Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 4

message: "Nevertheless, the prevalent international legal opinion is that these bombings were not a war crime."
I deleted this part because it is a very PoV and subjective section. If 16,000 innocent victims during the Invasion of Poland was a war crime, then this certainly is. The winner of a war writes history as we all know, and Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View. Both sources are American foundations which are obviously biased. If these are not classified as one of the heaviest war crimes ever committed, we could scrap 90% of the German war crimes article. Salaskan 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted the change, but I support this motion. In fact, the second cited article (Red Cross) does NOT support the statement. While it points out that the general use of nuclear weapons has not been condemned, it does not argue for or against its use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular or against civilians in general as being not a war crime. Accepting that this somehow argues against these incidents as war crimes means arguing that, because tanks and rifles are not condemned to use in wartime, their use against civilians is legal. That is obviously not a viable position. The cite needs to be removed and the sentence rewritten. --Xenopulse 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the first cite is no longer valid (broken link) and furthermore never was objective, as it was supposed to be a link to a John Bolton statement, who is a career politician for the current administration and not an independent legal scholar. I'm taking out the sentence and both cites. --Xenopulse 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, neither of the cites support the sentence as written. The sentence says: "Nevertheless, the prevalent international legal opinion is that these bombings were not a war crime." The first cite is now absent, so I can't check it. But the second cite doesn't say anything about prevalent international legal opinions, in fact, it doesn't mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all, as I explained above. --Xenopulse 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 

message: not are considered as war crimes in USA, but it is from the rest of the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arigato1 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a attributable source to back up that statment? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arigato1, there has been a serious discussion on the topic over the past few days.  However, there has yet to be any documentation brought out from reputable sources that the bombings were a war crime.  You claim that the rest of the world considers this a war crime, so there must be some proof to back up this statement.  Until you can provide some sources, your viewpoint would be considered original research, and the idea itself would be considered a fringe theory.  CodeCarpenter 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities 

message: Have we reached a solution here? Or has everyone lost interest? Parsecboy 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people that were attempting to add the bombings not only did not participate in the discussion, they stopped revrrting once the RfC was sent out.  Based upon the Fringe Theory rule, the bombings are not in the list, and the decsion seems to have been accepted. CodeCarpenter 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Parsecboy 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's going on?

message: :::Referenced from "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11
:::There is evidence that "take no prisoners" became policy amongst American troops in the Pacific theater. At the battle for Okinawa 75,000 Japanese soldiers died, while less than 7,500 were taken prisoner. In 1943 it was noted in a secret intelligence report that "only the promise of ice cream and three days' leave would suffice to induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 181. U.S. troops often regarded the Japanese as sub-human, in much the same way as the Germans regarded the Soviets, leading to similar atrocities.Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 182.
:::It was not uncommon for soldiers to boil the flesh off Japanese skulls and send them home as souvenirs to their sweethearts.Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 181. In May 1944 Life Magazine published a picture of such a souvenir, gazed on by a doting girlfriend. Bearing the autograph of her boyfriend and his friends, it was also inscribed with "...'This is a good Jap – a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.’ Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo."Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 181.
:::Out of 9,100,000 mobilized Japanese troops, only 42,543 were officially recorded as POWs prior to the Japanese capitulation.Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. 164. Killing of prisoners became so common that War psychologist had to device formula for how to treat later feelings of guilt amongst soldiers.Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 181. According to the war correspondent Edgar L. Jones; "We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats . . . finished off the enemy wounded."Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. pg 181. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stor stark7 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the views of a Holocaust denier shouldn't be taken so seriously. Parsecboy 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to delete the paragraph in question.  The article is better off without it. Haber 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing the paragraph. The allegations by one author who apparently has a pretty loose grip on modern history shouldn't be given much weight. Parsecboy 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there going to be any more claims that Ferguson is completely clueless or a holocaust denier or whatever, or can we reinstate the paragraph now?--Stor stark7 Talk 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes more claims.  No thanks to reinstatement. Haber 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Parsecboy 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well? Convince me then, what are your arguments for not including information sourced to a scholarly source? Your private opinions? This is not a democracy, if you have an opinion, put up the sources backing it or get out!--Stor stark7 Talk 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're to spew nothing but insults and revisionism, then you will see your work reverted over and over again with little to no explanation.  I would rather read the sports pages than waste my time reading your sensationalistic cut-and-paste. Haber 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still patiently waiting for you to provide some sort of reasoned or sourced arguments instead of yet more allegations.... Besides reverting sourced material without any reasonable explanation is likely to get you blocked eventually, not that I'd shed any tears over that.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy of killing surrendering soldiers and POWs

