Talk:List of war crimes/Archive 1

message: As suggested by Per, to "Mass Deaths of Civilians"?
Results of deletion debate: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of war crimes. No consensus. Keep. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change? 

message: How about that?
Discusting to see persons systematically trying to forge history and play down the role of United States in relation to any war crimes. Everytime proofs are given comes a Bush- supporter saying information to misplaced or at least missing references. 
Next thing we see is a Bush-supporter to edit the page by saying "removed something" and as the end result is a discusting page with absolutely nothing about current war in Iraq AND not even any notices that the information might be biased, disputed, a result of sabotage.
UK document showing that U.K. Attorney General believed attack was illegal (--> crime against peace)
1) leaked secret Memorandum from Lord Goldsmith, U.K. Attorney General, to the Prime Minister (Mar. 7, 2003), http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf.
US House of representatives report
Showing that at least the democrats have enough proof to call the was illegal. (thus a war crime; war of aggression)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2/webfullreport.htm 
(search for word "illegal" to find hi-lights)
----
I removed the entry on the sanctions in Iraq, not because it isn't a crime but because it isn't a war crime. Feel free to put it under genocide or crimes against humanity or something. DJ Clayworth 21:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change? "War crimes which the US did not commit" 

message: Interesting.  I havent seen a "keep/delete" debate before (newbie).  I was impressed at the quality of comment. 
Turning to the point about, namely the title: 
When this page was put up, my thought was simply - current articles were NPOV insofar as much has been done that will never make it to a trial, but none the less was reasonable to consider as strong or plausible cases".  It wasn't till later I realised I had actually not been sufficiently thoughtful in the title, and that many of these cases were crimes against humanity or genocide, and not in fact (as Clayworth points out) "war crimes".  My intent was a page to cover those cases which were alleged war crime, crime against humanity, international crimes under the Rome Statute or similar, which were silently omitted from the War Crime and Crime against Humanity articles and histories, giving a very distorted POV that these were rare and "never done by us in recent memory". 
I didnt mean this article's title to be so specific as to be just War Crime, and I dont see the need for 3 or 4 "alleged" pages.  Also many incidents really fall under all 3 so a separate reference for each will include much duplication.
Might a more general name change, "Alleged war crime and crime against humanity", or "Alleged war crime, crime against humanity and genocide" be better?
Apologies, I see the information that needs to be there but I'm not sure how best to title it, to achieve the goal. FT2 22:01, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
: (On an aside, as a separate thing, the lack of information prevented objective research and impeded those like myself who were curious and wanted to find out what we or others worldwide might have done and got away with, and how widespread plausible allegations of these crimes might be in fact.  But thats a side-issue, not relevant right now to the question of a better title FT2)
---
Article title:
The article broadly covers "incidents which may be perceived as either War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace, or Crimes against Humanity."
Since many war crimes are also entwined with crime against humanity or crime against peace, should the title be changed to reflect this properly?
"Mass Death and Group Destruction of Civilians"?
FT2 02:55, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
---
:: I think a Title change or an Intro Change are definately in order if we can't change the POV from the 2nd War in Iraq section.  The rest of the article seems to be pretty well established material though.. so it seems like it would be a shame to change the whole article instead of the one section. --DjSamwise 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change

message: During the Vietnam war it is a well established fact that all parties committed war crimes. To list each instance would be impossible. However, the massacre at Hue can in many ways be described as worse than the one at My Lai (which I still belive should be included on this page) because (a) more people were killed and (b) their deaths were very much the result of policy, not a group of soldiers on a shooting spree. The official US position visavi My Lai was (in my opinion) not good. They did not take enough action to punish the perpetrators nor to compensate the surviving victims. The massacre at Hue OTOH was very much the deliberate result of North Vietnamese government policy. To list the (if possible th grade here) lesser crime, but omit the other is a bad idea.
--itpastorn 16:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These kind of massacres actually happened all the time. It's just a matter of which ones had photographers present and got attention. The whole war was a crime in the highest degree. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Hue Massacre 

message: *The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.
*These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.
*In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.
from A Brief History Of The Laws Of War, reference to Laws of war
MGTom  10:00, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
:I suggest that the category for inclusion is changed from after GCI to after the 1907 Hauge Conventions:
::For purpose of selectivity, only war crimes since the customary laws of war were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907 will be included.
:Although there were treaties before those, the 1907 Hague Conventions and later conventions formed the basis for the Nuremberg Trials which have formed the basis of most of the law of war we have today.
:The reason for suggesting this is because although at the moment only the US Civil war in included, there are lots and lots of other late 19th century wars and there will be endless POV over whether killing wounded enemy after a battle (as the Zulus did at Isandlwana British did at Rorke's Drift was or was not a war crime in 1879, because one is looking at what was mainly customary laws between "civilised" (Hague Convention's term not mine) nations until the Hague Conventions --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws of War - When to start? 

