Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

POV tag

See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1#POV tag for previous discussion on this section

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)

I find it extremly disappointing that both sides of this argument have resorted to name-calling.Users should state their opinions and provide facts to support those opinions,not make personal attacks on those they disagree with.

I'm also disturbed that anyone who argues that the bombing of German civilians is a war-crime is immediatly denounced as a nazi. As all rational people know, the National Socialist program of genocide was a terrible atrocity. But this in no way makes Allied war-crimes- the killing of German civilians and POWs any less severe.[Esp.since the vast majority German servicemen were not war criminals].

I reiterate, I am in no way a nazi, and I deplore the crimes Hitler committed, both against Germany, and the world. But we must not focus on the crimes of our enemies so we can downplay our own: I often find that when the Luftwaffe bombed Allied civilians, it was called 'terror bombing' but when the RAF bombed German civilians, it is called 'strategic bombing', which makes it sound nicer, but the civilians are still just as dead.....

So I sincerly hope that everyone understands that concern over Allied war crimes is in no way an endorsement of nazism, and I hope that in the future everyone expresses their opnion, whatever it may be,in a civil and respectful manner.Filippo Argenti 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"This whole page must now be treated as highly suspect in every sense imaginable." Oh, yes? Sounds like White Guard & Haber have issues with the "good guys" being criticised. How is strafing troops in the water (Bismarck Sea, Laconia) anything but a war crime? G(Go ahead, call me a Nazi. I won't appeal to the admins, I'll sue you & WP.) The article is POV? I'm not seeing it. Poorly sourced, maybe; sources with a POV, maybe. How you write an article alleging war crimes without sounding POV, I'm not sure.

As for "the bombing of German civilians is a war-crime" & Dönitz being charged for unrestricted submarine warfare, let me say this. Bombing cities was not a war crime; as defined by the Hague Convention, German & Japanese cities weren't "undefended" & were legitimate military targets. (Read the terms as reproduced in Garrett, Ethics and Airpower in WW2; they're so contradictary, almost any POV can be taken on the issue...) Neither was unrestricted submarine warfare; British merchantmen were effectively naval auxiliaries, since they were armed & reported the positions of attacking subs, both of which "defenseless" merchantmen were prohibited from doing. See Dönitz's memoir or von der Porten, German Navy in World War Two; the terms in question are reproduced in one of them.) Trekphiler 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bismark sea may or may not be a war crime. It is not at all clear to me that it was. Interdiction of troops is not a war crime. For example the German machine-gunning of Allied soldiers swimming ashore from sunken landing craft on D-Day was not a war crime. One would have to show that the Japanese troops were Hors de combat and this is defiantly a legal question involving a detailed knowledge of international Naval law and it not one that armatures can answer. There are similar complicated legal points of international humanitarian law over the Laconia incident (some are mentioned in that article, -- but that article does not mention the customs of war which might cover it).

Article 22 of the Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, (Part IV, Art. 22, relating to submarine warfare), London Naval Treaty, 22 April 1930, does not make exceptions for merchant vessels radioing their position. The Germans signed up to this in 1936 with the Second London Naval Treaty[1]. An international court confirmed that unrestricted submarine warfare was a breach of treaty obligations and therefor a war crime. The postion on aerial warfare is much more complicated as the section on this page (#Aerial bombardment) talks about in some detail. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trekphiler, threats to sue are unacceptable. I would like to address your concerns, but I can't due to your brazen disregard for one of the few Wikipedia policies that actually makes any sense. Haber 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

See WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources the latter has a section called "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" it "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues."and Wikipedia:Citing sources in the section "When you add content" "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion."

The views that conventional area bombing and the atomic bombings were war crimes is not one which is widely held in the English speaking nations. For this reason any article which states that either of these two actions were war crimes should contain the name of the person or organisation who are making the accusations. Friedrich does not claim that all area bombardment was a war crime, and in the references I have seen the only explicit accusation he has made is for the period when the Allies renewed the strategic campaign against German cities from September 1944, (after the lull because of the tactical support supplied by the heavy bombers for the Normandy landings). I am in agreement with you about not including lots of counter claims (or alleged justifications for the allied actions) in this article, but the name and quality of the initial source of the claim should be in this article as it is a "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. (WP:RD "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence") --Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. You have now covered this issue from every angle I can imagine. I have nothing to add at the moment. Haber 12:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not persuading anybody. There are sources for the information given in the article (these are all historical facts and not "exceptional claims"), and deleting them is considered vandalism. Mitsos 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Superb argument. When faced with Wikipedia policy laid before you in clear and succinct form call the writer a vandal. That'll win you repect from all sides. Go go name calling. --LiamE 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

