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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Defining the limits of what belongs here

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)

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)

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)

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)

I deleted the Treznea Masacre from this list. Neither county involved , Hungary and Romania were members of the Allies at the time, nor I believe at any time during the war. Iwalters 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hungary never joined the Allies, you are right about Romania though. Andreas 10:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the wording of your last category, since neither of the alleged war crimes there was illegal at the time, and therefore it is quite logical that they never went to trial. Andreas 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Neutral Point of View and a Clean-up notice to this article, since it seems quite tendencious and often factually incorrect to me. Regards Andreas 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the acts the Germans were charged on in the Nuremberg Trials became crimes retrospectively, right? Therefore, it's not correct to deny that the same kind of acts made by Allies were not crimes. (I also removed a paragraph that looked like vandalism: It contained provocation and was written in very poor English.)

NPOV

I added the NPOV because at the moment the article appears to me to be very much slanted against the Allies. It contains factual inaccuracies, and mixes morally questionable actions (such as the bombing of Dresden) with criminal actions (such as the massacre at Dachau).

It also mixes actions by the Allies during the war with actions by non-Allied nations or formations, e.g. Katyn (which occurred before the Soviet Union became an ally), or the massacres in Yugoslavia.

It is also questionable that unrestricted submarine warfare was a warcrime. Andreas 16:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andreas 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This article would be considerably more neutral if it were renamed. Something is only a war crime if it is investigated and found to be one. Otherwise they could be called massacres, genocides, human rights violations, alleged war crimes or something else.

Strangely this article does not cover genuine Allied war crimes for which people were tried and convicted, including killing prisoners and plenty of other indeniable offences. Maybe write about those and provode a link to another named article about this stuff. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To be a crime it doesn't need to be proved at court. Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, but there are items in this list that definitely were not crimes, under the laws of the time, or were war crimes, but not committed by the Allies. Andreas 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There were no trials, so you cannot say whether they were legal. Many people say they were crimes, so you just added an NPOV tag and POV. Get-back-world-respect 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many people say they were crimes" is irrelevant. If you want to claim they are crimes, I suggest you do the research in the relevant laws of war, which are all available online, and show under which paragraph of the laws of war as in existence then they could be considered crimes that warrant punishment. The logic that something maybe a crime just because it was not prosecuted does not hold. Happy researching. Andreas 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done some more work on it. If you accept the article as it is now, I am happy to withdraw my NPOV objection. It still needs clean-up. I also want to state that I think it is a useful reference, and have no fundamental problem with having such an article. Andreas 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I noted you reverted my last edit on the alleged crimes. I have told you it is up to you to provide the evidence, since you make the claim. We can do this all day, or you can very simply start doing some research. I do not accept your reversion. Andreas 13:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder from the NPOV Page: "How can neutrality be achieved? Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions." Andreas 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the allies were inncoent of war crimes they must have committed many if soviet,germans and japs can rape why can't the Gi's do the same they must have done and it's is now all covered up.pl reply on my talk page.Yousaf465

It is easy to undrestand the difference

Death rates;

U.S. and Commonwealth soldiers held by Germany: 4% German soldiers held by Soviet Union: 15-33%

Aerial bombardment

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)

I don't see how we can have an article of Allied War Crimes if there is no mention of unrestricted aerial bombardment. If there were no convention protecting civilians, are all the German massacres of civilians not to be considered War Crimes? There should at least be an article called "Alleged Allied War Crimes". Or if this cannot fit the definition of War Crime, could they be called "Crimes against Humanity"?

Also, is this article by Javier Guisandez Gomez definitive? The preceding comment was left by 217.196.239.189 on 12:49, 11 July 2006

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)

nuclear

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)

The use of nuclear weapons itself would not have been a war crime, but rather the manner in which they were used. The criminal element lies not in the nature of the weapon but rather the intended effects. In this case, the destruction of two cities and the wholesale slaughter of their inhabitants. This would still have quallified as a war crime if the weapons employed had been knives. The use of nuclear weapons on purely military targets unfortunately may not quallify as a war crime. --John of Patmos 17:47, 12 September 2006 (AEST)

Should this become a category?

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)

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)

Good point. Andreas 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Shooting civilians when Red Army retreated in 1941? Who was shooting who? Could you please specify—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good point.Ultramarine 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Stopping outside Warsaw 1944

The idea that the Red Army's stop outside Warsaw is a warcrime is extremely far-fetched. First I can not think of a single point in the laws of war that would allow it to be seen as such. Secondly, even if we assume that it was Stalin being nefarious, which may well have been the case, then consideration should be made for the fact that in August 1944 the Red Army had just fought a 500km campaign in two different sectors (Belorussia and western Ukraine/eastern Poland), suffering serious losses of men and materiél in the process. It was preparing another full-scale offensive in Romania. It was defending existing bridgeheads across the Vistula against heavy German counter-attacks, and was in the process to cut through to the Baltic sea in a separate operation. It is entirely believable that it was simply not able to cross the Vistula at Warsaw to get involved in a city fight. Andreas 13:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Andreas. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

References supporting this view included.Ultramarine 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem seeing it as questionable, but I would like to know on which law you base the idea that this was a war crime? Please provide a citation for that, with paragraph number and link. Andreas 09:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, not a war crime but still morally despicable.

I would like to point out that the Warsaw uprising was inspired by Armiya Kraiowa (pardon the spelling) which was under the control of Polish government in exile. The Soviets saw them as their enemies, which is not suprising considering the Soviet-Polish War (part of Russian Civil War) and the fact that pre-war Poland had many ties with Nazi Germany (for example, Poland took part in the partition of Czekoslovakia) and had an anti-soviet approach. Also, the Soviet Union had their own version of the polish army, Armiya Ludowa. Even if the RKKA was capable of aiding the rebels, doing so would be a major political blunder for Stalin (politics are cynical, but that's how it works). The Soviet Union lost 600 thousand soldiers liberating Poland, and the last thing Stalin would want is to have an unfriendly state right across the border. He was a dictator; he was not a traitor or an idiot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

East Prussia 1944-5

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)

I have changed the statement and included references. Ultramarine 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gulags

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)

Reverted: 13:42, 14 March 2006 Andreas1968

The items I added had had their footnotes stripped from them and a paragraph was added which said:

This article serves to collect all known references to such war crimes that are available on Wikipedia. It is not intended to be an article in which the veracity or background of these crimes, be they confirmed or alleged, is discussed. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the linked articles.

This goes agains Wikipedia Policy namely: Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

So any additions to this page must be already been published by reliable and reputable sources and those sources must be cited. --00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andreas suggestion above, the references can be found in the appropriate articles linked from this page. Ultramarine 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and in most of the new additions they can not be found. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing a whole book is not good enough it must have page numbers to be a reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will add soon when I have the Black Book available again.. But the statements are supported also by other sources. Note also the references include an excerpt. Ultramarine 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

For example killings of POWs is a war crime, even if the words "war crime" are not explicitly mentioned in the source.Ultramarine 01:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The same with killing civilian population, even if the words "war crime" are not explicitly mentioned in the source. See [1] Ultramarine 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You and I may think it a war crime, but one needs a source which alledges that it is. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from missing page numbers I am not altogether sure if all the sources you have given meet the criteria of reliable and reputable sources. For example the extract by William I. Hitchcock:

• It has at least one distortion and one factual error in it regarding Dresden. "Dresden. This ancient capital of Saxony, once called the Florence of the Elbe for its magnificent baroque architecture, possessed little heavy industry. Following an assault by some eight hundred RAF bombers and 311 American B-17s, the city was swallowed by fire, and over 50,000 people were incinerated". No it did not possess heavy industry but it did possess light industry which in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel (Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945. By Frederick Taylor, page 169). The number killed is at the high end of the range given by other respectable historians, who have specialised in the attack. If this was a reliable and reputable source one would expect him to note the Allied bombing assessments and to list the range of figures on the death toll which other respectable historians who have specialised in the raids have come up with.
• "Russian soldiers were urged on by their commanders to behave as brutally as possible." If they had there would not have been a German alive east of the Elbe. The Zhukov quote which follows his assertion does not say what he says it says. As Beevor points out in Berlin the downfall on Page 409 "in Berlin the feelings of the civilian population were very mixed. While embittered by the looting and rape, they were also astonished and grateful for the Red Army's major efforts to feed them".
• "Some women's bodies were found raped, mutilated, and nailed to barn doors." It may have happened, but this sounds like the crucified Canadian soldier story of World War I. (The crucified Canadian has been studied by several historians and the general conclusion is that it can not be positively verified to credible first hand reports (This is not to say that it did not happen, just that the rumours that it did conveniently dovetailed into Allied propaganda whether the incident was true or not). Niall Ferguson: Pity of War James Hayward:Myths and Legends of the First World War). In the same way if one looks at the Nemmersdorf article it is possible that reports of the atrocity was tainted by Nazi propaganda. Any respectable historian ought to mention this while laying out the known facts [2]

Of the author himself, his biography is available with a review of the book "The Struggle for Europe" from the publisher (Random House) along with some glowing review quotes.[3].