message: First of all, the site the anon editor pointed to is seemingly the only site alleging that the death camp allegation is incorrect. So using their own argument against them, their allegation is not to be trusted either.
Second, everyone knows that concentration camps (or for the emotionally-charged - death camps) existed during the Civil War. Conditions were horrible, treatments were inhumane. I'll be looking for this specific death camp allegation, but until then, I don't think we should take the word of one allegation over another... ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  death camp allegations 

message: Soviet War Crimes in Germany during 1945 should also be listed. --Berndd11222 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet War Crimes in 1945 

message: North Korean War Crimes in 1950-51 need to be mentioned. Thousands of innocent civilans were murdered by the North Koreans when they occupied Seoul in 1951.--Berndd11222 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean War Crimes 1950-51 

message: The war crimes in the Biafran should also be mentioned--Berndd11222 23:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biafra 1967-70 

message: The use of poison gas by Egypt in Yemen should be mentioned also--Berndd11222 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yemen 1962-70 

message: The massacre of 1,500 Palestinians in Beirut during the Israeli invasion should be mentioned--Berndd11222 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 1982 

message: with a topic as sensitive as this, it is extra important to cite sources with every statement made. It's just too easy to sneak in unsubstantiated propaganda otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. FT2 (Talk) 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Verifiability

message: Both the IAEA and the WHO have conclusively shown that DU is not a radiological risk, and what toxic effects it does have stem from DU being a heavy metal like lead or tungsten, neither of which it is more toxic than.  WHO studies in the Balkans showed that DU rarely spread a few meters beyond the target it had struck.  Furthermore, Gulf War I veterans that were victims of friendly fire spent over a decade with DU shrapnel embedded in them, with no ill effects.
:That is one view. In fact, DU is fully discussed in the depleted uranium article where it belongs. The relevant material for this article is that the UN has unambiguously stated it potentially breaches multiple international laws, and may be an unlawful weapon. The DU article notes that several organizations not affiliated to the US/UK governments and/or military, do not agree with these findings, and take issue with them. Again the DU article is where that debate belongs. The issue for this article is: a weapon was used which the UN has stated may be unlawful and its use may be a crime against humanity, or a war crime, or similar. That is factual. It has been alleged by some, that this use was a war crime. That is factual. That is all that is relevant for inclusion here. This article makes clear this is a list of allegations and possible cases, not proven cases, and lists why the allegation is made, and links to the DU article for more detail. That is appropriate. FT2 (Talk) 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depleted Uranium Claims Unsubstantiated/Counter-factual 

message: US bombing of retreating troops, in violation of UN declaration, etc, etc Crocodilicus 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So add it, if so :) FT2 (Talk) 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway of Death ought to be added 

message: On the nuclear issue I would point to Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3. See specifically the section International Court of Justice. The ICJ case has 5 judements on the debate about whether the use or threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996 was lawful. It has nothing direct to say on the state of international law in 1945, however it does say that in 1996: "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;". Which suggests there was nothing in customary nor conventional international law in 1945.
See also the UK reservations when agreeing to Protocol I  UK Declaration made upon signature - 12/12/1977 SOURCE: Corrected Letter of 28 January 1998 sent to the Swiss Government by Christopher Hulse, HM Ambassador of the United Kingdom. Link is to the web site Queen's University Belfast
::"(i) That the new rules introduced by the Protocol are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons;".
So the chances that using nuclear weapons was a war cime in 1945 were slim to none. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: INteresting point. During negotiations on the International Criminal Court some nations sought to include use of nuclear weapons as a war crime. In the end it was not specifically included. The argument for including it is that WMDs in general inherently target mass civilian deaths. I'll have a think about the logic and read up on the arguments before making up my mind. AndrewRT 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that you cited stated in the opinion of the ICJ : "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict [i.e. a war crime], and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;" This would appear to go against your argument AndrewRT 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nuclear