From the history of the article

• 09:31, 21 October 2006 87.203.230.8 (rvv)
• 13:31, 21 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (Rv to last version by PBS, not vandalism see talk page)
• 17:04, 21 October 2006 Mitsos (I 've answered in the talk page)

Mitsos are you saying that you reverted as 87.203.230.8? If you are not living in an English speaking national area how do you know if "The views that conventional area bombing and the atomic bombings were war crimes is not one which is widely held in the English speaking nations."? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't revert as 87.203... In fact my IP begun with 87 but I 'm not editing as an IP anymore. "If you are not living in an English speaking national area how do you know if "The views that conventional area bombing and the atomic bombings were war crimes is not one which is widely held in the English speaking nations."" It's not just that. You ave changed the whole article by deleting sourced information. That's why I 'm saying that you are vandalising. Mitsos 09:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused! Which specific sourced information are you talking about? You do not, for example, seem to be complaining about my removal of

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(International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)).

(See Revision as of 17:37, 19 October) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I should complain about that too. Mitsos 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have changed more than 80 sentences that's why I 'm complaining. Mitsos 08:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1) I have been editing this article since edit number 45 on 22nd February. I would hope since then I have made a contribution to the page otherwise there is little point in editing it. So, which version of the article are you using as a base, for the 80 sentence change?

2) Lets salami slice it, which of the 80 sentences you alledge I have changed, (but credit where credit is due, I suspect it includes changes made by others as well,) do you object to the most? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

87 changes. Mitsos 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Excluding the footnotes, I don't count 87 sentences in the whole article! As for you allegation that those who have been reverting your recent changes are deleting details, the differences tell another story Revision as of 02:15, 23 October 2006 Haber -- Revision as of 08:24, 23 October 2006 Mitsos, most of the text removed is on Haber's side of the difference not yours.

So please explain Mitsos which of the 87 sentences you alledge I have changed, do you object to the most? Unless you are willing to discuss it, it is not possible for us to build a consensus --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your charge about the "English speaking world", sorry, the world does not revolve around the Thames...English is international;do you actually know how many countries have English as an official language?

Actually I was thinking more Kingston, Kingston, Kingston, Kingston, Kingston, Kingston, Kingston, all in some of the (English speaking) countries which had citizens or subjects in the RAF Bomber Command or the USAAF. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the article, you have created a double standard: Some reports might be exaggerated. See the relevant page for details. needs no explanation or source, yet instead of just creating a link to the other evens or a brief description as a footnote, we need a "Stasi file" for verification. Moreover, you claim that no other source references the Canadian massacre. And I'm guessing that you have read every source?

We need to decide whether this page is a list or not, because it looks like a list to me. My version, the one Mitsos keeps using, included the sources as endnotes, referenced to the bottom of the page. This is to manage clutter and keep the list format.

I do not think that this page should function as more than a hub list for the respective pages, because the articles are already written.

As for the tag, I'm still waiting for the explanation. I'm hoping one day it will come.--72.94.204.107 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag has been explained over and over. The article is named "war crimes" but it contains incidents which are not war crimes. Haber 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I 'm not User:Mitsos. But I agree in most of what he said (except from what he said about the Nuremberg trial), and I think there are plenty of sources in the article that prove that these incidents were war crimes. 85.75.147.104 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that my IP has changed. 85.75.147.104 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who ever you are (whois 85.75.147.104) you are using and address provided by the "Multiprotocol Service Provider to other ISP's and End Users located in Greece and having nodes in 63 cities", (the same as 87.203.230.8). Did you know that User:Mitsos says on his user page "Hi! I 'm Greek and I live in Athens, Greece." so you have several things in common :-) If you are going to be an active contributor to Wikipedia why not create an account so that people can send you messages via your talk page? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I 'm 87.203.230.8, but I 'm not User:Mitsos. 87.203.217.11 08:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My IP changed again. I 'm 85.75.147.104. 87.203.217.11 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are accusing me of sockpuppetry. This is a personal attack. Mitsos 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We wouldnt dream of doing such a thing --LiamE 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't come from Greece. I come from Germany. 87.202.76.97 09:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think your IP address has changed again. ;) 70.64.86.99-hut 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Allied use of forced labor after the end of the war

