Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1

message: I understand how sensitive topic is but some limits should be set set. If Foiba is included why not Bleiburg massacre? I'd recommend not to add post-war masaacres as they often happen in out of any control situation.
Laconia incident was military operation against submarine trying to save mostly Italian soldiers (on explicit order) and return them back to military service, misusing red cross sign in the process.
The Katyn massacre occured before Soviet Union became Allied power. If anything it was more ally of Germany. So technically it doesn't belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Good point about Katyn, wondered why the link was removed there. The Laconia incident was the start of unrestricted submarine warfare and as far as our article says allied bombers fired in spite of rescuing operations for civilians, so it definitely qualifies for this list. As to Bleiburg, right, had not been sure whether the Yugoslav were allies. There should be something on the rapes and other crimes perpetrated on Germans fleeing to the west when the war ended, but I regard that as a particularly touchy issue. Get-back-world-respect 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seen too many discussions about this topic on soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup and do not really wish to get involved in anything like this here. If you want really /complete/ coverage of facts and counterfacts,  opinions and counter-opinions, you may search though their archives. Pavel Vozenilek 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the Laconia Incident, since it was not a war crime, but a legitimate attack on an enemy submarine that had not surrendered or in the process of surrendering. You can read about it here: http://www.uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=33 It is also incorrect that the Laconia incident was the start of unrestricted submarine warfare.  All it did was bring forth an order on the treatment of survivors from torpedoed ships.  Unrestricted submarine warfare started long before.Andreas 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Both countries joined the Allies several months before the war in Europe ended. Thanks for pointing this out. Get-back-world-respect 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hungary never joined the Allies, you are right about Romania though. Andreas 10:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining the limits of what belongs here 

message: ===Conventional===
This article published on 30-06-1998 in International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 by Javier Guisández Gómez states:
:In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
Unless someone has another source which presents a legal argument which contradicts this one aerial bombardment should not be included in this list. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His article is discussing air warfare, not all warfare.  The Hague Convention covered civilians, but not in the context of bombardment, other than through open cities. See here The Hague Convention also covered the duty of occupiers, in Section III of this link, and it was those duties which German killings of civilians violated.  Therefore your comparison between these two is not valid. Andreas 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "(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 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerial bombardment

message: This article published on 30-06-1998 in International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 by Javier Guisández Gómez states:
:In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
Unless someone has another source which presents a legal argument which contradicts this one aerial bombardment should not be included in this list. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His article is discussing air warfare, not all warfare.  The Hague Convention covered civilians, but not in the context of bombardment, other than through open cities. See here The Hague Convention also covered the duty of occupiers, in Section III of this link, and it was those duties which German killings of civilians violated.  Therefore your comparison between these two is not valid. Andreas 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventional

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 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nuclear

message: I can see little purpose in this page at this time, that could not be serviced by having it as a category (e.g. Allied War Crimes, Alleged and Confirmed).  As the page is it invites parallel discussion to those already going on at the talk pages of the pages linked here. 
I would welcome other opinions on this. Andreas 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I thing it should not be (just) a category. I have just removed a similar list in victor's justice and put in a link to here to keep the muppits happy. It is best that there is one central list otherwise it becomes a game of "wacka rat". --Philip Baird Shearer 01:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Andreas 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The page should provide overview (based on work of historians), including how controversial the topic is even today, and not to became list. Pavel Vozenilek 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't agree with the second part of this.  I think if we have something here on how controversial it is we end up duplicating discussion that ought to be on the talk pages of the respective articles.  That way lies madness. Andreas 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I don't know. The current article gives impression that the crimes are few isolated events, these few events are absolutely black and the rest is pure white. And it misses less documented crimes, like shooting civilians when Red Army had retreated in 1941. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this become a category? 

message: I reverted Ultramarine's changes, because they just contained too many speculative items, and weasel words 'Some have claimed'.  Just because you disagree with someone's action (Warsaw) does not make it a warcrime.  Please try not to use the term too loosely.  Andreas 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take look on Ultramarine page you will see he's, ehm, ... quite problematic user. Several administrative processes has been tried and they obviously didn't help much. The Wikipedia is far from perfect and its major weakness is that a dedicated troll is able to take over articles - he simply wages revert war so long that all normal people leave in disgust. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare me the ad hominem. Why should only some Western crimes be mentioned and not the much larger crimes made by the Communist states? Ultramarine 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see no purpose in having a duplification of the discussion that ought to be conducted on the relevant article talk pages here.  I have therefore removed the references etc. in order to discourage this article from developing into something it should not be.  Please conduct the discussion on the veracity of such claims in the articles linked. Andreas 09:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.Ultramarine 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Please do not use weasel words such as 'some say'.  State clearly who said it, and what, citing sources.  Also, look up the definition of 'Genocide' and see if it fits the bill, and which part of it.  There is no doubt that war crimes were committed by the Red Army in East Prussia in 1944, so those could be included, with a simple link to the relevant article on Wikipedia.  Whether the post-war expulsion of Germans from central European areas of Germany should be included in this page is another matter worth discussing.  Please do so before including it again.  Andreas 13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the statement and included references. Ultramarine 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Prussia 1944-5 