message: Would the US/UK firebomings of the cities Tokyo and Dresden be considered war crimes? 24630 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firebombings 

message: *Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Allied war crimes]] into this article 

message: Unless citations can be found that says that this was a war then I think this entry should be removed. If it is to remain then we need citations the was a waging a war of aggression and the murder of civilians took place and were war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As no citations have been added I am removing the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1975-1999: Invasion and occupation of East Timor by Indonesia

message: Some of the stub articles on Japanese germ and chemical warfare units seem to be based on the this source:  JAPANS DARK BACKGROUND 1881-1945. However as this is a blog page by a "Dave K." and does not cite its sources (but does give a bibliography at the bottom). This is not a "reliable and reputable source" as specified in WP:V and WP:RS. some of the Wikipedia articles like Unit 9420 seem to be little more than a cut and past from this article, so they may be deleted at any time for Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
For anyone who wishes to follow up the alleged crimes of these units these are the sources listed in the bibliography by "Dave K.":
*Kempei Tai: The Japanese Secret Service Then and Now by Richard Deacon ()
*Kempeitai: Japan's Dreaded Military Police by Raymond Lamont-Brown (ISBN0-7509-1566-8)
*Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military by Robert B. Edgerton ()
*Shadows Dancing: Japanese Espionage Against the West, 1939-1945 by Tony Matthews ()
*Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II by Yuki Tanaka ()
*Japan's War by Edwin P. Hoyt ()
*Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army by Meirion and Susie Harries ()
*Unit 731 Testimony by Hal Gold ()
*Japan's Secret War by Robert K. Wilcox
*Handbook on Japanese Military Forces by the US War Department ()
*The Encyclopedia of Espionage by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen ()
--Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese germ and chemical warfare units

message: This article had reached the limits for a wikipedia page. I suggest that the entries for the Second Word War is broken out into either one new article list of World War II war crimes, or into two articles Axis war crimes and a merge into Allied war crimes. My preference is for the latter option but does anyone else have a view on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an article like this will always cover a very large number of incidents and I suggest it should only include the briefest sumary of each (maybe a sentence or two) with the details included in a linked main article. As to the second world war would it not be inherently more NPOV to have all the crimes committeed by all sides summarised in one article (even if this then links into other articles for allied war crimes, axis war crimes etc.) AndrewRT 15:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size problem. Suggested move of WWII entries

message: Is there a problem with the word Alleged being used when it has never been officially found but still protesters and what not are bringing something to court? This is not verified as fact.
IN regard to the accusation in the 2nd war in Iraq, The only source that makes the statement that the US has commited the war crime of "Waging a war of aggression" is on Trial. All other citations STAY AWAY from making that claim. Why is then noted as if it is a fact and not an alligation?
Can we get a concensus of the what the material is saying or are you doing your own research to make your own conclusion? --DjSamwise 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegedly

message: Hiya, new info was added to state 
"this analysis, the German Federal Court [4], and the International Commission of Jurists [5] which concluded that the invasion constituted a war of aggression under international law."
This is misleading in that it sounds like the editor is saying that All of those groups agree on the conclusion.. which would be false. The German Federal Court for one purposefully did NOT make that conclusion (according to the citation). The other citations are varyingly political groups with thier own agendas (such as the ICJ and the World Tribunal) there are plenty of activist groups on both sides to make thier own points if we are coming to the point of the legality debate. What information is lacking is ANY governmental stance on the issue. Citation 41 is the only one that comes close to that. 
So my question is.. shall I add in the comment section opposing points of view to counter balance the editors choice of citations? Is that was this thread is for? Or is this a one sided political thread used to compile links of whoever supports the idea that the US's actions were criminal. Please YOU tell ME. Thanks. --DjSamwise 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the citations (because basicaly I agree with you on this one) and just left the link to the article Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think that is sufficient for anyone who wants to read up more on the detail of the  allegations and all the court cases. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that's a great idea. Excellent way to keep this particular article impartial. Thanks. --DjSamwise 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Side note, the opening paragraph says "the reader must make up their own mind from the facts". So why are we linking to non-factual, partisan citations in the first place? Someone  Please edit those non-factual citations out before this turns into a political POV thread. --DjSamwise 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is better discussed in the section #Introduction --Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information misleading