Spinoff from Request for comments on two possible aditions

If it was after End of World War II in Europe, 7/8/9 May (military surrender), May 25 capture of the Flensburg government , or July 5 signing of the four-power document creating the Allied Control Council -- take you pick --, then any crimes committed were not "Allied war crimes during World War II". The Allies argued that events after May 8 1945 came under a special legal category stemming from the debellation of the Third Reich, which was the legal justification for not treating those captured after May 8 as prisoners of war. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A-bombs

Where does this come from: "However, the prevalent international legal opinion is that these bombings were not a war crime."? I thought this was a hotly debated topic and there was no such thing as a "prevalent international legal opinion". TomorrowTime 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to object, I'll remove this line and the accompying refs for the time being. The refs are these: "John Bolton "The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective", US ambassador to the United Nations, Winter 2001; "ICRC"International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)"

Both refs in fact do not specificaly justify atomic warfare, or show any proof that the prevalent international legal opinion does so. John Bolton's speech mentions atomic warfare in the following passage:

A fair reading of the treaty, for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable.

This simply means that Bolton allows for the possibility that atomic bombing may, internationaly, be considered as a war crime.

The second ref ("The Law of Air Warfare") includes this passage:

What may be used in air warfare?

The weapons that may be used are governed by the principle of limitation and military necessity laid down in international humanitarian law, which imposes certain constraints on the choice of means of warfare and stipulates that their use must be necessary.

The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg provides an example of this; it states that hostile operations must be aimed exclusively at securing a military advantage and prohibits the use of projectiles weighing less than 400 grammes which are either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances. There are other prohibitions and regulations relating to the means that may be employed for air warfare, among which the following are the most important.

— Causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. (...)

— Causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. (...) etc.

This can simply not be read to mean that "the prevalent international legal opinion is that these bombings were not a war crime". It can be argued that the bombings were a military necesity, but a counterargument that superfluos injury, unnecessary suffering and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the enviroment was caused can quite as easily be raised. No prevalent legal opinion can be deduced, however. TomorrowTime 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolton's point is precisly made for the reason the US will not sign the Rome Treaty over this issue. That to do so would possibly prohibit the US using such weapons in a future war. That implies that in the opinion of the US Government lawers the use of such weapons are not prohibited by previous international humanterian law. The second reference [2] makes the point in the secction on World War II entitled "Anti-city strategy/blitz" that "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."

See also the UK's position on Ratification and Accession to "Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949" (expressed in a Declaration on 2 July 2002) that states that "It continues to be the understanding of the United Kingdom that the rules introduced by the Protocol apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons."[3] Which suggests that the HMG holds a simalr POV to that of the US Government. And remember these are current POVs not those of 1945, which of course predates many of the more recent treaties which may (or may not) bind states which use or threaten to use neuclear weapons.

So as the Governments of the two largest English speaking nations do not consider that the use of the atomic bombs was at the time or since to be against the laws of war it is reasonable to include the sentence to balance the POV, particularly as Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State also makes the point:

"[I]nternational law of war is not formulated simply on the basis of humanitarian feelings. It has as its basis both considerations of military necessity and effectiveness and humanitarian considerations, and is formulated on a balance of these two factors. To illustrate this, an example often cited in the textbooks may be given, of the provisions of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 prohibiting the use of projectiles under 400 grammes which are either explosive or charged with combustible or inflammable substances. The reason for the prohibition is explained as follows: such projectiles are small and just powerful enough to kill or wound only one man, and as an ordinary bullet will do for this purpose, there is no overriding need for using these inhuman weapons. On the other hand, the use of a certain weapon, great as its inhuman result may be, need not be prohibited by international law it it has a great military effect." (Section:Evaluation of the act of bombing according to international law: point (11):second paragraph)

With reference to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State made a case for the attacks being outside the laws of war BUT basing their arguments on the 1923 Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare while ignoring the later Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 (where a defended city was defined) draws into question the usefulness of the judgement, which is not widly quoted as a precedent under interntional law (for example AFAICT the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons did not quote its findings as a precedent).

So all in all I think that the extra sentence and the references should be included to balance the POV of the Shimoda case. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion under "Aerial Bombardment" above, I thought I had a case that the Allied area bombings and atomic bombings were war crimes. After discussion, however, it appears that under the war laws in effect at that time, it would be very difficult to argue that those were war crimes. Some notable authors, commentators, etc have argued that the bombings were moral crimes, but, that is different from a war crime which is what this article is about. Cla68 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolton still strikes me as a bad choice of reference. He comes across as a kid who came home from school without his lunch money and won't tell dad who took it, because he's afraid of being beaten up the next day if he does. What he's saying is basically: we will not sign the treaty, because if we do, chances are, no matter how slim, that we'd be tried as war criminals for the atomic bombings. I'm sure you realise how guilty that makes him look.

It was my point that at this time there really is no consensus regarding the military and humanitarian views of the atomic bombings. Fact remains that superfluos injury, unnecessary suffering and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the enviroment were all caused. On the other hand, the atomic bombings were then viewed and are still viewed by many today as a military neccesment. Both of these two angles were defined and regulated under international law at the time. However, these two views will probably never come to a common ground, especially since anything as destructive as atomic weaponry was never envisioned in the pre-atomic international law, and as such the first instance of its use somehow slides through a loophole of the unforeseen - the humanitarian argument and the military neccesity argument are both just attempts to cover that loophole with the limited tools at hand.

Nevertheless, I understand your point and agree with it. But the sentence in question could do with a slightly different phrasing, IMO. For instance: you used the phrase: "the Governments of the two largest English speaking nations". The legal opinion of the Governments of two nations. Don't you agree that this can hardly be understood as "the prevalent international legal opinion"? Couldn't some less grandiose phrasing be used? TomorrowTime 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolton is not saying that anyone will be tried for what happed in 1945 because he knows that the treaty is not retrospective (and the decision makers are dead). What he is saying is the US Government will not sign the treaty because it would bind the US in a future conflict in ways that the US Government finds unacceptable. As the US, (like all responsible governments) takes its treaty obligations very seriously, he is explaining that given a similar situation in 1945 the US would still consider the nuclear option and will not sign a treaty which limits its use of such an option. As the US currently is the only superpower and its government assumes it will win any conventional war, it is not surprising it takes such a position. Give it 50 years and if there are other Powers to equal or surpass the US the the US Government's position may well change.

I only used the two English speaking language governments because it is easier to find sources to back that statement up. However all 5 permanent members of the UN security council hold the same opinion (See Paragraph 59 of the ICJ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons for an example of this). As I would Imagen do the other nuclear armed nations. Added together they represent most of the population of the planet. When it comes to international law it depends on how States interpret the treaties they have signed, not the opinions of NGOs who have their own axes to grind. The point is made in the ICJ advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, in paragraph 55, where they analyze whether the use of nuclear weapons are covered by the Second Hague Declaration, Hague Convention IV, and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 by the phrase "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate." Under international law how States comply with their perceived treaty obligations which forms the basis for how those obligations are understood.

The ICJ's analysis and judgement is about the use of Nuclear Weapons in the 1990s not 1945 and even in the 1990s with all the new international treaties which have been introduced since 1945 it is not clear that the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict today illegal. Strip away the post World War II treaties and the argument that in 1945 the use of nuclear weapons was illegal is based on very thin judicial arguments, which I think are summed up adequately by Shimoda, but to balance the paragraph I think the majority view should be included which is that their use was not illegal under international law as understood at that time. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave Bolton aside here, at least in the implications of his speech you highlighted. We are not talking about possible future use of atomic weaponry, we are discussing a past event. I still maintain that he's not doing the sentence his speech is referenced with any justice. His speech expresses anxiety about a possible trial, an anxiety that a casual reader can easily take to mean a feeling of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the said assumed trial - and also an anxiety that would probably be unnecesary if the judicial arguments were really as thin as you suggest. You are right (as I also said before) in that the international law of the time simply didn't cover the possibility of nuclear bombing per se, and strictly judicialy speaking, the bombings can not be covered by any aspect of the then existing international law. Provisional aspects would have to be adopted and in this assumed trial both sides would have strong and undeniable (albeit provisional) arguments.