message: At the moment these incidents are listed in the article but the article on the Battle of the Bismarck Sea does not investigate the alleged war crime, and the others do not have reliable sources that the incidents were war crimes. If such sources can not be provided with page numbers for books and the names of the people making the allegations they should be removed:
* Battle of the Bismarck Sea- On orders from U.S. Army Air Force General George Kenney, U.S. aircraft strafed and bombed survivors from sunken Japanese warships and transports swimming or floating in the ocean.
* Strafing survivors from the sunken Japanese cruiser Nachi
* Strafing survivors from the sunken Japanese cruiser Kumano in Dasol Bay, Philippines, on November 25, 1944, aircraft from the U.S. carrier Ticonderoga strafed and bombed the survivors of the sunken cruiser as they floated in the water.[citation needed]
* Strafing survivors from the Japanese battleship Yamato and the cruiser Yahagi during Operation Ten-Go.
* Killing survivors from a sunken Japanese transport by Wahoo, January 1943
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok cut them. Haber 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added all of those except for the Wahoo incident.  I assumed that they were war crimes but admit I don't have any cited analyses as to why they should be classified as such.  Therefore, I understand your rationale for removing them. Cla68 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly not warcrimes but in any case violations of the laws and rules of the sea. But as long as they are not clearly identifiable as warcrimes I'd agree that they don't belong into this article.--Caranorn 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unsourced allegations

message: The section that  Stor stark7 wishes to introduce about Niall Ferguson's alleged American war crimes against the Japanese has I think raised several an important issues.
 
Like all crimes, war crimes fall into different categories. Some are only war crimes if the person is caught while still behind enemy lines.  People like  F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas were given their county's highest awards for their gallantry while on a mission which when German agents preformed similar missions against the British, that if caught in Britain resulted in a guilty verdict for spying and an execution unless the agent was useful in the (Double Cross System). Should all Allied agents who parachuted into Europe be listed here?
During World War II the armies of the major parties to the war were conscript armies. So the criminal profile an army was likely to mirror  that of the society from which they came. However two further considerations have to be applied.
*Do most soldiers in most armies commit such a crime? For example petty looting. Taking a bottle of wine is theft and should be paid for, but should every recorded incident of such war crimes be listed in Wikipedia?
*Was the crime part of a systemic failure by the authorities to stop such crimes, (such as the Soviets lack of censure on the mass rapes that took place Germany) or worse still encouraged by the authorities like the Commando Order?
If this page is not to be a list of every petty war crime committed by the Allies then we may need a paragraph explaining this.
Returning to Stor stark7's text: That some most American marines came to see the Japanese as the enemy and less than human is part of the indoctrination that all soldiers conscripted to fight a war are put through. That some of them had a tendency not to want to take prisoners is not surprising given the tenaciousness of the Japanese soldier and their tendency (as the American soldiers rightly or wrongly thought) of some of them not to abide by the laws of war when offering to surrender. But what is important is what was the reaction of the American command system? Did they encourage it or try to stop  breaches of the Geneva Conventions. (Usually authorities encourage the taking of prisoners because of the information they can provide and because as Niall Ferguson pointed out in the Pity of War, taking prisoners is the fastest way to inflicting casualties on the enemy). I see no harm in mentioning that such incidents took place particularly if the paragraph is phrased explicitly to mention that this is from a research paper by Niall Ferguson. But not every insident needs to be listed and for a NPOV paragraph it should also be highlighted that no quarter was not the policy of the US Army. I mention this because the section where this is discussed on this talk page is called "#Policy of killing surrendering soldiers and POWs" which implies it was US policy which is was not. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus