Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 11

Discussion of Allied war crimes in the US
I find the claim that "In the US, however, the well documented Allied brutality and Atrocities have never been brought into public discussion" very difficult to believe. While it's certainly true that most Americans see World War Two as a 'good war', there's been extensive and long-lasting discussion of the morality of the bombing of Japanese cities (particularly the atomic bombing - the prominent debate over the wording of captions when the Enola Gay was placed on display, for instance) and virtually all serious works on the war discuss topics such as the morality of the submarine offensive, USAAF (and RAAF) aircraft machine gunning survivors of Japanese ships sunk in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea and the 'take no prisoners' mentality many US (and other Allied) troops adopted. John Dowers' book War Without Mercy is well known, and is normally referenced in these discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please re-read your first sentence above. You misinterpret the author, ask your neighbor down the street about John Dower and they will give you a blank stare. It is only because you for whatever reason happen to have an interest in the topic, some of whose authors (e.g. Dower) document the atrocities that you can speak thus. Don't misinterpret that with what the general public is exposed to through the general media. There has been no public discussion in the general public sense, thus far far far from the levels of general discussion in media in Japan and Germany--Stor stark7 Speak 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the case - this book chapter (for instance) discusses the large scale of the public debate in the US over the Enola Gay caption, including a poll which found that most young Americans opposed the decision to use the atomic bombs. The debate over the conventional bombing of Japan and Germany (and particularly the firestorm raids on Tokyo and Dresden) is also well-known. Together these seem to disprove a blanket claim that these kind of issues have "never been brought into public discussion" (which I note is cited to a book entitled 'Japanese fiction of the Allied occupation', which doesn't seem to be a great source on this topic). Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you were content to disparage the title of the source, and leave it at that. I looked a little bit further. It is a more than 500 page scholarly work. And her field of expertise leaves her eminently qualified to be used in a subsection about public discourse.--Stor stark7 Speak 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The book is about Japanese literature during the occupation, not about American discussions of atrocities. She mentions her thoughts in a footnote, which seems an odd place to cite from. She also qualifies the statement with "never to my knowledge". Her academic focus seems to be JApanaese literature and society, plus women's studies... in Canada. How does that make her eminently qualified to write about American discussions of atrocities in World War II? If her focus was "American Studies" (regardless of location), I would agree with you. But, it's not. How she missed the Enola Gay controversy is beyond me, and, since her book was published in 2007, HBO aired The Pacific, which graphically showed mutilations and prisoner executions. As such, I think you've got to find a better source if you wish to state that it has never been brought into public discussion. --Habap (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You mention The Pacific, aired in March this year. Please tell me, since you apparently reside in the U.S., have the apparently graphical depictions of "mutilations and prisoner executions", (shown now, 65 years after the war), generated any discussion in the media? Have they prompted any calls for change in the way U.S. troopers are trained or led so that the same behavior can be avoided in future conflicts? Have they generated any discussion at all? Just curious to hear what you have seen or heard.--Stor stark7 Speak 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hanks himself made comments about American racism against the Japanese. and HBO published a companion education guide for the series. We have enough current problems (for example, the squad in Afghanistan that apparent planned 3 or 4 murders) that The Pacific did not generate separate calls for change in training. Americans have discussed these problems at least since the Vietnam War. Many Hollywood movies since the 1970s have graphically depicted the brutal savagery of sociopaths in the US military (and other countries militaries, of course). Heck, even Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers showed prisoners depicted the murder of prisoners by American troops. Visit any of the anti-war sites out there and you can likely find vigorous calls for change and each time an incident occurs, it hits the news.
 * You asked if our neighbors would have heard of Dower. Heck, I hadn't heard of Dower. On the other hand, my neighbors are generally not familiar with the Rape of Nanking, with details of the Bataan Death March, or with Unit 731. They'll know of the Holocaust and the nuclear bombs we dropped and not a lot else. --Habap (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are speaking besides the point. The article is not about all the atrocities the U.S. troopers have committed in the last 65 years, in Vietnam and wherever, and their media coverage and debate. It is about the massacres and attrocities committed by the Allies in WW2, and what public media discussion they have generated, or rather what the source in the article notes as notable: that the WW attrocities have not generated any obvious debate. This lack of discussion is perhaps partly to blame for why contemporary U.S. troopers are killing civilians and collecting their bones, but that is another story.