But let's leave speculation aside. It has no place here. I accept your argument about non-English nations and nuclear powers. But I also highlighted "Governments" for a reason. These are the views of the Governments, and therefore also inherently political. Isn't it possible that the legal opinions of experts under no political obligations are much less unilateral? Remember, we are talking about the "prevalent international legal opinion" here. I would say there is no such thing as a "prevalent international legal opinion" if we are to include every single legal expert notable in applicable fields. Which is what "international" in this sentence seems to imply. TomorrowTime 13:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-read Bolton's speech, and you are right. He is talking about a possible future use of atomic weaponry. I take back my concerns about his speech. In fact, his speech really has nothing to do with the debate at hand, other than mentioning the two cities, and what their bombing would be viewed as today. TomorrowTime 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

International legal opinion is expressed by Governments (States) and the interntaional institutions they have set up and have agreed to abide by the rulings of those international institutions. The Shimoda ruling (to use a source already in play) goes into this in some detail to explain why they can not rule on compensation for those affected by the atomic bombings (see Wikisource:Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State#III. Claims of individuals for damages). Bolton's comments are relevent because it shows that the US Government thinks that the Rome Treaty could put restrictions on their future use of nuclear weapons, Q.E.D. the US Government does not think that such restrictions applied under international law to the use, by the US, of atomic bombs in 1945. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I realise I have been stubborn and have also expressed my POV quite clearly, but I figure better here than in the article. Also, I have learned quite a few things, and for that I thank you for being patient. I may not agree in my heart with some of the arguments, but I recognise their validity. I have only one suggestion, and then we can close this debate. Can we exchange however with on the other hand? You said you wanted to level the POV, and I feel on the other hand would do that better. Would you agree to that much? TomorrowTime 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried it with "on the other hand" but it didn't seem to flow quite right. So, I replaced it with "nevertheless" and I think it reads much better. Cla68 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Laconia Incident

I request that someone should provide some reference to The Laconia incident, while it was loosely within legal ground to attack U-156, in many circles it was seen as a war crime to attack a ship that was openly engaged in a rescue operation. --68.223.77.131 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have the legal reference to back up that that was a war crime then that might also apply to the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. Cla68 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Aint necessarily so" because different maritime laws apply in coastal and international waters. I saw that mentioned when I was looking for a legal opinion on the Battle of the Bismarck Sea (unfortunately the details were missing so it was not a useful source)--Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

The article [in the section about Canada] refers to a claim of 'Mitham and von Stauffenburg'. Does 'Stauffenberg' refer to Claus von Stauffenberg [July 20 plotter], or someone else? The link goes to the family, not an individual. --Filippo Argenti 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidents

The article says that Canadian troops burnt houses in Germany. Has this been over looked or is it meant to be some sort of joke? The second world war and burning houses is a war crime. How come the houses that were burnt in Japanese cities aren't mentioned anywhere? A great debate about area bombings in Germany not being a war crime and some houses that were burnt by Canadian troops are. No deaths mind you, just burnt houses.

As for killing of prisoners, everyone did it, many people were made indifferent to death. For some reason only Canada has been singled out. They did have a bit of a reputation for it in both wars. The Germans started calling Canadians some thing like the "Allied SS" in Italy when they started killing POWs after it was learned how the Germans were treating the Italian peasents. Sometimes if there was a battle going on and no one could be spared to take the POWs to the rear they shot them or sometimes just because they were done talking to them. I don't know if I can post any short stories from first hand accounts with details of some of those killings or not. Good idea or bad? Anyone? Brocky44 09:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what this article is about: singling out a few freak incidents within the Allied armies and turning them into an imposing list of "war crimes". However of the two you mentioned, the house burning is documented by the official historian of the Canadian army, which seems like a pretty strong reference to me. I think it should stay unless you have another reference to contest it, and I really don't think Canadians come off that poorly if that's all the mayhem they caused. The POW incident please feel free to delete because I think it is very weakly referenced. Given the contentious nature of the material we need better sources than a secondhand account of what a German was supposed to have thought inside of an Italian book. Haber 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, most of these are small incidents. A couple planes strafing a few survivors in separate incidences? That counts as a war crime meriting mention? It looks like the authors of this article just quote mined through some books and when they encountered an incident like that they immediately added it here as examples. I suggest only things that were carried out on order or had some significant scale to be included here. BlueShirts 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. At first I was angered by this article, then I really tried to help make it better. Now I'm just embarassed by it. If you want to have a go at improving it, that's fine with me. Haber 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes of February 18, 2007

Operation catapult has never been recorded as a war crime

Operation Gomorra is covered by the next point and the claim of Friedrich

I have kept Lübeck harbour but this needs to be referenced.

