What's the deal with War Crimes?

>>1595474
They were in existence a century fucking ago.

The Hague started meeting in the 19th Century.

>>1595486
>when they were not [condemned as rigidly as today]
I admit my own shortcomings. English is not my first language. It is to be said that nowadays the attitude towards abuse towards prisoners or civilians is incredibly strict, something that I don't see as being the case in the past centuries. Am I wrong in my assumptions? Please, correct my ignorance.

It is my reasoning that abuse towards prisoners and civilians of an opposing country become more prevalent the more rooted in ideology the conflict in question is. This may lead to the deduction that the rise of propaganda thanks to the improvements in communication may be assigned as one of the causes of the rise of ideological war crimes during the first half of the 20th century. At the same time, the media can assume the role of "saviours", as giving public attention to these acts makes it easier to see them and condemn them. Are war crimes a media-related phenomenon, then?

there is no such thing as war crimes, the winner takes it all, Stalin killed millions of his own people and USA dropped 2 nukes on a civilian city, and they never got shit about it cause they won, war crimes happen all the time in the conflicts of today's world except some are covered by the media and the ones choosing which one is covered are the ones in power.