BTW Ultramarine, the Beevor link covers more than just the rape of women in Berlin, and his book "Berlin the downfall" has pages on the atrocities in East of Berlin, before the Battle of Berlin started. But if they are to be used they should be used for specific allegations of war crimes and the book should be referenced with page numbers. It is not good enough or encyclopaedic to say "The Soviets committed war crimes in Eastern Europe" any more than it would be to say "The Germans committed war crimes in Europe" or that the "Western Allies committed war crimes in Western Europe". Specific allegations need to be backed up with reliable and reputable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that many German POWs were killed by the Soviets, despite the sources? Are you denying that that many civilians in some ehtnic groups were killed in the Soviet union as a colletive punishment for allegedly helping the Germans, despite the sources? Are you denying that killing POWs and civilians are war crimes?

Your argument seems to be that the words "war crime" must be mentioned in the source. That is invalid, killing POW's is a war crime even if not explicitly stated. Also, why are you deleting for example the allied bombings? They should be mentioned since many people consider them war crimes and it should be explained why this is wrong. Ultramarine 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

POWs die in captivity, they die of natural causes, of accidents, denial of medical attention, illegal forced labour, starvation, and from murder. That deaths were a result of war crimes has to be explicitly stated in a source, otherwise it is speculation by Wikipedia. I would assume that there are dozens of reliable and reputable sources which say that many POWs were killed by the Soviets and that their killings were a war crime. If it is to be included on this page, then reliable and reputable sources should be used to back up the assertion. In the same way if the assertion that war crimes were committed by American soldiers at Rheinwiesenlager, then a reliable and reputable sources should be used to back up the assertion.

The allied bombings were not war crimes. How do I know that? Two reasons: there were no treaties which bound the antagonists; and no Axis personnel were tried for a such a crime, although Axis personnel were tried for alleged crimes and crimes which the Allies also committed. These were both types those from the customs of law (eg Skorzeny) and treaty obligations (eg Donitz) in which case they were either found not guilty or did not serve a sentence for it. As bombing was not a crime it does not have to be mentioned on this page. It cuts both ways, one would not expect to see Axis bombings included in a list of Axis war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you that the allied bombings were not war crimes at the time. But they should be mentioned since many people consider them war crimes and it should be explained why this is wrong.

As before, your main arguments seems to be that the source must include the words "war crme" and you refuse to accept sources documenting large scale killings of German POWs, like this one [4], just because the words "war crime" are not included. Again, are you denying that this was a war crime? Ultramarine 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself: You and I may think it a war crime, but one needs a source which alledges that it is. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. POWs die in captivity, they die of natural causes, of accidents, attempting to escape, legal execution after a trial, denial of medical attention, illegal forced labour, starvation, and from murder, both by their own side and by soldiers overseeing them. That deaths were a result of war crimes has to be explicitly stated in a source, otherwise it is speculation by Wikipedia to draw the conclusion that the deaths were a result of war crimes.

Further the table source you are providing is by Rummel who is not the least contriversial source one could choose. His numbers on domicide is not necessary the same thing as POWs killed as a result of war crimes.

One could include the quote by Javier Guisández Gómez: In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law,... and a see Aerial area bombardment and international law, but this opens up the article to someone posting a counter POV on a subject over which there is not a legal NPOV, just the echo of Goebbels's Terror Bombing propaganda. I am loath to go down that route because it opens up the article to neo-nazi propaganda and revisionist history. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do not trust Rummel's most probably estimest, you can still look at the numbers from his sources. Here is a source stating that the treatment of POWs violated the Geneva convention.(gendercide). Ultramarine 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is another describing rapes in East Prussia, Hungary, Romania and Croatia and of Russian and Polish women held in concentration camps.(telegraph)

You have still not explained why the article should not explain why for example the allied bombings were not war crimes. According to your logic, Wikipedia should simply delete the article about Holocaust denial.Ultramarine 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine Do you ever read what I write? Your Telegraph reference is to Beevor's book "Berlin the downfall". Did you not read: "BTW Ultramarine, the Beevor link covers more than just the rape of women in Berlin, and his book "Berlin the downfall" has pages on the atrocities in East of Berlin, before the Battle of Berlin started. But if they are to be used they should be used for specific allegations of war crimes and the book should be referenced with page numbers."?

You reference "gendercide" seem to be a blog page. AFAIK the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention (1929), So to make a case that their treatment of POWs was a war crime one is going to have to look at the Japanese treatment of POWs (as they did not sign the treaty either) and see if Axis perpetrators were found guilty of war crimes and if so which ones. That they were war crimes may be covered by the Nuremberg Trial argument that to maltreat prisoners was against the customs of war at that time (see Judgment: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which contains a legal expansion of the customary laws of war, to cover states which had not signed the Hague treaty. This might be a useful guide in this area. However this is a very complicated area and as I have said repeatedly if such allegations are to be included on this page, then reliable and reputable sources should be used to back up the allegations. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Soviets took ferocious revenge on the millions of POWs who fell into their hands during the war. Many were simply executed; most were sent to concentration camps where they died of exposure, starvation, and overwork. German POWs (along with Romanians, Italians, and others) "were [not] treated even remotely in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Thousands froze to death and starved on the march or in unheated cattle trucks, and once in camps they were treated as slave labor. Heat, shelter, and clothing were all inadequate, diseases such as typhus were rampant, and food was so scarce that on occasion cannibalism occurred. In all, at least one million German prisoners died out of the 3,150,000 taken by the Red Army." (S.P. MacKenzie, "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II," The Journal of Modern History, 66: 3 [September 1994], p. 511.)"

See above, if the Soviets were not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, although they behaved in a very nasty way to their prisoners I do not know if they were war crimes. However Judgement:The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and the extension to customary laws which this ruling introduced might have a bearing. The best comparison would be what happened in Japanese war crime trails as Japan was not a signatory of the Geneva Convention on POWs and was very nasty to its POWs as well. BUT this is a highly complicated area of international law and if it is to be included on this page, then reliable and reputable sources should be used to back up the assertion that the deaths of Axis POWs imprisoned by the Soviets were war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A respected newspaper like the Telegraph is a perfectible reliable source.

No it is not "perfectible reliable source" because it is summerising what Beevor writes, It is relying on Beevor's book "Berlin the downfall". Have you read the Gaurdian article which is already in the article and, unlike the Telegraph article, is written by Beevor? As I wrote above "BTW Ultramarine, the Beevor link covers more than just the rape of women in Berlin, and his book "Berlin the downfall" has pages on the atrocities in East of Berlin, before the Battle of Berlin started. But if they are to be used they should be used for specific allegations of war crimes and the book should be referenced with page numbers." --Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not avoid the question. According to your logic, Wikipedia should simply delete the article about Holocaust denial since the concept is based on false information. But this is not Wikipedia's purpose. It should contain all views and if necessary explain why som are incorrect, not simply exclude them. Ultramarine 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As aerial bombardment was not a war crime during World War II. I do not think that Allied arial bombardment should be included in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Millions of German POW

Did not die in Soviet POW camps. The number according to Soviet records is ca. 430,000, IIRC. Andreas 08:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

According to an extensive study done under supervision of G.F.Krivosheev (it can be found in print form or online at http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/ ) the number of Axis POWs that died in Soviet captivity is as follows:

• Wermaht (including not only Germans, but also austrians and other nationalities, present in small numbers, for example, 23136 french were captured)
  • 2 733 739 captured (and reached POW camps)
  • 381 067 died (13.9%)
• European allies of Germany (hungarians, romanians, italians, finns):
  • 752 467 captured
  • 137 753 died (18.3%)
• Japanese Army (mostly japanese by nationality)
  • 640 105 captured
  • 62 069 died (9.7%)
• thus all together:
  • 4 126 311 captured
  • 580 889 died (14%)

however, those numbers speak for those who actually made it to the POW camps. 220 thousand captured former Soviet citizens along with 14100 war criminals were sent to NKVD camps. Thus the Axis (excluding Japan) lost about 57 thousand POWs in transit to POW camps - because of disease and frost. Grand total: at least 637889 axis POW's died in Soviet captivity.

In comparison, out of 4559 thousand of Soviet troops that were captured at least 2.5 million died in German captivity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the numbers! Andreas 09:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another source mentioned earlier in this page:

"In all, at least one million German prisoners died out of the 3,150,000 taken by the Red Army." (S.P. MacKenzie, "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II," The Journal of Modern History, 66: 3 [September 1994], p. 511.)