How can Bleiburg be an UK crime of war when it happened in an area that was not under UK army control. Apparently, this crime has be perpetrated by Tito’s army.

I have also removed the link to the Malmedy massacre trial which has nothing to do with Allied war crimes during WWII. --Lebob-BE 15:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

This page is obviously just a dumping ground for allegations from everyone who has an axe to grind (particularly against the U.S. it would seem). For instance, why are the atomic bombings listed here as a "war crime" and the bombing of Dresdan isn't? Also, why the heck is a guy who was obviously brazy going bezerk and shooting up a bunch of prisoners at a camp in Utah considered a "war crime" worthy of mention here? Seems to me to be yet another example of the typical anti-US bias found on this site. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Americans bombed Dresden only a few hours after the RAF, and they used a similar city busting mix to the RAF (rather than the more usual USAAF mix), so if it was a war crime, the USAAF was a guilty as the RAF. However there was no German judicial enquiry into Dresden (or February 3, 1945 raid on Berlin by the USAAF) that found that the Allies had "violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war", but there was one in Japan on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is part of the Wikipedia policy to give a Neutral point of view and whether you agree or disagree with the verdict of the Japanese court, if you did not already know about it, perhaps you leave this page having learnt something new. (See above for some reasons why this is not the best finding) --Philip Baird Shearer 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the page badly needs some balancing. Unfortunately Philip Baird Shearer constantly removes all attempts of comparison, like in this edit: [4]. Here is quote clearly showint that this is relevant for war crimes from the given source: "Death rates of POWs held is one measure of adherence to the standards of the treaties because substandard treatment leads to death of prisoners. Table 1 presents death rates for the major combatants by front in the Second World War."Ultramarine 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't actually understand why Philip Baird Shearer doesn't want to have these figures on this page. Even if I can agree that "POW deaths are not necessarily unlawful killings and therefor not War Crimes", a 60% death rate of Soviet POWs held by Germany raises questions. Certainly when you see that in comparison, the death rate of German POWs held by the Russians is of 33% at most, while it is commonly acknowledged that the treatment of the German POWs by the USSR was not in accordance of the Geneva convention (that, BTW, had not been signed by the USSR) and that it might well be regarded as crimes of war. Moreover, if I am ready to agree that all these death are not necessarily due to war crimes (some of these men might have been killed during allied bombing as well), the comparison between 60% for the Russian POWs on one side and 4% for the US and Commonwealth POWs on the other side is disturbing at least. And even more whent you know that one of the basic principles of the nazi regime was that the Russian were "Untermenschen" who didn't deserve any care. --Lebob-BE 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about war crimes. The raw death rates among POWs is not a war crime statistic. If you disagree then find a attributable source that says it is and put in the correlation that they find and claculate. Otherwise it is suggesting a corrolation that may or may not exist. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The source states, again: "Death rates of POWs held is one measure of adherence to the standards of the treaties because substandard treatment leads to death of prisoners." You have presented your personal opinions regarding these figures, not interesting in Wikipedia. Do you have anything sourced that disagree with these figures or conclusion?Ultramarine 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment about Soviet vs German. The number of Soviets who died in German hands were 3,6 million out of 5,6 million taken, the numbers of Germans died were 378K out of 3,6 million taken. Read Richard Overy "The Dictators" from 2003(?) Or click on this link which ever is easier. http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html. Rivertimerr 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The webpage gives no source.Ultramarine 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The web page itself is a source, all articles are published in the "World War II magazine" And As I said above Prof. Overy gives the same numbers in his book "The Dictators" Rivertimerr 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me the source that says 33%, I dare you. I not only have a book but also the number one magazine about ww2 it is only about ww2. I bet that you have nothing against motor magazines and that you do not doubt the information there but the number 1 ww2 magazine has to be wrong, I think not. Also 77k Nazis died in Allied captivity read here. I think that you just made up the 33% that is what I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Rivertimerr 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)