There were some attempts to bring it up on the table, but they seem to have been drowned, probably by those waned on hero stories and unwilling to let them go. In 1946 Edgar L. Jones tried to break the silence when he wrote:

"WE Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter." --Stor stark7 Speak 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the first sentence of my post? Did you miss the fact that Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers were also about World War II? Sorry, but it has been discussed by Americans over at least the last 40 years. You might not think Americans have talked about it enough, which is an opinion you are entitled to, but which is irrelevant to the article. You're citing a footnote in a book on Japanese literature by a Candaian professor as proof that Americans have NEVER discussed the atrocities committed by American troops in World War II. Such a sweeping claim coming from such an obscure source is incredibly dubious. --Habap (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the statement in the article is a very bold blanket claim ("have never been brought into public discussion") supported by an unsuitable reference and is contradicted by the above examples (plus many more) I've removed it from the article and posted it below to aid further discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US, however, the well documented Allied brutality and Atrocities have never been brought into public discussion. 
 * Well, it seems to me it should remain in the article. You can either say, "the Japanese-studying-academic Sharalyn Orbaugh says [the quote]"; or you can make the weaker claim that Allied atrocities are not well known in the USA, which that quote is more than adequate to support. BillMasen (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A better solution would be to find references which cover the specific topic of awareness of World War II-era Allied (and not just American) war crimes and discuss what they say - I'm sure that these exist and it would be more meaningful that taking a 'he-says' 'she says' type-approach concerning only the US (the debate in Britain over the bombing of German civilians started during World War II and has never stopped, for instance). Moreover, I don't think that this reference is a reliable source on this topic given that it's a footnote in a book on a different topic by someone who doesn't appear to have written or researched in this specific field. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, if Sharalyn Orbaugh was famous, maybe it would be worth quoting something she said that was quoted in a reliable source. Otheriwse, it's giving far too much weight (WP:UNDUE) to something that is not from a reliable source and is not shown to be a significant viewpoint (as far as I know, only Orbaugh and Stor Stark7 believe it to be true). Otherwise, we could put in "nuclear chemistry professor Karl Hanold says..." and a number of other equally non-notable sources. --Habap (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy
I have to say some of the latest additions seem to rely on hearsay and circumstanial evidence to present evidence of government policy i.e. having a Canadian general mention his thoughts does not support a policy of generally not taking prisoners especially considering the numbers taken in Normandy, the pursuit across France and the battles into Germany.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are building a straw man here. You write "a policy of generally not taking prisoners", while what the text in-fact only states was "policy that was a war-crime was however sometimes taken". I.e. nothing at all about "generally".--Stor stark7 Speak 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Am not building a straw man; one man’s comments is not evidence of an overall policy to conduct war crimes considering A) the previous paragraph showing overall government policy and b) The source does not support it was an action taken at high military levels (i.e. the chiefs of staff down). At the end of the day all the evidence shows is that in one man’s opinion sometimes the order was given not to take prisoners and that’s all it should be used for; "there isn't a general or colonel on the Allied side that I know of". Vokes fought in Scilly, for a short time in Italy, before coming ashore late in the day in Normandy always in command of a brigade or a division; can he really speak for four different army groups and about ten different armies? If it had been Monty, Dempsey, Crerar, Bradley, Patton etc the comment would have more weight; at the moment more weight is being applied to circumstantial evidence than there should be.
 * In addition Jackson’s comments, while noting crimes were taking place, do not provide evidence of policy to commit them. His comments are also circumstantial in regards to the nod he makes of the USSR; the final paragraph provides more straightforward evidence that the USSR were on orders conducting warcrimes. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional thoughts: if anything this comment by Vokes, along with other actions he alledgely mentions in his memoirs, would make excellent evidence of his personal actions during the war within the Canadian section; partially already mentioned - at least the actions that i could verify myself via Stacey and the OH.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference provided doesn't seem to support a statement that "Decisions on policy that was a war-crime was however sometimes taken at high military levels", and this is something which requires a very strong citation given that it's basically a claim that senior Allied military leaders disregarded instructions from their governments (claiming that colonel is a 'high' military rank is also unusual). The statement from 'Jackson' (does he have a first name?) covers material which was already in that section (the allegations that the bombing of Germany was a war crime and Soviet misconduct) and I don't see what value this adds, particularly when presented in isolation. It's worth noting that the source provided said that the quotation "was not his [Jackson's] overall view". Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing with words as it is frivolous and disrespectful of other editors.
 * @NickD,
 * E.g. singling out General Vokes mentioning "Colonels" when infact it was alongside "Generals".
 * Asking for supreme court judge Jacksons first name is also frivolous as you already know it as you obviously have browsed through one of the online sources.
 * "Was not his overall view" is an opinion provided by that particular website. Other sources provide no such vague opinions. Since you brought it up, can you please tell us Who is behind that opinion so we can evaluate her/his cretentials for making it. And also, please re-read the source and provide your opinion on precicely what topic that opinion snippet refers, I think you will be surprised.