message: German POWs were held in dedicated POW camps.  Only POWs convicted of war crimes were held in the political prisoner system, AFAICT. It is important to preserve this distinction.  Mortality rates were probably higher in the normal POW camps. Andreas 09:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulags 

message: Again, this and the atomic bombs should be discussed in the article, even if only to educate.Ultramarine 08:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied bombing should be discussed

message: The merge is dispited at list of war crimes (see: Talk:List of war crimes)  Please discuss and add comments there.  So far there are only two votes, both nay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrishJew (talk • contribs)  15:18, 6 April 2006  (UTC)
:I have removed merge template as no consensus for the merge has emerged over the last week. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: There were several allied war crimes in the Pacific theater that aren't mentioned here.  I'll try to research and add them later, but, if someone else wants to do it, please feel welcome.  The two that I know of specifically happened at the Battle of the Bismark Sea when the US commander ordered Japanese survivors floating the in ocean to be shot.  The other was at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal when US Marines in small boats shot Japanese survivors floating in the ocean.  There's more, but I won't mention them until I find a reference for them. Cla68 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the war crime committed at the end of the Battle of the Bismark Sea? Were these men Hors de combat? Do you have a source which says that they were? --Philip Baird Shearer 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied War Crimes in the Pacific

message: I changed the phrase "before the involvement of the relevant nation in World War II" because it is incorrect. The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II began with its first act of war, which was the invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939. This was later followed by the attack on Finland on November 30 the same year. The beginning of World War II in Europe is usually defined by Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. The Katyn massacre took place during the spring of 1940. As for references for this interpretation of the events, I will simply refer to the references for the Wikipedia article "World War II". By the way, that article says, in its 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:
::Pursuant to a then-secret provision of its non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union joined with Germany on September 17, 1939, to conquer Poland and to divide Eastern Europe.
::The Allies were initially made up of Poland, British Commonwealth countries, and France.
So the Soviet Union attacked and invaded one of the Allies (Poland), 2 years before Operation Barbarossa after which it joined the Allies. To say that the Soviet Union was not involved in World War II before it joined the Allies is pure revisionism in my eyes. --Shastra 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that the SU was not an Allied country at the time, and that this particular page is about Allied war crimes. Katyn qualifies as much or as little as any other crime committed by the Soviets before they became an allied country. Andreas 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, your phrasing "became part of the allies" is better. Perhaps "Allied war crimes" is too ambiguous as a title? The whole point of this article seems to be to list WWII war crimes that were perpetrated by the powers that in the end won the war, regardless of the status of their alliances at the time of the crime. An observation: the Wikipedia entry "Axis war crimes" is just a redirect to "List of war crimes". Perhaps "Allied war crimes" should simply be merged with that article? --Shastra 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katyn massacre 

message: It's obvious that a catasrophic loss of human lives like the A-bomb should be in here. It should be noted that German and Japan war crimes articles contain un-charged atrocities under the tutelage of war crimes. I wonder if the double standard should prevail any further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.211.80 (talk • contribs).
:This is an article on Allied war crimes, not Allied atricities. Which list of German war crimes are you referring to? I agree that the Japanese war crimes article needs a lot of work (you will find some of my comments on the talk page). I have spent a lot of time editing the List of war crimes putting in references and asking citations for those without references. Are you realy suggesting that this article should be degraded to to match the Japanese war crimes article. Would it not be better to alter the other articles to the same standard as this one? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article include atrocities 

message: Someone here is deleting material in denial without explanation. I am reverting back some of the contributions by Supermarine and Kilimanjaronum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.211.80 (talk • contribs).
I have removed  "Hence the principle was revisited..." Hyprocracy is not a war crime. We are currently discussing this point see above #Axis POWs Held by the Soviets --Philip Baird Shearer 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial Edits 

message: Does the firebombing of Dredsen during WW2 count? There were a ton of civilian deaths (and while I personally see it as collateral damage) which I think would make it a candidate for war crimes. Just thinking outloud... Ghostalker 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dredsen 