Also from Matthew White's Historical Atlas of the 20th Century: POW deaths under USSR (Recurring Sources)

Enemy POWs never returned:

• Brzezinski: 1,000,000 total d. (incl. 357,000 Germans, 140,000 Poles)
• Davies: 1,000,000 d.
• Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
  • Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
  • Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
  • Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
  • [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]
• Katyn Massacre (April-May 1940):
  • Dictionary of 20C World History: 14,000 Polish officers systematically killed. 4,500 bodies discovered by Germans.
  • 30 July 2000 Sunday Telegraph [London]: 15,000 k.
  • Paul Johnson: 15,000 -- a third at Katyn, the rest in Sov. conc. camps.
  • Gilbert: 15,000 Polish POWs sent to 3 camps - Starobelsk, Kozelsk, Ostashkov - all killed. 4,400 from Kozelsk killed at Katyn.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Axis POWs Held by the Soviets

The recent addition of:

It should also be noted that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention (1929). This may make it doubtful that the treatment of German POWs, more than a million of which were killed, was a war crime.

It certainly a start on this complicated issue. However I think that several other points need to be added if it is to remain in the article. The first is a sourced range of deaths. Second is it German or Axis POWs? Third is that as the Red Cross commentary on GC 1929 contained at the start of the article says "The Convention does not replace but only completes the provisions of the Hague regulations." so the Judgment: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which contains a legal expansion of the customary laws of war, to cover states which had not signed the Hague treaty becomes important. Hence the need to find a source which discusses Soviet POW treatment against Japanese treatment of their POWs, and some sort of conclusion of Soviet treatment given the crimes the Japanese were found guilty of. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the word "killed" should be replaced by a more accurate "died" since when a POW dies from disease or terrible living conditions, he is not killed. Also, while the condition in which the axis POW's lived in Soviet Union were horrific, those conditions were a product of the war. The Soviet population didn't live very well during that time as well. However, it should be noted, that there were cases when POW's were executed after interogation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all the 'over a million' just appears to be wrong, based on the post above. Secondly, I think it is important to analyse what exactly the crime is here. From my readings dealing with captivity, it appears that while certainly no picknick, Soviet POW camps were not destruction camps, as some people seem to imagine. A certain range of mortality is to be expected over the course of five-ten years, which covers the time many POWs were held after 1945. Additional to that one has to remember that many axis POWs who were taken during the war (e.g. at Stalingrad) were already in a very bad physical condition due to hunger, disease, and in many cases wounds or exposure. This would significantly reduce their chances to survive the wartime conditions of Soviet POW camps. But it does not automatically equal a war crime if they died. This is a very complex problem that has seen far too little proper analysis, in my view. Certainly the initial attempts here were not particularly impressive. Andreas 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Ultramarine at 19:16 on 28 May 2006 added the following:

However, The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected this as a general argument, and held that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding because it articulated general principles of international law that are binding on all nations in a conflict, despite one party's non-ratification of the Convention. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/berga/crimes/legacy.html

I have a problem with this because I know that the Nuremberg Tribunal stated in the Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity that "the Convention Hague 1907 expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter." But I have not seen a reference in the Trials which said that this was also true for the GC 1929. That is not to say that that ruling was not made just that I have not seen it and the reference given does not state where in the Nuremberg Tribunal this statment was made. So I would like another reference which states were, or who, at the Nuremberg Tribunal stated that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding on all nations before it is put back in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW I would have thought that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East would be a better place to look for such a statment; and also Hague IV containd a lot the treatment of POWs, Geneva Convention (1929) built on it. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference provided, there is no requirement that there should be two, or three. Ultramarine 06:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find lots of references that say lots of things on the internet which are not true. What is the evidence that:

The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected the German officers' argument and held that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding because it articulated general principles of international law that are binding on all nations in a conflict, despite one party's non-ratification of the Convention.

applied to the Soviets, because Article 82 of the Geneva Convention (1929) states:

The provisions of the present Convention must be respected by the High Contracting Parties under all circumstances. In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.

Which makes it clear that the Germans were bound by GC1929, because Germany was a signature, but your source does not say that the Soviets were bound by it. As I said above we need to find a source which explains that GC1929 was invoked to find Japanese guards guilty of war crimes, as Japan was also not a signatory to GC1929 that would be much better. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point, but why keep on deleting everything about this and the atomic bombs? Even if not war crmes, many people think they are. Wikipedia should educate.Ultramarine 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll refrain from answering the question for the moment as we can probably find a reference for the former and for the latter we have already discussed that so lets put it on ice and concentrate on Soviet POWs. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.: prisoners of war states:

In 1929 the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was signed by 47 governments. Chief among the nations that did not adhere to the Geneva Convention of 1929 were Japan and the USSR. Japan, however, gave a qualified promise (1942) to abide by the Geneva rules, and the USSR announced (1941) that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907, which did not provide (as does the Geneva Convention) for neutral inspection of prison camps, for the exchange of prisoners’ names, and for correspondence with prisoners.

As search on these two people might throw up some usable references "Tomoyuki Yamashita" and "Yuri Kei". I have just added the transcript of the trial to the Tomoyuki Yamashita page. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the Hague Convention has stipulations regarding POWs, like "They must be humanely treated.". Ultramarine 08:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with that, that is why I mentioned the Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity above. But if that is to be used here, then we ought to find a source which makes the link between the judgement and the Soviets, because otherwise it is original research. As I have said several times it should be able to find a reference to GC1929 used to convict Japanese for POW abuses. Even so we really ought to find a source which makes the link between the treatment of POWs by the Soviets and the Japanese war crime convictions for similar offences. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Allied bombing should be discussed

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

You and I dissagree on this point. I suggest that we run a straw poll on it and see what others think :perhapse then we can build a consensus on it. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am against it. Andreas 20:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added in a section on aerial bombardment, which I thought was very balanced. It stated that some reputable historians have described some Allied Bombing raids as war crimes, but most agree that they do not fit the official definition. I linked the article to relevant wiki articles and websites.

Somone got rid of it and I don't know why. Would it be normal for an encycolpedia not to mention there is some dispute over whether something is a war crime. Is there someone on this page who does not want any discussion of Aerial Bombardment. Looking back over the talk page, it seems there is someone who watches this page to make sure no-one ever even mentions it. What is that about?

I personally don't think, from what I've read, that aerial bombardment fits the definition of a war crime, but acts which killed 600,000 people in Germany alone, most of whom were civilians, is obviously going to attract discussion. seanjw 217.196.239.189 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed your addition. Allied bombing and that some people saw it as a warcrime is discussed at length in the relevant articles. This article serves as a repository for warcrimes committed by Allied forces that were clearly crimes under the rules of war applying, not incidents where one side or the other alleges that a crime was committed, regardless of the rules of war. Including such a discussion here is in my view opening the door to add all sorts of things that someone somewhere thought were a war crime. That is why I am quite against the inclusion of such alleged warcrimes. As you can see from the discussion here, I am not alone in my opinion. Andreas 09:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

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)

Allied War Crimes in the Pacific

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)

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)

Katyn massacre

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)

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)

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)

Quite the opposite, if you look at the article "List of war crimes" you will see I have been quite active in edition it. It is now too large, it is my intention to move the Axis section out into "Axis war crimes" in the near future. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Should the article include atrocities

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) 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

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)

Denial Edits

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) 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

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)

Needs primary references

Some of these references in regard to U.S. actions were written 60+ years after the fact and smack of revisionism. To make the serious charge of "war crimes", more substantial sources must be cited.

Also, it is very debatable whether the atomic bombings were war crimes. Whatever your point of view, you shouldn't just list it and then offer no further insight or argument. Haber 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bombs were added by an IP address on the edit before yours so I have removed it (see higher up this talk page). Which specific accusations and references do you object to? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone clearly has it in for Patton. All three U.S. incidents put words in his mouth and allege that he gave orders which aren't documented. It's impossible for him to defend against these charges because he's dead, and his closest superiors and subordinates are not around either. If there is evidence, it shouldn't come from a book written in 2003 or even the 1980's.

As for the liberation of Dachau and the allegation that a few guards were handed over to the prisoners: world's smallest violin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haber (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Haber 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you know of more World War II American war crimes that need documenting, then the list will not be so weighted agaisnt Patton. As far as I can tell this article does not put words into Patton's mouth. If you think that the articles that are linked here are wrong, I suggest that you take it up on the talk pages of the links. You might like to have a look at list of war crimes as well and see the links given there as I spent some time putting in the links on that page.

As for the Dauchau incident I would direct you to Geneva Convention (1929) Arts 2 and 3, any American soldier who breached those articles, committed a war crime. But again that is an issue to be taken up in the article not here. So unless you have a specific complaint against this article I would like to remove the non-NPOV notice --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to create an article that just points people all over Wikipedia to get content then go right ahead. If you want to fill it with lists of wild rumors absent of any verifiable sources, then I'd call that a waste of time and against the guidelines. The links are bad articles; this is a bad article. If you want to take the time to do some research and back up your politically-motivated accusations, then maybe I'd leave it alone. Five year old books and Nazi memoirs don't count. Haber 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I presume that that is a collective you, but whatever it is I will take it that you are not opposed to me removing the non-NPOV notice. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dredsen

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)

See above #Aerial bombardment --Philip Baird Shearer 06:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Crimes and Acts of War

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)

You're seriously going to try and rationalize rape? It's criminal, no matter what the "reason". Michael Dorosh^Talk 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not rationalising it; it is indeed a crime, one of the worst. But we are talking about a much wider set of issues: the involvement of the state in officially sanctioned action against civilians. Did the Soviet state sanction mass rape? Perhaps it did; I don't know. If it did this was a war crime by anyone's definition. White Guard 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Atomic bombing

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)

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)

This is not an article that lists allied war crimes. An encyclopedic article also mentions the wider discussions, including what may or may not be war crimes, and mitigating circumstances. Which are also disucssed in a court of law. If you want to change another article, discuss that there.Ultramarine 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Again, this is not an article called "List of proven Allied War Crimes". An encyclopedia article discusses the general subject, like what or what might not be war crimes, and also the circumstances. The alternative cost should is certainly interesting.Ultramarine 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia does not decide the "truth" or which POV is correct regarding a subject. It simply lists the various POVs and arguments on this.Ultramarine 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Please explain.Ultramarine 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is Rummel's view: [5]Ultramarine 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

But that is exactly the view that should be mentioned in the article.Ultramarine 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the view that Philip Baird Shearer is repeatedly deleting from the article. Here is his latest: [6].Ultramarine 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

See above #Aerial bombardment. Moved from the article page:

United Kingdom

• Area bombing of German cities, e.g. the bombing of Dresden and of Königsberg (East Prussia). While some consider this to be a war crime[7][8], historians note that there were little protection for civilians in the laws of war at the time, or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted. The RAF Bomber Command managed to divert many German resources which helped win the war.

When Goering, supreme commander of the Luftwaffe, was tried at the Nuremberg trials he was not indited for area bombing, (let alone found guilty of such an alledge war crime), but Doenitz was indited and found guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare even though as the court noted that the allies used similar tactics. AFAIK no one has ever been indited for bombing. Does anyone know of an historian who considers that stratigic bombing during World War II was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then this should be explained on the page, not simply by deleting everything. Ultramarine 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people consider this have been a war crime, so it is a significant view. We should explain why this is wrong. Simply not mentioning it just looks bad.Ultramarine 12:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article along with a source. Besides some consider are weasle words as in "some consider the moon is made of cheese". --Philip Baird Shearer 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Source added for that some consider this to be a war crime. There are many Google hits, so this is a significant view. You can add arguments against it. However, NPOV requre that it should be mentioned.Ultramarine 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The source http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/11/DTel191102.html is unacceptable

1. because it is from David Irving's web site.
2. It is not by an historian or a legal expert.
3. It uses the work of Jörg Friedrich who is to say the least a contriverisal historian to quote from the article on him "Friedrich, formerly considered as a left wing anti-war activist even sometimes described as a Trotskyist, now considered by many as a revisionist historian a label which he has accepted." --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The new source you have provided [9] is not credible when it makes statements like:

More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the center of the city could not be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night.

Any one who states such nonsense against the range of numbers which academic historians use is not a reliable and reputable source --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW a neutral point of view is if a legal expert is presented an expressing a view, (As it is at the start of the article), then a legal expert with a different POV should be provided if one exists, not any old view for some Tom Dick or Mary. In this case it is better to remove the piece unless you can come up with a legal POV which says that strategic bombing was a war crime during world war II. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All significant views should be included. If they are wrong, then this should be explained. Wikipedia has many pages with dubious views, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, or Holocaust denial, and also explain why this is dubious and wrong.Ultramarine 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is already explained in the second paragraph. Until there are some reliable and reputable sources which can be verified as respectable historians or legal opinions, this paragraph should not be included. Even if this section is included the words "or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted, or note that the RAF Bomber Command managed to divert many German resources which helped win the war." as it is irrelevant and is like saying. The Germans committed lots of war crimes "but it did help divert Allied resources away from other tasks which might have helped them win the war"

Until this dispute is resolved (probably with more editors joining in) please respect WP:V

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page.

and gain a consensus on this talk page before including text which there is clearly not a consensus to include at the moment. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided sources for that people think this. This is not an unsourced statement so WP:V does not apply. I am not stating that they are correct. Again, Wikipedia has many pages with dubious views, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, or Holocaust denial, and also explain why this is dubious and wrong.Ultramarine 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources for that some people argue this: [10][11]Ultramarine 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Ultramarine you are fishing in the wrong pool to find a source which is respectable (and not a "running dog" of the Nazis), you are going to have to find one which says that the V2 bombing of London was a war crime, (Because as there was no pilot, it was not an assult, so notice of the bombardment should have been given under Art. 26 of the Hague Conventions on land warfare) and from that see if they argue that all stratigic bombing was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. You are not allowed to exlude a significant view because you disagree. You may add arguments against it, but not simply delete it.Ultramarine 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You may think that Jörg Friedrich and others are wrong. But again, Wikipedia:NPOV prohibits you from simply deleting. Discuss, do not simply delete POVs you dislike.Ultramarine 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether I thing they are right or wrong. It is whether the sources you have included are reliable and reputable sources and I do not think that they are. As I said above I think we should wait for some other editors to add their opinions on this so we can build a consensus on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given sources showing that some people think this. I am not claiming that they are correct. This is not an article called "The definitive list of proven Allied War Crimes". NPOV requires all views to be included. Wikipedia does not aim to declare one particular POV to be the truth and exclude all others.Ultramarine 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest revert continues the violations of NPOV: [12].Ultramarine 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered, but continues violating NPOV: [13]Ultramarine 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't hide behing NPOV....you seem to being using the NPOV statement to justify the spread of your POV statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.47.76 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires the inclusion of all verifiable views. Verifiable sources have been given.Ultramarine 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."Ultramarine 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I said above:

It is not whether I thing they [The sourcecs] are right or wrong. It is whether the sources you have included are reliable and reputable sources and I do not think that they are. ...

See the reasons why they are not reliable sources given above above --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They are reliable sources for that some persons have this view. Again, "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own."Ultramarine 13:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why the view of Jörg Friedrich should be excluded? You have given you personal opinion that he is not reliable. But a personal opinion is not enough in Wikipedia. His book have been widely read. As such, it is a significant view, even if you would give opposing views by other historians, which you have not.Ultramarine 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then find a reliable and reputable source which quotes him or cites him. The two sources you have given are not reputable source. If you find one then we can write Jörg Friedric states that it was a war crime "because it violated the following international treaties ..." or "but gives no reasons for this statment". --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you dislike the previous source, here is another: "In his book, Friedrich argues that the RAF's relentless campaign against Germany during the final months of the war served no military purpose. Instead, he says that Winston Churchill's decision to drop more bombs on a shattered Germany between January and May 1945, most of them on small German towns of little strategic value, was a war crime."[14]

"This view is confirmed by the speech of the British Prime Minister before the House of Commons in 1938 in which he said that any such bombing was an "undoubted violation of international law." Shortly after, the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution affirming that such bombing was illegal.

3. Was this illegality known before the fact by the perpetrators? Yes, by the statements of the British Prime Minister, and as shown by Anglo-American protests to Japan over its bombing in China. For example, in 1937, the American State Department protested to Japan about its bombing of Chinese cities, "[A]ny general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity." In 1938, the United States protested again (also protesting bombing of cities in the Spanish Civil War) and now called such bombing "barbarous." The protest continued: "Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of human conduct which have been developed as an essential part of modern civilization." Surely, something must appear morally wrong if Anglo-American leaders officially characterize Japanese bombing in China as barbaric, inhumane, and criminal (in violation of international law, as later officially adopted by the League of Nations), but which bombing is not so when the Americans and British do precisely the same thing. And even much worse (e.g., the atomic and fire bombing)."[15]

If you disagree, give a relible, verifiable source that disagree, not your personal opinion.Ultramarine 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the first source. Ultramarine look at the entry for the A bomb, which I added which in includes a reputable source for a Japanese court case finding it was a war crime. I have nothing against a well argued position that "such and such said it was a war crime". But the second one you have mentioned is disingenuous the Prime Minster was Neville "could do business with Herr Hitler" Chamberlain of whom Churchill said "He looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drain pipe". --Philip Baird Shearer 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point the League of Nations resoultion was not binding, (As is detailed in Area_bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law):

