Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 2

message: See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1#Crimes and Acts of War for earlier discussion on this section.
If you are talking about the 2,000,000 figure then there are other sources besides Beevor available to you, such as Norman M. Naimark whose research reaches the same conclusion as the aforementioned German scholars. "Of particular importance to these relations was the behavior of Red Army soldiers during the initial period of occupation. Naimark's research supports the estimate made by German historians Barbara Johr and Helke Sander that Soviet soldiers raped as many as two million German women between the time their counteroffensive reached German territory and well past the formal end of hostilities." From: HNet review of The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. --Stor stark7 Talk 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the link it is unclear on what basis he supports this particular figure. He just supports them without explanation - why exactly 2,000,000. Of course it is the fact that excesses and violation against civilians did occur as it goes in any acting army. It is well documented in the Soviet archives - all sort of reports, court martial papers etc. Thousands of Soviet soldiers and officeres were prosecuted and a lot of them executed. --Nekto 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes and Acts of War 

message: :See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1#Aerial bombardment.
:See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1#United Kingdom for previous discussion on this section
I have been looking into the accusation of hypocrisy but it does not hold water because the British did not change their policy, from that at the start of the war that broadly complied with the 1922 Hague Rules of Air Warfare, to that of strategic bombing until the day after Rotterdam was Blitzed.  The decision was taken at Cabinet level that the policy would have to be changed because the Germans were clearly not keeping to similar rules of engagement and that the Allies would have to match and surpass them in this area if they were to win the war. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would say that this is hypocritical, in fact. But when a sentence starts with "some would say" then it's time to remove that topic from a wikipedia page. I agree with you on that removal. --Lou Crazy 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: Please don't rollback ten edits at a time. This way you lump edits on controversial paragraphs together with edits which only improve (or at least try to) the overall quality of the text. I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just pointing out a problem.
--Lou Crazy 10:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure 

message: The tag has been explained over and over. The article is named "war crimes" but it contains incidents which are not war crimes. Haber 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this thread is moving quickly, so I thought it necessary to begin this here. Haber, take note that the article mentions that the appellation war crime covers more than those which were charged. It also reads underneath the info box that not all agree that these are war crimes. There is no need to repeat essentially the same information a third time, especially in the form of bright, flashing boxes that scream "hello, here is my point of view"--72.94.202.237 00:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that four. I forgot to include the "disputed" message in parenthesis next to area bombing for both USA and UK. Actually, because it is repeated for each, that makes five.--72.94.202.237 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now go back and count all the bogus claims that don't have (disputed) written next to them. Haber 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that I understand..--72.94.202.237 05:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've introduced a couple of items to the article recently.  In both items that I placed in the article, arguments can be made either way, and probably should be in the article, as to whether they are really war crimes or not.  I'm sure this has been discussed already with reference to this article, but the article title itself is problematic, since it appears to assume that all of the instances mentioned in the article are presumed to be war crimes, when that's not necessarily the case.  Cla68 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Tags

message: Mitsos regarding you use of rvv (reverting vandalism) in the "edit summary" of the article which shows up history of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism
:Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism
and also Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
:Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also assumptions of bad faith. Blocking can be expected in such cases.
--Philip Baird Shearer 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitsos's latest edits appear to blank large sections of the article. --SandyDancer 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rvv

message: In a quick read of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, there does not seem to be the same explicit limitation of the jurisdiction as there is in the London Charter, although "Article 5. Jurisdiction Over Persons and Offenses. The Tribunal shall have the power to try and punish Far Eastern war criminals who as individuals or as members of organizations are charged with offenses which include Crimes against Peace." may do the same thing, if the Tribunal stated that only war crimes committed people who fought for a country which was in breach of crimes against peace could be tried.  I think that an authorative source other an the primary sources is needed to clarify this, and state that Allies could not be tried under the International Military Tribunal(s) for the Far East. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Military Tribunal for the Far East 

message: I know I'll probably get bashed for this, but still... Why on earth is the partisan paramilitary described as "Yugoslav Communist Partisan Forces"? Yes, they were communists, but they were not formaly called the Yugoslav Communist Partisan Forces during the war. So why isn't the Soviet Union desribed as "The Godless Soviet Union", or the US as "The Interferring Yankees"? This smells of POV. I'll follow the examples in the article and change this to simply Yugoslavia. Let's keep a cool head and some distance, it's been 60 years. The crimes speak for themselves, no need to add political agendas to them. TomorrowTime 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia 

message: Within the last day or so two IP editors placed a lot of information in the UK section about the area bombing of German cities.  Earlier discussions on this page, I thought, made it fairly clear that area bombing wasn't against any laws of warfare in existence at that time.  Besides this, most of the new text additions aren't cited.  Delete away. Cla68 07:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it, thanks for pointing it out. MartinDK 10:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitsos reverted it back (twice). As long as he is here I am not... so the best of luck with the article. Life is too damn short for more revert wars. MartinDK 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help out. Cla68 01:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are bombing of German cities