message: I see this article once carried NPOV tag.  I do not understand why it was removed.  I have serious objections to the contemporary attempt to confuse specific war crimes with  general acts of war.  Are we really to set the Holocaust alongside the air war as comparable atrocities?  Over 50,000 British airmen alone died in the strategic bombing campaign; and whatever controversy surrounds Harris' general strategy, theirs was a legitimate campaign, an important contribuation towards reducing the German capacity to wage war; or are we to conflate the acts of aircrew with those of concentration camp guards?  The atomic boming of Japan, moreover, saved more lives than it sacrificed, both allied and Japanese.  The wholesale raping carried out against women by Soviet troops in Germany (and elsewhere) could indeed be defined as a war crime, if this could be proved to have emerged from a specific policy directive by the Soviet government, rather than the actions of an army brutalized by four years of savage and murderous warfare.  I am not saying that no crimes were committed on the alied side; but this is an issue in which definitions have to be used, and applied, with a considerable degree of care; otherwise we risk marching down the road of hopeless relativism.
White Guard 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're seriously going to try and rationalize rape?  It's criminal, no matter what the "reason". Michael DoroshTalk 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... "Did the Soviet state sanction mass rape?" Nice question. It's like classic "Are you through with drinking brandy in the mornings?" - You cannot answer this question simply "yes" or "no" especially if you have no habbit to drink it in the first place. Mass rape is very convenient accusation because how it can be proved or disproved? After a mass murder you have corpses and graves. What do you have after "mass rape" - only old wifes fables. Please take in consideration that the estimated figure of 2 million rapes comes from only source - Beevor's book. Interesting fact is that Beevor presenting this figure reffers to  Sander, Helke, and Johr, Barbara (eds), Befreier and Befreite. Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder, Munich, 1992 and in the same book those authors estimate number of rapes commited by Germans in the USSR as high as 10 millions. --Nekto 06:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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: You have also removed the the comparison of the atomic bombings with Operation Downfall, stating "Saving lives and other justifications are only mitigating cirmumstances and as such not relevent to this article". What policy are you refering to? Mitigating circumstances are certainly interesting, and are also so in a court of law.Ultramarine 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above but it is like saying that the Japanese order to kill prisoners of war was a war crime, but other historians have pointed out that it might have helped deter the Allies from launching their invasion of the Japanese homeland. It is not relevent to whether it was a war crime or not. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have only used the Japanese case as an example, because when viewed from an Anglo-American view point, it highlights how pernicious such argument are. For example look at the Japanese court case I have recently added to the text, when considering whether the bombings were a crime or not they looked at the various treaties and customary laws which were relevant at the time. They did not consider if the attacks were justified because more might of died in an invasion, because it was not pertinent to the question if it was a war crime. As in the case of  Karl Doenitz, although the Allies were also using unrestricted submarine warfare, and this caused a reduction in his sentence to nothing for that crime, he was still found guilty of the crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an article about "Allied war crimes" not about justifying such crimes or speculating on what might have been a crime. As I said in the previous section I think you and I should allow a little time for others to express their opinions and see if we can build a consensus on these two different subject. (Stratigic bombing and justifications for committing war crimes) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article called this should discuss the general subject and include all views, as per Wikipedia:NPOV. The alternative cost regarding the atomic bombs was known to Truman and factored into this decision. As such it should be mentioned in a general subject. If you want a list or category that that only lists proven war crimes and nothing else, then you are free to create a list or category for that. This is a general article on the subject.Ultramarine 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said before lets see what others think about adding justifying/mitigating arguments for  committing an alledged crime before adding such text to the page.  So far one person using an IP number which expressed an opinion seemed, like me, to be against it--Philip Baird Shearer 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edit by an anonymous editor, hardly impressing. No excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. I have given sourced, verifiable views.Ultramarine 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am against its placement as an Allied War Crime as well. Lord Hawk 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain.Ultramarine 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is Rummel's view: Ultramarine 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was the lesser of two evils....just think of how many Japanese civilians would have been slaughtered had the invasion taken place. Lord Hawk 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is exactly the view that should be mentioned in the article.Ultramarine 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is the view that Philip Baird Shearer is repeatedly deleting from the article. Here is his latest: .Ultramarine 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomic bombing

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: I have removed:
:Rudolph J. Rummel counts most of the above acts as democide, i.e. murder on the part of a government. He includes area bombings, atomic bombings, and other killings such as those of the Holocaust, the Gulags, and due to forced population transfer in the Soviet Union during this time period. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/QA.V2.HTML
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE3.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
:However, his main thesis is that democratic countries (such as the USA and the United Kingdom) are less likely to engage in democide than non-democratic ones (such as Germany in WWII or URSS).
Because the in the Definition of Democide by R.J. Rummel, from his book Death by Government.
*:I have to again be absolutely clear on this since so much takes place in time of war. War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. That killing explicitly permitted is not democide. Thus, the death of civilians during the bombing of munitions plants in World War II is not democide. Nor is the death of civilians when through navigation or bombing errors, or the malfunction of equipment, bombs land on a school or hospital, unless it is clear that the bombing was carried out recklessly in spite of a high risk to such civilian buildings. Nor is the death of civilians in a bombed village beneath which has been built enemy bunkers. Nor is the death of civilians caught in a cross fire between enemy soldiers, or those civilians killed while willingly helping troops haul supplies or weapons. Seldom is it easy to make these distinctions, but the aim here must be clear. I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle or battle related disease and famine. The former are those victims (which may include the military, as when POWs are massacred) of internationally prohibited war-time killing, what may be called war-crimes or crimes against humanity.
I think we can say that he does explicitly exclude war deaths which occure within the laws of war. and as there were no "international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit[ing]" area bombings, and atomic bombings, the paragraph was incorrect. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democide?