..In response to a League of Nations declaration against bombardment from the air, a draft convention in Amsterdam of 1938 would have provided specific definitions of what constituted a "undefended" town, excessive civilian casualties and appropriate warning. This draft convention makes the standard of being undefended quite high - any military units or anti-aircraft within the radius qualifies a town as defended. This convention, like the 1923 draft, was not ratified, nor even close to being ratified, when hostilities broke out in Europe. While the two conventions offer a guideline to what the belligerent powers were considering before the war, neither document was legally binding.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an unfortunate tendency to think that you alone can decide what is a reliable person or a reliable source. Regardless of what one thinks of Chamberlain, he was the Prime Minister, and it is not possible to pretend that he did not exit. I find Rummel's argument regarding the moral hypocrisy by both the UK and the US fascinating. Ultramarine 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think for the British it was not so much hypocrisy, (Although the French have long said perfidious Albion) but in part the base motive of revenge "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind" (Bomber Harris) --Philip Baird Shearer 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UDT)

Again, I have given a good source for this view. You have only, again, given your personal opinion. The Harris quote is irrelevant for Allied hypocrisy.Ultramarine 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest Wikipedia:NPOV violation: [16]. Sourced, significant views deleted.Ultramarine 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this debate deeply depressing-an attempt to confuse the moral issues at stake by appeals to neutrality and pseudo scholarship. 'Base motive of revenge', 'Perfidious Albion'-oh yes, of course, absolutely correct. The German bombing of London was an accident? How could any reasonable person have any other view? I supose I should make my own POV absolutely plain (and my perfidious feelings of revenge)-both the air war on Germany and the atomic boming of Japan were essential acts of war. Now, please tell me the Holocaust was an essential act of war; please tell me that allied air crew were the equivalent of the SS, and that Sir Arthur Harris is the British counter-part of Heinrich Himmler. What we can see here is the moral cancer that still eats away, after all these years, in the German soul, translated into an attempt to equate their self-induced suffering with the fate of the European Jews. I will never, ever accept this article for anything other than what it truly is: neo-Nazi intellectual obfuscation. You can keep Jorg Friedrich and, quite frankly, you can have David Irving as a free gift-you deserve him. White Guard 22:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia:NPOV demands the inclusion of all views on subject. You can disagree with Friedrich and Irving, but then you should explain why in the text. Simply deleting their views is not allowed. Furthermore, this will only increase the support for Neo-Nazis and so on who can simply state that their opponents have no arguments. Explain in the article why a position is wrong, deleting simply looks like you have no arguments and is trying to hide something.Ultramarine 22:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of this article: I have deleted nothing and added nothing. I have merely used this page to record my contempt, and I will never accept this as anything more than the malicious propaganda it clearly is; or, what is infinitely worse, an attempt to blur the issues. Tell me, does the page on the Holocaust give equal weight-as opposed to a passing mention-to those who would argue that it is all a fabrication? I think not. Can you not see the dangers in the contention that all views are worthy of inclusion? That, quite frankly, is the road to perdition. While I can clearly challenge the view that the Holocaust never happened by appeals to evidence-for those who are open to such appeals-I cannot counter the view that the bombing offensive was a 'war crime' because it is not an empirical observation but a political preconception. As such it is, in my view, as perfidious in its own way as the contention that Auschwitz 'was only a factory.' White Guard 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC) White Guard 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia has a long article on Holocaust denial and detailed counter-arguments. This is the correct response, following Wikipedia policy and giving counter-arguments. The same should apply here. Again, deleting this only gives the impression that there are no counter-arguments and there is something to hide. It is obviously possible both to discuss if it was a war crime according to the laws at the time and also the moral justifications.Ultramarine 00:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, I have deleted nothing. White Guard 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Hypocrisy may not be a virtue but it is not a war crime. The Allies can be accused of many other vices but they are not pertinent to a war crimes page. This article should remain focused on war crimes and accusations of war crimes, and as the article quoted in the introduction says "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,..."

2) None of David Irving historical facts can be trusted, so we should not include him as a source. Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge says (see http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans006.asp) this about Irving:

Parg 10: Irving’s claim to be a scrupulous historian is completely bogus.

Parg 21: Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

For easy reference for anyone reading this discussion I (PBS) think that the entry for the UK should read:

• In his book "Fire Sites" published in 2003, a controversial German historian Jörg Friedrich, who acknowledges that he is a revisionist, "claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime."

While Ultramarine thinks it should read:

• Area bombing of German cities, e.g. the bombing of Dresden and of Königsberg (East Prussia). In his book "Fire Sites" published in 2003, a controversial German historian Jörg Friedrich, who acknowledges that he is a revisionist, "claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime." Other historians note that there were little protection for civilians in the laws of war at the time, or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted. No Axis official or officer was charged for war crimes for similar actions, like the Blitz. The RAF Bomber Command managed to divert many German resources which helped win the war. The allies has however been accused of hypocrisy since they condemned similar bombings during Spanish Civil War and by Japan in China before WWII.[17]

IMHO the problem with Ultramarine entry is:

1. Jörg Friedrich is not claiming that area bombing was a war crime only that Churchill’s decision to bomb in 1945 was. So a source is needed that all area bombardment was a war crime.
2. The sentence Other historians note that there were little protection for civilians in the laws of war at the time, or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted. is not sourced.
3. The sentence No Axis official or officer was charged for war crimes for similar actions, like the Blitz. has not source and although I think it is correct it is very hard to prove and as such is original research.
4. The sentence The RAF Bomber Command managed to divert many German resources which helped win the war. can not be used as a justification for an alleged war crime
   1. because it is like saying that the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane helped to pacify France.
   2. The alleged war crime is about Churchill’s decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945, which has little to do with diverting German resources which helped win the war. It was earlier in the war, but the point Jörg Friedrich is making is that he does not think this was true by 1945.
   3. and anyway there are lots of other arguments as to why the Allied bomber offensives were effective so why pick this specific one?
5. The Allies has however been accused of hypocrisy.... This has nothing to do with if Area bombardment was a war crime. Also there is the legal argument that if tactics in war become common place for all sides and if there is no breach of a writen convention/treaty, then common usage makes it legal under customary practive ("If international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited" (The Air Force Law Review Volume 56 2005 (PDF) Page 57/58)). So even if before World War II there was a custom not to use the tactics of Area Bombardment, but the end of World war II the custom was that these tactics were customary practice and so not a breach of the Laws of War. In this case the Allies' position is not hypocritical.

Now we can load up the paragraph with lots of further text to NPOV each sentence, but I see little use in doing this, as the kernel of the the argument is adequately expressed in my initial version of the entry "In his book "Fire Sites"..." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 1,2,3 I will shortly add numerous sources. Regarding the argument about allied hypocrisy, that is invalid since it is hypocrisy to criticze someone for something that you do yourself. Generally regarding 4 and 5, this is a question of what should be discussed in the article. Philip Baird Shearer seems to think that this should be a list of proven allied war crimes and absolutely nothing else. I disagree, obviously an encyclopedic article should also deal with the moral issues, justifications, alternative costs, and so on. These things would also be valid in a court of law as mitigating circumstances.Ultramarine 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest addition:

United Kingdom

• Area bombing of German cities, e.g. the bombing of Dresden and of Königsberg (East Prussia). The controversial German historian Jörg Friedrich, who acknowledges that he is a revisionist, "claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime." He states that "Civilian deaths were not collateral damage but rather the object of the exercise." and he criticzes the "Allied policy of seeking to break German morale through bombing". Other historians note that there were little protection for civilians in the laws of war at the time, or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted, stating that the primary aim was to reduce the industrial capacity of Germany. No Axis official or officer was charged for war crimes for similar actions. For example, there was no mention of the Blitz in the Nuremberg judgement of Luftwaffe commander Herman Goering.[18] The RAF Bomber Command managed to divert many German resources which helped win the war. Also there is the legal argument that if tactics in war become common place for all sides and if there is no breach of a writen convention/treaty, then common usage makes it legal under customary practive ("If international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited" (The Air Force Law Review Volume 56 2005 (PDF) Page 57/58)). The allies have however been accused of hypocrisy since they condemned similar bombings during Spanish Civil War and by Japan in China before WWII.[19]Ultramarine 13:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