Yes you were building a straw man. As to your latest comments:
 * @EnigmaMcMxc
 * Generals are pretty high level dont you think, and if all the Generals and Colonels known to General Vokes occasionally dissobeyed government policy by ordering "take no prisoners", then this is quite relevant to take up in a section of policy, to show how effective/innefective it was. Or to show if it was meant seriously or if it was mere window dressing. To just show the governments public words and leave it at that is quite biased.

--Stor stark7 Speak 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vokes who is cited in an academic article by Weingardner, does not need to have made contact with all generals to be of relevance. Anyone with at least a basic statistics course under his belt can tell you this. I bet you dont know everyone at your (past/current or future) university, but if all the people you know there are gay it either means that you are in a university overflowing with gays or that you are very selective when choosing your friends and acquaintances. There is no reason to think that General Vokes was selective.
 * Jackson was speaking at high level, government to government. "Our Allies", "the French".
 * A note on Patton by the way, since you mentioned his name. Weingarner notes about 2 massacres commited by a division under his army command. The commander "...had, for largely pragmatic reasons, discouraged the taking of prisoners." What was Pattons reaction? He wanted a cover-up, which presumably was his standard practise. He wrote. "I told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it"
 * I would with most respect intended, suggest you go and look up what a straw man argument is considering most of your reply is one. Regarding point


 * 1) What you have typed there is not what has been inserted into the article nor what the evidence states. Vokes, per the evidence, stated he acted akin to Meyer and that people he knew did the same; that does not support upper level military decisions made with the specific intend to commit war crimes against established policy.
 * You are indeed correct to suggest that Generals are high level, however they are split within several ranks and he was only a Major-General in command of a single division (not a Corps (Lt-Gen), Army (Lt-Gen/full General), Army Group (5 star/FM) or the chiefs of staff - as high as you can get, hence the concern over the weight being applied to his opinion); what actions a divisional commander decides to take does not provide evidence of high level military decisions unless there is evidence showing something filtered down i.e. various orders OKW issued on how to treat Soviet POWs or Commissars/the Commando order – that was evidence of high level military orders on the treatment of prisoners.
 * The fact that there is an article here provides ample evidence that to the contrary of government policy, crimes happened; showing what said policy was is not presenting bias information – it is showing the facts, then the rest of the article shows the infractions of said policies (or the case of the Soviets how acted in line with it - although i note the lack of mention of how their policy shifted somewhat in the final months of the war in regards to treatment of civillians).
 * Unless there is a specific source that states the upper circles of the military ordered warcrimes to be committed - a very serious charge that requires bulletproof evidence - not what a lone divisional commander may have done or how he believed others acted; then what is in the article deserves to either be removed or placed in the relevant Canadian section as it is circumstantial evidence and weight being applied to something Weingardner doesn’t support.
 * 1) Is a pure red herring and a strawman argument. The evidence cited does not provide any evidence to show far reaching support for Vokes opinion, it is his opinion and his alone and that is all that is provided; anything else is misusing the source. Per my previous comment, his opinion does not provide evidence of a full scale military policy (on even a temp basis) nor can he possibly speak for four/five western allied army groups, 8-10 armies and upwards of 100 divisions commanders. It is pure and simple circumstantial evidence being used to push a point.
 * 2) Is again circumstantial evidence. He is writing a letter to the president; that does not provide evidence of their being any policy other than the official line adopted by the British and Americans. Was Jackson a government minister – no; therefore there was no "high level, government to government" talks on the French behaviour as you claim via this source. Was Jackson within the upper echelons of the military – no; he is voicing his opinion and concern. Again it would seem more relevent in the French or Soviet section.
 * 3) A red herring nothing to do with the circumstantial evidence you have inserted into the article. If you have sources, that specifically back up your claim he attempted to cover up what happened, and it isnt already in the article - add it. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the disputed statements and will post them below to assist any further discussions. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Decisions on policy that was a war-crime was however sometimes taken at high military levels. The Canadian general Chris Vokes conceded "there isn't a general or colonel on the Allied side that I know of who hasn't said, 'Well, this time we don't want any prisoners.'"


