The Eastern Edge

Class A "Crimes against Peace"

What is "Class A"?
Well, unlike many seem to think, "A" is not a "ranking"; as in "ABC", with "A" being the highest (or "worst"). In fact Class C crimes are by far the worst on the bad scale.
So, what is it?

Follow up:

In international law, a crime against peace refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.
To put it simply, it is a crime of "aggression"

The definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter.

Well, I guess when it was decided then that aggression is an international crime, it was not retro-active nor applicable to anyone but the losers.
At the time of out break of WWII, all of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands (Dutch), Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy and the U.S. (did I miss anyone?) all held colonies and/or conquered foreign territories (or "protectorates"), which, with the obvious exception of Germany, they all tried to keep after WWII. Some countries like the U.S., acquired new territories after the war. In other words, Western Europe & the U.S. "owned" most of the world.
The British empire alone at one point, peaking in 1922, spanned a quarter of the globe and the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all direct offspring of the British Empire.

Obviously, no one can go back in time and hold everyone in history accountable when accepted ideals change, but while the Tokyo Tribunals were going on and people were being hanged for "aggression", all the European countries were busy trying to take back control of territories they had lost because of Japanese aggression. My question is this;
How the f*ck do you think these territories were acquired by the countries that lost them to Japan in the first place?

Another example is Russia. Germany tried to negotiate a surrender with the western powers near the end just to stop the Russians. Why? Because they didn't want to eat rye bread with herring and drink vodka? No, because the Russian army was brutally raping and pillaging eastern Europe on the way to Berlin. But since Germany invaded them first, and we had to stop beat Germany anyway, I guess it's okay then right?

China, screaming to this day of their victimization at the hands of Japanese aggression, was a victim of British aggression before that and became victims of Mao and his communist party's aggression when they invaded after the war. In fact, the infamous Marco Polo bridge incident was purposely incited by the communist rebels to get Japan and China fighting. Divide and conquer (and Mao did a brilliant job, too). I.e. Aggression for personal gain

The war of aggression waged by Japan in Asia was fought mostly against armies of the colonialists trying to defend what they had taken through aggression. After all, most of Asia was the property of some European power.

You could view the entire pacific war as a bunch of bullies battling it out for the right to the weak kids lunch money. Actually the entire century prior was exactly that on a global scale.

So, tell me; Where's the crime now and who should be held accountable for the whole mess? Japan tried to "play the game" and got their asses handed to them. Does it make them any better or worse than anyone else (The Nazi's being an exception - I agree that they HAD to be stopped)

Let's take a more modern example;

Iraq.

Is that a war of aggression? Who's the bad guy there? Iraq, it turns out, had been abiding by the agreements they made when they got their ass kicked the in the first Gulf War for invading Kuwait. Is the U.S. committing war crimes they will never be tried for?

Palestine & Israel?
Who's the aggressor there? Who are the criminals and who are the good guys? (Same with Lebanon). If I blow myself up with a homemade bomb in a market, or I use a fighter jet to fire a state of the art missile at that market, am I not a terrorist either way? Ain't so easy to judge, is it?

What I am trying to say is;

What the hell is a "crime against peace" anyway!?
Aggression? The guy who farted on the jam-packed Chuo line train this morning was guilty aggression and inciting aggression ‘cause everyone in there, including me, wanted to kick the shit of out of him (judging my the smell, there would have been a lot of shit to kick, too).

What is the significance of a Class A war criminal over a B or C classes, which are classifications for direct atrocities?

What is the big damn deal about the "14 Class A" criminals?
The media always adds "including 14 class A" to nearly every mention of convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni.
Lately there is also the never ending debate on whether these 14 Class A criminals should be removed from the shrine.

That's like taking Israel to task for dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas but making a big deal about the all the noise their jets make when they do it! You're missing the f*cking point!

Which leads me to my topic for Part 3 (or maybe part 2a).
Why the debate on whether to remove the criminals from the shrine or not is completely ignorant and a huge waste of time and taxpayers money.

(The reason may not be what you think)