POV tag

Please write here why the tag should stay. Mitsos 11:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section headed 'Crimes and Acts of War' above. Move it down here, if you wish. My main point is that I do not accept the Allied strategic bombing offensive-including the atomic bombing of Japan-as a 'War Crime', and I believe the sources who make such a claim to be politically suspect. White Guard 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean the sources are politicaly suspect??? Give me a break Whie Guard! Do you consider the atomic bombings of Japanese cities as "genuine acts of war"????? 600.000 civilians died!!! Was Guernica a "genuine act of war" too? There is a definition for what can be considered as a war crime, and the atomic bombings as well as the bombing of Dresden were war crimes. Mitsos 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they weren't, but I supposed that depends on your POV. Yours is obvious.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hundrends of thousands of people died. It's not up to you to decide what is a war crime, there is the international law for that. Mitsos 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands; no, millions of people die in war; it's a sad fact of life. The strategic bombing campaign was, as I have said, a legitimate act, and some 50000 British airmen alone died in commission of their duty. I will not, under any circumstances, accept German revisionism on this question, or see these brave men somehow conflated with the cowards who worked in concentration camps. And as for the atomic bombing, horrible as it was, it brought the war in the east to an immediate halt. Just imagine how many would have died, both allied and Japanese, if the Japanese home islands had been invaded? You might care to examine, if you care to look at this issue objectively, the cost in human lives for the battles of Saipan and Okinawa. Many Japanes civilians committed suicide rather than surrender, because they were terrified by the tales told by their leaders what would happen if the Americans caught them. You have a distinct and clearly articulated POV: I have a series of objections. I continue to dispute the biased content of this article and, I believe, have the right to make my objections known. I will not have them washed away. White Guard 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know, those 50000 British airmen who died like "heroes" according to you, were trying to bomb populated areas and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Heroes were those who died trying to stop them, not them. There were American and Russian "cowards" too, who worked in the Allied concetration camps. About the atomic bombings, you said: "Just imagine how many would have died, both allied and Japanese, if the Japanese home islands had been invaded?". Yes, many would have died, but they would have died in the battlefield while defending their homeland, not as a result of bombings and radiation. My point is: When someone dies in the battlefield, it's a sad fact of life. When somebody who is unarmed is shot, or dies as a result of mass bombings and radiation, or his life ends at a concetration camp like Auschwitz, then it's a war crime. I 'm not a revisionist. Thousands of Greek people were kiled by the Germans during the Axis Occupation of Greece during WWII. I 'm just saying that war crimes were commited not only by Germany, but also by the Allies. Mitsos 10:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Many, almost certainly many more than died at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, would have been killed, not on 'the battlefield', as you put it, if the Allies had been forced to invade the Japanese home islands, but as the incidental casualties of war. You obviously have completely failed to understand the point I was making about Okinawa and Saipan. It is also certain that many more Allied prisoners, clinging on to life in Japanese camps, would have died. It is impossible to separate military and civilian casualties in modern warfare. That is the chief lesson of WWII. Please try to think rationally and read again what I have written: I said that British airmen died not 'like heroes', but in commission of their duty-they were heroes, but that is my POV. The air offensive was a legitimate attack on the German capacity to wage a war which, incidentally, they started. Allied concentration camps? You mean like Auschwitz? I do not mean to be unkind, but you seem to have the kind of revisionist perspective on the past the totters on the edge of a moral abyss, where one set of 'crimes' is simply cancelled out by another. However, I should make my position clear. I am not saying that no war crimes were committed on the Allied side; but I am saying that the bombing offensive was an act of war-horrible as that is-with none of the gratuity of true crimes. I am sorry you cannot understand that. White Guard 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with White Guard. This article is a pile of crap. Ideally, people would ignore it, but for those who don't we need the POV tag. Haber 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"The air offensive was a legitimate attack on the German capacity to wage a war which, incidentally, they started." Killing unarmed civilians is not "legitimate" as you say. Yes, Germany started the war. So what? Does that means they should have been bombed? And because you are probably British, do you think that the bombing of Coventry was legitimate??? Again, I 'm not a revisionist. That was a personal attack. Mitsos 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What other response could Britain have made at the time? Killing of German civilians was not the primary aim of the British and allied air offensives, regrettable but inevitable.. Winning a just war against tyranny was. Do you think Britain should have just accepted defeat lest it kill a German civilian? Get a grip and thank those bomber pilots for your right to even discuss this. --LiamE 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get this far. All I 'm saying is that British and American pilots bombed German cities and killed unarmed civilians. This, under the international law, is a war crime. Mitsos 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard the term "the lesser of two evils"? Mechanised genocide on an unprecedented and unsurpassed scale on the one hand, some civilian deaths on the other. The only crime would have been letting the war continue for a moment longer than the allies were able to bring it to an end. --LiamE 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is the talk page of Alied war crimes during WWII. We are talking about the Allied war crimes, not the German ones. We are talking about a POV tag that should be removed, because the events that are being described in the article were war crimes and not "legitimate acts of war". Mitsos 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The lot of you editors expressing yourself in the matter might just benefit from a bit broader outlook and a bit less "black & whitishness". As a reserve NCO & history student, I strongly appreciate the deeds of Finnish veterans during WWII. At the same time I can understand those that resent the systematic targetting of say field kitchens during the Russo-Finnish war, leaving a great deal of Soviets starving and dying because their own logistics were ruined. I can imagine many would consider that very brutal. Yet, such brutish behaviour is within the accepted limits of war (those Soviets that surrendered were treated well), while later actions such as the handing over of POW political commissars to German forces are much more controversial.

My point is, the article as of now clearly state that "Not all of these are agreed to be war crimes". And that's it. If one start with saying that "the bombs over Hiroshima & Nagasaki were good things" it'll end with another saying that "Hitler's actions were actually quite well meant, all the feller wanted to do was to secure lebensraum for his people". No matter what principles or thought systems one side has in a war, the deciding factor for one's record is if the blood on one's shining armour is from civilians or legal combatants. While accusations of allied war crimes are disputed & controversial, I can't see why they can't be brought up (where else? Or should such accusations be omitted completely as some seem to want). Regardless of "extenuating circumstances" for some (disputed) allied undertakings.

In the case of British airmen (which seems to be the hottest issue), I don't see how the article puts a finger of blame on them, rather present critism on the strategy & political decision of air bombing (and at the same time provide heavy rebuttal). In the hopes of cooling down, Scoo 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Several times now I have put a POV tag on this article because I at least do not accept the accuracy, the interpretation or the content of this article. I have given clear reasons why the tag has to remain, but it has been removed nontheless. It seems to me that there is a sustained attempt to say that my objections somehow do not matter. I am new to Wikipedia, but this must surely constitute a clear breach of usage and protocol. I insist that my objection remains. And if you seriously want an answer to the above question instead of a hysterical outburst, yes, the bombing of Coventry was a legitimate act of war. I regret that you consider the revisionist label as an 'attack'. It is a descriptive term, no more than that. And with reference to the above point I will not accept, under any circumstances, that the strategic bombing offensive was wrong, or that the conduct of British-or American-airmen should even be included as a possible war crime. You must see from Mitsos' contributions the deep intellectual confusion such a claim inevitably causesWhite Guard 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Scoo gave a very clear response. Anyway, I don't want to discuss if the strategic bombing offensive was "wrong" or "right". I 'm saying that it was a War Crime, not according to your POV, but according to the international law. If cannot understand this that's your problem. Mitsos 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't label my rant as very clear ;) Anyway, could a possible way out of this rather unproductive dispute be to alter the article by dividing it in clearly proven(or equivalent) war crimes and alleged ones (while that might also invite anons and the like that might flood that section of the article). Some editorial cleanup (layout, line breaks etc.) might be needed too. Scoo 11:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No division, a list of alledged anything on Wikipedia is unmanagable. It is better that the specific source for the allegation is given and included in the article so that the reader is free to make up his or her own mind, or read the linked articles for more informaion. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what White Guard is doing is pretty much a compromise to begin with. He's leaving all the B.S. and merely slapping a POV tag on it. What this article really needs is to be blanked, or have someone far more patient than me go through and challenge every section individually. Haber 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I 'm not going to discuss with people who consider the article "a pile of crap". I guess this article insults you personaly, because you are probably jewish or something. I cannot justify your hysteria ("What this article really needs is to be blanked") else. However that's your problem. Mitsos 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer actually did blanked some parts of the article. No, that's not what the article needs. Mitsos 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I only removed some information that I do not think belongs in this article. This I have done several times since it was initally added to the article. We do not need to go into detail of why alledged crimes were committed, in this article because that can be done else where in more specific articles. To do so highlights these alledged war crimes as justification for the other acts listed here are not given. Further the arguments against them being war crimes is to comlicated to give in one paragraph ... --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Haber, stop vandalising the article. At least, White Guard has a point, you don't. Mitsos 13:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now the real Mitsos comes out. Let's continue this reasoned debate. Um, you are a Greek. Take that! (For the record adding a POV tag twice to an article over the course of a month, while the talk page is buzzing with discussion about POV, does not constitute vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism before making any more false accusations.)

Actually I have a question for Philip. You seem to have flip-flopped regarding strategic bombing and nukes.