 * The Chief U.S. prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials, Jackson, noted in a letter to U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."

Comparative death toll of POWs -- summary table
The sentence "Chinese POWs held by Japan: > 99%[citation needed] (only 56 survivors at the end of the war)[80]" should be changed in my opinion, as >99% sounds extremely unrealistical, and is unsourced. How about replacing ">99%" with "varying" or "not documented"? That would be a lot more accurate, and no potentially incorrect information would be spread, at least until someone finds a source for that number. The "(only 56 survivors at the end of the war)" can remain, though. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the figure altogether would be the best option. There's also an unsourced figure of a 24% death rate for Japanese POWs in Chinese above the table, which should also be removed unless someone can find a citation for it. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While fixing the percentage at 99+% is not documented, "Varying" implies that there is broad disagreement, which could mean 10% to 99% or anything in between. If the source for the 56 survivors states that there were more than 10,000 Chinese POWs, that is evidence of 99+%. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From Hirohito and the making of modern Japan By Herbert P. Bix, page 360 "Throughout the war in China the Japanese military captured tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers annually. Yet, at war's end, when Japanese authorities claimed to have had in their possession scores of thousands of Western prisoners, they acknowledged having only fifty-six Chinese prisoners of war."
 * So, I'm thinking the 99+% is cited right here. I will fix the ref on the page. --Habap (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot use that as source, as it does not state any kind of percentage. It is not stated that has happened to the other prisoners, and no kind of statistic is given. That out of tens of thousands, only 56 survived, and the rest died, is your own assumption. I will delete your incorrect use of a source, as it is not a statistic. I will replace it with "not documented" until someone is able to find an actual statistic or estimate of POWs that died in captivity, not POWs that survived. It's a massive difference. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Hadn't thought of that. The source does not indicate what happened to the "tens of thousands", so my inference that this meant death for this rest was not supported by the source. Thanks for correcting it. --Habap (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

James Bacque
"James Bacque claims an analysis of records supports a German POW death rate of over 25%.[86]"

Surely this should be followed up by at least a brief summary of the critism leveled at his work rather than reporting it so mater of factly? Come on, most of the page dedicated to his book Other Losses shows the various community attitute to his work.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, that's a common problem through much of the article. For instance, while Donald Bloxham appears qualified to give an assessment that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime (and he's not alone in this view) the article only presents this viewpoint. Other experts in this field have the opposite view, and entire books have been published on the debate. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Strike 4
I see two omissions: the strafing of troops in the water at Bismarck Sea & strafing of U-boat crews after the sinking of Laconia. I'm also concerned about the POV approach to Allied bombing, which ignores the Hague Convention entirely, in favor of what the Axis thought of it. (The Convention only prohibited attacks on undefended cities, & there were no undefended cities in Germany or Occupied Europe after about June 1940, so "war crime" is a non-starter. What it says about intentional attacks on civilians IDK. What the law considers "intentional" I won't even hazard a guess, since it seems to be unrelated to real world use of the word. : I'd also agree with Nick-D's comment above about Dresden: presenting just one side of the issue is POV by definition.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a source which calls the straffing of Japanese troops in the war following the Battle of the Bismarck Sea a war crime? The material I've read on this highlights it as being distasteful at best and disgraceful at worst, but doesn't go as far as labeling it a war crime. If such a reference does exist it should be included. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a source, I don't know of one, tho I haven't read everything there is on the subject. What I've seen seems to accept it. I don't recall Dower even bringing it up, but that might be the place to look first.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dresden and Hiroshima, but not Tokyo?
I'm somewhat surprised to find that firebombing of Dresden ranks as a potential war crime, and the atomic bombings do as well, but the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Japan does not. The number of cities targeted is immense, and the number of civilians killed is far greater than that at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There can be no question that they were a deliberate strategy of city destruction. The March 1945 bombing of Tokyo alone accounted for 10X the civilian deaths as at Dresden. It seems a rather glaring omission. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read that the Tokyo, a very large city whose population lived in highly flamable buildings and houses, was bombed with a mix of incindiary and high explosive bombs that were intended to, and did cause, a firestorm, that burned and destroyed the much of the city killing scores of thousands of men, women, and children. I would call that one of the greater crimes of the war. Anthony Gumbrell 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please find reliable sources that state as such then it can be added, however it would seem it would be a murky area such as other places that were bombed: it was a military/industrial, political, and defended target. The bombing affected light and heavy industries and dehoused the work force - this Total War afterall. However i do find agreement with the notion it seems a bit silly so much focus is on places like Dresden when other cities were more heavily bombed, but this ackowledges the post-war historiography.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What about the US troops taking advantage of the Japanese brothel system?
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/us-troops-in-world-war-ii-raped-and-prostituted-the-comfort-women/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.175.94 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see mention of this in the article on Rape during the occupation of Japan --Habap (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dresden photo
Since the bombing has never faced accept consensus that it was a warcrime, no one has been charged with it being a warcrime, and it’s a controversial issue of it should even be consider so due to the fact it was a defended city and industrial-military target, the photo is does not seem entirely appropriate for the article. I am therefore suggesting that it be removed and replaced with a photo with another one of the subjects that is covered, that is more clearcut.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible to me. Allied war crimes during World War II is rather POV though in that it only presents the view that the bombings were a war crime and not the view that they weren't (to the extent of referencing Ribbentrop's views!). Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Meyer as a reliable source
I challenge the use of Kurt Meyer as a reliable source. He commanded an SS unit and has clear and obvious bias. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Both the sources given for this material were Waffen SS officers, and no independent assessments were provided. I've just removed the paragraph. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The last great civilian bombing by Allies
There should be mention and a link specifically to Wurzberg given the circumstances of that decision to proceed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_W%C3%BCrzburg_in_World_War_II Bombing of Wurzburg in World War II.