message: At the time of Katyn Massacre the Soviet weren't part of Allies but supported Nazi Germany.
They should have seperate section.
--Molobo 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A none aggression treaty is not the same as supporting Nazi Germany, any more than the Munich Agreement was British support for Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why it is in a separate table listed: "Concurrent with World War II". I think that that is sufficient. Besides one could argue that as the Soviet Union was not at war it could not be a war crime, but lets not go there. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet war crimes 

message: I am allegedly quite tired of all these alleged allegations allegedly found in this article. The alleged tripartite of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV allegedly summarises that alleged events that allegedly current and mainstream historiography allege to be allegedly true should allegedly be be treated as alleged facts despite what an allegedly insignificant albeit allegedly vocal minority allegedly says. Yours allegedly -- Миборовский 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged 

message: As an example of military misguidance, the war in Iraq is the most obvious and easily explainable 'blooper' that any textbook could hope to offer.  As a nation, the United States is supposed to be sound-spectrographing all recorded music with the cooperation of SUNY (State University of New York).  That such intent was communicated and misapplied during telephone call-demand strategies (also known as hazing) cannot be casually ignored during historical compilation activity.   20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting but what does that have to do with a list of warcrimes? :) --DjSamwise 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the military misapplication of the acronymn SUNY as changed to the word 'Sunni' is a warcrime in and of itself.   17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, how many more warcrimes resulted from the collaboration to institute the European
'euro' currency when the US was supposed to be instituting FBI-linked ATMS using 'euro' in the computer programming?  With regard to lists of warcrimes, types of such crimes might need categorical breakdowns according to probable cause.   15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  early detection of military misguidance 

message: bombing civilian targets such as cities is a crime of war isn't it? is it just because those who judged what was war crime during WWII were the winners..? Shame On You 12:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that firebombing Dresden (which was not a strategic nor tactical target) was not a moral crime? Ameise -- chat 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Paul, i know that the US are claiming that they have sacrificed civilian ennemies in order to save their own militarymen and used as a naive argument that the Japanese chief of staff was ready to fight until the very last man just to evade the defeat disgrace, but do you know that Hiroshima bombing is viewed a different way in French schools and in other independent countries as well? Most of the Japanese chief of staff was ready to surrender by august but the US used the bomb as a political weapon to impress the Soviet who were about to invade Japan and claim their part of territory (they didn't released Kouriles Islands -strategic area- yet...). To occupy Japan allowed the US to set military bases in Japan and get an increased geopolitical position in South East Asia to fight its new ennemy, communism. After the end of US occupation over Japan, military bases were left in the archipel and were used as a back base for the anti-communist operation in Korea. Once the Korean war ended the US left bases in Korea too that were later used during the Vietnam war... Saying that doesn't mean I'm telling the Japanese and the German were innocent or not evil (or that communism is a good thing). It's just that war crimes are on both sides and hard to admit for those presenting themselves as zealous teachers of human rights (it includes my own country of course). how can anti-human migration (poors trying their luck to a richer country, as were NA colons themselves...) wall builders could remain credible when giving Human Rights lessons to the Chinese or Russian (etc) regimes -older civilizations- who didn't asked anything? "War crimes are moral crimes" you said, "this generation must do its duty for the country like did the previous generation" said a man who never wore uniform nor was wounded, nor mutilated for his own country. don't you think that sending kids, fathers, husbands, to the slaughter like in battle of Verdun or in the battle of Marne is a moral crime? who is legitimate to define what is morality? are there the preachers, governments, commanding officers, nations, winners, defeated, god or just none of them? Self-defence is an hypocrit argument to justify civilian massacres, i.e. to justify the unjustifiable. Shame On You 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki are not mentioned? 