As aerial bombardment was not a war crime during World War II. I do not think that Allied arial bombardment should be included in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

It is better that the specific source for the allegation is given and included in the article so that the reader is free to make up his or her own mind, or read the linked articles for more informaion. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you now proposing to allow any allegation, so long as the editor can dredge up a source, no matter the quality of that source. What has changed since February and March? Haber 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally if I owned the list I would only include war crimes :-) But as I do not and several editors have expressed a wish to include Aerial Bombardment and the A-bombings, I have tried to find the best source I could for thoses who have made such allegations as a compromise. The Aerial Bombardment as a war crime was the best source I could find as either a legal expert or an "historian",was the best I could do and providing that it is noted that he is a revisionsit I have no objections to including it. The second is a legal court case, which is a valid source, and I think warrents a mention here even if I disagree with the verdict because it should give many English speakers who do not know of the case food for thought. No I do not think that "any allegation should be included", but those which have WP:V with reliable and reputable source can be included here as they comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's all keep cool. It's not really helping if other editors edits/views etc. are called vandalism/bullshit or whatnot. Focus on the article and improving it rather than slugging it out (it'll really fast start to look like this). Scoo 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, we must not feed the troll. Mitsos 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

POV = Atomic bombings (not a war crime), strategic bombing (not a war crime), Canicatti (shooting looters is not a war crime), Biscari (escape attempt), Dachau (escape attempt), Marocchinate (insufficiently documented, I suspect racism and German propaganda is behind this), Salina Utah (ref is one recent newspaper article, sparse info but sounds like not guilty by reason of insanity), and more. Much of this has already been discussed. Haber 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that there are aspects of this whole exchange I am beginning to find vaguely sinister; in particular the reference to an editor's opinion arising because he is 'probably jewish (sic) or something.' Anyway, I am pleased to see that the POV tag remains. I will return to my original point: I do not accept that the strategic air offensive was a war crime and, more important, I do not accept the neutrality of the sources for this contention, no more than I would accept a page on the Holocaust that depended on David Irving as the chief authority. Editors might like to consider the view of Steven Stoneman on this whole issue. In The Air Offensive: Strategic Bombing he concludes;

From the outset of the campaign in earnest (mid-1942 onwards) a large proportion of Germany's manpower and resources had to be earmarked to the endless tasks of reconstruction of wrecked factories and public utlities. As many as a million and a half workers were employed in these grim undertakings in mid-1944, and many of these persons were skilled workers urgently needed elsewhere. Also by 1943 between 60 and 70 percent of the Luftwaffe was facing westward to meet the aerial onslaught from England...

War is all hell, as General Sherman once observed. He also understood that the only way to end it quickly was to attack the capacity of the enemy to make war in the first placeWhite Guard 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say that the article as a whole needs to change. You cannot call an article "Crimes by person/institution/country XYZ" and then list only alleged and disputed so called crimes. Unless a case has come to court and been tried and XYZ found guilty it must be clear as a bell that the crimes are alleged not proven. Mitsos argument that international law states X and they did X therefore it was a war crime hold no water whatsoever. Courts not only look at action but also the reasons for the action and its intended and actual results. Until a court says that that action was a crime it only and alleged crime and so far none have. Don't get me wrong I'm sure war crimes were commited by allied soldiers but unless you have a court martial or war crime tribunal etc to say something is a war crime you run the risk of effectively accusing living people of being war criminals simply by including incidents in a list entitled "Allied war crimes..." instead of a list that makes clear that the crimes are alleged. That just can't be done on Wikipedia. I propose the article is renamed to alleged allied war crimes during WWII asap. To my mind the POV in the article stems from the fact the article is misnamed in the first place.--LiamE 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that "Unless a case has come to court and been tried and XYZ found guilty it must be clear as a bell that the crimes are alleged not proven." That's wrong. Who do you think that could have tried the Allies for commiting war crimes during WWII? The UN which was established by the Allies themselves?? Even now, noone can put the US government into trial for commiting war crimes in Iraq. If Germany had win the war, the Allies would have been tried and found guilty of war crimes. It happened that the Allies won the war and put the nazi leaders into trial, and found them guilty of war crimes. You admited yourself that the Allies commited war crimes. So what's your problem with the article? Millions of German and Japanese civilians died because of the "strategic bombings". These were War Crimes, not "allegations". Mitsos 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Use bold type all you want. You're not persuading anybody. The article changes or the POV tag stays. Haber 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos, I've produced point after point to refute your contentions on this issue, most of which have been ignored. You are clearly far too emotional to look at this question rationally. An illustration of this is your use of bold type, which seems to me to constitute-like capital letters-a form of shouting, always counterproductive. You also seem to take Göring's view that the Nuremberg trial was no more than 'victors justice', which means you are sailing close to some very dark winds indeed. Might I suggest thay you take a break for a time, perhaps coming back in a week or two with some more cogent arguments, assuming you wish to pursue the issue? I do have to make it absolutely clear to you, though, that there are thousands of veterans of Bomber Command still alive in my country who made a vital contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I will never, ever accept the suggestion that these men should be regarded as 'war criminals' to any degree whatsoever. White Guard 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"You also seem to take Göring's view that the Nuremberg trial was no more than 'victors justice'" Yes it was "victors justice". Of course it was true justice, but only for the defeated side. "there are thousands of veterans of Bomber Command still alive in my country who made a vital contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany." Yes, they did made a vital contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, but that doesn't means they didn't commited war crimes. I don't say they were "evil" people, they were ordered to do it and they did it. But they did commited war crimes. Mitsos 07:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have told you repeatedly that I-as do others-dispute the neutrality and authority of this article. Sadly, modern warfare cannot be waged without the death of civilians. The Russian artillerymen who shelled Budapest and Berlin in 1945 probably caused more civilian deaths that all of the previous air bombardments on these cities. Are they also criminals? It seems to me that your irrational campaign of disruption must constitute a form of deliberate sabotage. I am now begining to find you very tiresome indeedWhite Guard 08:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See the reference to the A-Bombing, the Japanese court argued that bombarding front line cities by land sea or air was not a war crime because they were defended cities, but bombarding cities which were not defended by land forces to repel an assualt were not defended under international law. I do not agree with their analaysis, but if true it would destroy that argument about land based artillery--Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"I've produced point after point to refute your contentions on this issue, most of which have been ignored." Well, I can say exactly the same thing. You don't answer my arguments. Mitsos 11:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Millions of German and Japanese civilians died because of the "strategic bombings". These were War Crimes, not "allegations". Mitsos Unless you can source a court ruling saying they were war crimes that is original research. It might be absolutely correct but that is irrelevant. The sources in the article only allege crimes not prove them. You can not enter the legal mire of accusing living people of a crime for which they have not been convicted. As it stands I beleive the article does exactly that. Unless it is radically changed soon it will have to go. --LiamE 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at all these sources:

^ a b International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998) ^ Mithcham, Samuel and Friedrich von Stauffenberg The Battle of Sicily ^ Including the official Canadian Army history by Gerald Nicholson, D-Day Dodgers by Daniel G. Dancocks, or The Canadian Army: 1939-1945, the official historical summary published by the Canadian Army Historical Section in 1948. ^ Stacey, C.P. A Date With History ^ [1][2][3] Luke Harding German historian provokes row over war photos in The Guardian, October 21, 2003 ^ Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963 ^ Falk, Richard A.. "The Claimants of Hiroshima", The Nation, 1965-02-15. reprinted in (1966) “The Shimoda Case: Challenge and Response”, Richard A. Falk, Saul H. Mendlovitz eds. The Strategy of World Order. Volume: 1. New York: World Law Fund, pp. 307-13. ^ John Bolton "The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective", US ambassador to the United Nations, Winter 2001 ^ Remembering Rape: Divided Social Memory and the Red Army in Hungary 1944–1945, James Mark, Past & Present 188 (2005) 133-161 ^ Excerpt, Chapter one The Struggle for Europe: The Turbulent History of a Divided Continent 1945-2002 - William I. Hitchcock - 2003 - ISBN 0-385-49798-9 A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 - Alfred-Maurice de Zayas - 1994 - ISBN 0-312-12159-8 Barefoot in the Rubble - Elizabeth B. Walter - 1997 - ISBN 0-9657793-0-0 ^ Antony Beevor They raped every German female from eight to 80 in The Guardian May 1, 2002 ^ Judgement : Doenitz the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School ^ U.S. (and French) abuse of German PoWs, 1945-1948 ^ 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 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II"

