argument for their legality since they're undertaken by a state that is known for mistreating prisoners of war, disrespecting geopolitical boundaries, and so on. Regardless, you can't judge the Avatar universe by real world law.
If they were laying siege to a military base, sure.
But they were laying siege to a city.... Maybe you should go read up on the history of siege warfare to get a better understanding of how that impacts civilian populations. Heck, forget medieval times, just look back to the '90s to the Siege of Sarajevo.
Also, prior to this 20th century, there were no Geneva Conventions, and prior to Nuremberg, no international war crime tribunals. So not sure what your point is.
Either way, it's a cartoon world. My entire point was that cartoons shouldn't be held to a standard that must reflect our reality, but that logic must applied equally. Either it reflects our reality, or it doesn't.
You can't say it reflects our reality, but because he was a good guy in the end, that negates his war crimes. That's not how war crimes work.
So, if we're discussing this in terms where the cartoon parallels our reality, then yes, laying siege to a city full of civilians is a war crime, full stop.