message: The Soviet annexations of the three Baltic republics, resulting from the decision of Hitler and Stalin to divide eastern Europe into "spheres of influence", resulting in the Soviet annexation of territories on the "other side" of the line, would seem to be war crimes because of diplomatic bullying, interference in the domestic politics of those countries, movement of Soviet armed forces in violation of treaties of "mutal assistance", rigged elections arranged by Soviet political hatchetmen, picked parliaments that voted for annexation to the Soviet Union contrary to no provable desire of the peoples of those countries to surrender their independence, and subsequent deportations and mass killings of persons that the Soviet regime considered untrustworthy. 
--Paul from Michigan 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], and [[Lithuania]], 1940 

message: The armistice began on the November 11th, 1918 when after a revolution in Germany (the Kaiser ran away) the SPD as leading party signed
the conditions.
During the peace conference in Versailles beginning on January 18th, 1919 Germany was not allowed to join the conference or to negotiate with the victors. The Versailles Teaty was completely dictated and the representatives Hermann Müller and Johannes Bell
was literally forced to sign the document (Bad error in "Versailles Treaty": Ebert hasn't signed the document). The "War guilt clause" 231 was necessary to justify reparations; it was simply blaming Germany instead of documenting war crimes (By the way the USA has not ratified the Versailles Treaty).
The allegation of "war of aggression" is completely absurd: The first time this crime occured in international law was during 1928 (!)
in the Briand-Kellog-Pact. So the article must be deleted. Source: DER GROSSE PLOETZ (Encyclopedia of History) 34. edition p.735-737  --136.172.253.189 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can agree on the fact that the clause 231 of the Versailles Treaty is not a clear condemnation of Germany for war crimes during WW1, during the invasion of Belgium and France, the Germans killed several thousands of civilians (5,000 in Belgium alone).  This is quite well documented and would probably be regarded as war crimes according to the Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which was in use at that time, and to the current criteria defining a war crime (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocit%C3%A9s_allemandes, in French sorry). --Lebob-BE 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The atrocities are not mentioned in the PLOETZ, but searching in the Web I found "John N. Horne und Alan Kramer, Hrsg. German Atrocities, 1914. A History of Denial." with a short review of the book. The reason the atrocities are not mentioned in German culture seems to be that the Allies blowed the crimes out of proportion in war propaganda, claiming mass rape of women and cutting off limbs of children and babies. That forced the Germans effectively to go to the other extreme, denying any crime at all and accusing Belgian and French civilians for partisan warfare. According to the book there were indeed war crimes, but the victims were exclusively men who were shot or executed by overnervous, frightened and angry German soldiers (Reason: Belgium defended himself much harder than expected). 129 cities (most infamous Löwen, Andennes, Tamines and Dinant) were badly damaged or destroyed. I look for other sources, but you can insert it as long as I don't find counterevidence. --136.172.253.189 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No German war crime during the First Wold War 

message: Someone has added the 9/11 terrorist attacks into the list of war crimes.  Taking into account the definition of war crimes, I wonder whether the 9/11 event has its place within this list.  I suggest to remove it.  --Lebob-BE 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, I do not think that the 9/11 constitutes a war crime. As such I have removed it from the page, however if one disagrees please elaborate. --Tchakra 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be marked as terrorism, not a war crime. --69.239.175.29 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001 

message: It is necessary to add that Croatian Ustase had a death camp at Jasenovac where they committed war crimes against thousands upon thousands of Serbs, Jews, and gypsies. Stop The Lies 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatian War Crimes During WWII

message: Unfortunately, I was not surprised when I found neither Pforzheim, Kobe, Dresden, Hiroshima nor Nagasaki on this list. I couldn't asked for a more clear evidence that winners write the history. It shouldn't be necessary to the conservative Wikipedians in here that the Axis powers were *not* the only party to do horrible, exaggerated acts of warfare during WW2. It's simply cowardly to defend acts like Dresden just because Germany was the aggressive party in WW2. That is not an excuse for downplaying such acts 60 years later. If a city in US was firebombed during WW2, that would surely be stamped as a war crime. Keep that in mind. --Jambalaya 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Pforzheim, Kobe, Dresden, Hiroshima nor Nagasaki" were war crimes which specific war crime was commited. If for example Dresden was a war crime was the bombing of Covenrty a war crime? As neither are in the list have you considered that it might be because neither was a war crime at the time the attacke took place, and that it is " a more clear evidence that winners write the history"? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think almost wiping out two civilian cities in the course of three days would be considered unnecessary use of force no matter what century, which war or which nations were involved. BTW: Nobody says that the winners *have to* dictate the history. The use of reason should be encouraged in any case. --Jambalaya 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If for example Dresden was a war crime was the bombing of Covenrty a war crime? Twice as many were killed in Dresden compared to the Coventry blitz and maybe more importantly; Germany had practically lost the war when Dresden was blitzed in 1945. --Jambalaya 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for WW2 war crimes?