This article is very carefully sourced. Mitsos 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About the court thing I have already answered you. You and every smart person on earth knows that the Alies couldn't have been tried for commiting war crimes. Mitsos 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No one said it wasn't. I'm guessing English isn't your first languagae. The point is you can't lump proven war crimes such as the Dachau maasacre where a court-martial took place with unproven allegations no matter what the source without implying similarity. That implication has far reaching consequences for Wikipedia as a whole as it opens them up to litigation. As people involved are still alive the article cannot stand in its present form. As a MINIMUM the article should have seperate sections with proved cases and alleged cases clearly split. Personnaly I would like to see the article split, with a new article created for all the alleged stuff such as area and nuclear bombing. --LiamE 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"No one said it wasn't." What do you mean? I 'm a bit confused. Of course English isn't my first language, I 've already said that I 'm Greek. Split??? If that happens, we will have stubs instead of good article like this one. I don't understand how that came to your mind. We don't need to split the article. Mitsos 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos wrote: Millions of German and Japanese civilians died because of the "strategic bombings". These were War Crimes, not "allegations" and You and every smart person on earth knows that the Alies couldn't have been tried for commiting war crimes. Millions of Germans did not die between 305 and 600 thousand civilian did, not sure about Japan. If area bombardment was a crime during world War II then Mitsos why was Goering (a member of the Axis powers who was tried for war crimes) not tried for the crime of area bombardment (see The Second Great Fire of London and Coventry Blitz as an examples) at the Nuremberg Trials? After all Doenitz was tried and found guilty of breaching treaty obligations for unrestricted submarine warfare even though in court it was acknowledged that the Allies also practiced it. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He was tried and convicted to death sentence. He later commited suicide. Plus, don't blank the article. You can dispute the fact that the area bombardment was a war crime by puting the POV tag, but you can dispute the belief that it was a war crime. So, please, stop blanking the article. This is vandalism. Mitsos 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are shouting. White Guard 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not shouting, emphasising. Mitsos 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If area bombardment was a crime during world War II then Mitsos why was Goering (a member of the Axis powers who was tried for war crimes) not tried for the crime of area bombardment (see The Second Great Fire of London and Coventry Blitz as an examples) at the Nuremberg Trials? After all Doenitz was tried and found guilty of breaching treaty obligations for unrestricted submarine warfare even though in court it was acknowledged that the Allies also practiced it. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't Goering tried? Because it wasn't a war crime? To say so (or to deny it) on one's own behalf is OR and therefore can't serve as a basis to make any point here. Citation of existing definitions of war crimes is necessary and many of those contradict each other. Let's include the major definitions into the article as well as every incident that qualifies as a war crime according to at least one of those definitions (maybe in decending order by number of applicable definitions) and let the reader decide. Subversive element 12:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is POV, and having the tag present improves the quality of Wikipedia. See above for reasons. Mitsos, if you truly believe that adding the POV tag is an act of vandalism, then I encourage you to report it. Otherwise quit making false accusations and empty threats. You have been pushing the 3RR pretty hard yourself, and no one up until now has said anything. Haber 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber, please don't be oversensitive, I didn't say anything about your sacred POV tag. Have it, if you really believe it's the right thing. But I think the {{OR|article}} tag may be more appropriate (read on for a reason), as no proper definition of what constitutes to a war crime is being provided in the first place, which would be necessary as a valid reference point for deciding as to whether the article is or is not in fact POV. Everything else is just personal opinions and not a basis for POV-tagging the article. Subversive element 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos, I was puzzled and disturbed by your previous reference to Haber's opinion being determined by him, in your words, being " probably jewish or something." I think I now understand the motivation behind your relentless campaign here, and the moral obfuscation you have been attempting to introduce. Would you like to tell the other editors-those who do not already know-what your politics are? I think it may very well have some bearing on the point under discussion. And I should say that I, for one, already know the answer to this question by your written admission on on another page. White Guard 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sub, I wasn't really talking to you, but if you think you can improve the article then go ahead and edit it. It needs a lot of work, and possibly a name change.

Mitsos, let's hear about your politics. It should be interesting. Haber 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree on article quality, maybe I can find the time to come up with some appropriate sources. About Mitsos' politics: Just go to his user page, there is no need for a which hunt, he has a political attitude (which is more than many people can claim), but at the same time I believe he is good-faithed as an editor and that is what counts. Although I agree with Haber that moving/renaming might be needed, and some work on the article, esp inclusion of proper definitions of "war crimes" has to be done. If anyone wants to keep the title, that is. Still, I stick by my proposal of changing POV to OR tag, for the very definition of war crime within this article is not POV, but OR (which is a lot worse by wikistandards). Subversive element 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"I, for one, already know the answer to this question by your written admission on on another page." Which page? Mitsos 08:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks White Guard. You just saved us a lot of time. For those who are new to this discussion, Subversive element and Mitsos are both white supremacists. Haber 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Subversive element is not a White Supremacist. Mitsos 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I am not a White Supremacist to the degree that I take it as a serious personal attack to be called one. I posted on your talk page and urge you to answer ASAP to explain yourself. Subversive element 20:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For anyone curious to see the outcome of this idiocy, check out my talk page at User_talk:Haber. Regarding this article, I will be editing with a heavy hand from now on. Haber 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you refer to as an "idiocy", the personal attack you made against me or your failure to either justify yourself or apologise? Additionally, everyone interested (like me) in how Haber comes to the conclusion of me being a white supremacist, may want to read my talk page. Subversive 10:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a serious problem here which goes to the heart of every concept of fairness, accuracy and political neutrality. Let me make it clear that there are no private exchanges in Wikipedia, and talk pages can be read by all. I have absolutely no interest in political withchhunts; but I do have an interest in the truth and the way in which a particular view of the world-POV, if you prefer-can be used for the manipulation of facts and interpretations. Haber is being far too restrained: Mitsos is more than a 'White Supremacist': he's an anti-Semite and a Nazi. I quote, "We hane (sic) got "Neonazis" in Greece too (like me)..." Further still, "A small description of National Socialism could be the enforcement of the laws of nature in the human society." And this, "I hate political correctness. As we say it is something Invented by Jews, believed by Whites, ignored by muds."

I have no intention of interfering with anyone's political views, though I find Nazis existentially and intellectually loathsome. The real question we have to face is how can anyone who holds such views be trusted to edit and contribute to a project dedicated to the expansion of human knowledge and understanding with any degree of neutrality and simple objectivity? This whole page must now be treated as highly suspect in every sense imaginable. It's a desperately sad state of affairsWhite Guard 23:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard: Sorry for removing the POV tag. There were so many deletions to rollback that it escaped me. Thank you for restoring it.

Anyway, the problem is not that Mitsos holds some loathsome ideas. The problem is how to have a good wikipedia entry. Removing mention of incidents is not a good way. Pointing out that they might not be war crimes is. Putting things in perspective (an entry on Axis war crimes would be ten times longer and would still miss some) might be. Clarifying someone's ideas such as Rudolph J. Rummel's, which were badly misrepresented, is certainly a good way.

I'm thankful the allies freed my country. Their record in WWII was very good, with a very small number of black spots. However, I think we can all learn something from those black spots. History is also useful for learning from past mistakes.

--Lou Crazy 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia history articles are not well-respected by the public for the very reason that they think extremists are propagating wild and hateful claims. I agree that everything in this article must be treated as "highly suspect". Lou, you are not doing the project any favors by attempting to meet these crazies halfway. Racism, lies, and distortions will destroy the credibility of this encyclopedia. Haber 04:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I accept your sincerity, but I think you have probably set yourself an impossible task. When I first came across this page I was, I freely confess, angered by the contention that the strategic bombing offensive, which, I believe, made a vital contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, was a war crime, especially as the contention was based on such politically suspect sources. However, I made no changes to the page itself, merely confining my disquiet to a POV tag. When I was first approached by Mitsos on this issue-via a message on my talk page-I responded in measured terms, explaining with due care why I considered the tag necessary. His reaction was to initiate an edit war in the face of all my objections. I have now become aware of the full sickening truth-yes, I have to use that term- behind his campaign. I now see this whole page not as a legitimate encyclopedia entry but as Neo-Nazi propaganda. Where does this end? Just imagine if Mitsos and his loathsome chums decide to write a page on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-which they may very well do-highlighting the true nature of the 'Jewish conspiracy'? And there are a whole series of possibilities along these lines. One can tackle nonsense like Holocaust denial when this pops up; but what about more subtle perversions in the guise of encyclopedic truth? We face terrible dangers. White Guard 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I'm not meeting extremists halfway. I'm trying to have the best Wikipedia page possible, without hiding information and without diffusing false propaganda. When Italian troops on a peacekeeping mission committed acts of violence on civilians, the responsible people were tried, and training was improved to avoid other such acts. This policy was successful, and my respect for our forces is increased for this. If we make a good page, it will help improve Wikipedia's image, too.

White Guard: I can sympathize with you, I was harassed by a neo-fascist some time ago (he was banned). If Mitsos wants to contribute useful information, so let it be. If he wants to disseminate propaganda, I'll help reverting it. A page on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Thank God there already is one, on Wikipedia, which says right from the start that they are fake. Of course, we have to be vigilant on these pages. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. --Lou Crazy 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Procedure

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)

Democide?

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.

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)