There are numerous written accounts of Canadian forces "taking no prisoners" after the Normandy beach landings. Several years later there were a number of incidents during the police action in Korea which were by forces under commanders who had seen WWII service and were aware of the "practicalities". Some those solders were still active in Canadian forces as late as 1968 (PPCLI and other.)

See Robert Graves on the Canadians in WW I and his own forces practices in finishing off German wounded in no-man's land ( the 'cosh ).

G. Robert Shiplett 23:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been 35 years since I looked it over – the guys at school were passing it around at lunch because it was so cool – but I believe it is a book called Caen: Anvil of Victory that describes our war crimes.
 * There's the Canadian-SS vendetta. There's tossing Germans under the tracks of our tanks.
 * And there's my favourite: Germans attack some francophones while they're eating. Our guys win the skirmish but they're still ticked off about having their meal interrupted, so they slit the throats of the wounded Jerries.
 * Seems a bit barbaric now, but back in the '70s, it was givin' 'em what they had comin'. Varlaam (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Europe--Canada
I don't think Canada is a part of Europe. B-) (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the there is a slight pro-allied forces bias in this article
I agree, I think we should re-account history. Germany and the Axis did indeed perform their share of the atrocities, but in every section when talking about an Allied war crime it'll say "but Germany did the same". On an article of Axis war crimes I don't think you'd be typing the same thing now, would ya'? But I would like to say, that the Allies used Civilian population to their advantage, and bombed German cities in the night, while Germany bombed military targets during the day. Now you'll probably going to say, "Oh what about the Bombing of Guernica!?", well ya that was a raid against civilian population, however it was ordered by Hermann Göring and because of it he was demoted from his position in the Reichstag. I'm not trying to take a pro-Axis stance on this matter but it is history and you can't deny such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.171.199 (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Germans bombed various cities by day and night throughout the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes and no, the Germans bombed cities, of course, no denying that, but it was during the day, maybe when their was a huge battle going on, such as Stalingrad, but even then their targets were not aimed for civilian population as much as military.
 * Incorrect. Major British cities were raided during the day and night, although i am under the impression the raids - for the most part - targeted miltiary related targets such as docks, factories etc, although - i would assume due to inaccurate bombing - targets well outside the city where hit that are void of anything military related.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If your referring to cross fire then yes I'm sure there was. Yes that's what I've been saying the Germans raided cities, British and Russian alike, but they targeted Military and not civilian, even when Hitler invaded Poland the Germans were only aiming for soldiers. Churchill bombed numerous cities throughout the war but unlike Hitler he bombed civilian population. Remember Dresden? Or even the Cap Arcona? And even far before 1944 the British were bombing German cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cole (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But lets get this straight, I'm not saying NO ONE died in German air raids, all I'm saying is that it wasn't their intention to harm civilian populace, unlike the Allie's.
 * I don't mean to sound rude, but you need to read up on air warfare of World War II, as what you've posted above about German tactics is wrong. There are lots of good books on this topic, but for starters you could read Wikipedia articles such as Bombing of Wieluń, Rotterdam Blitz, The Blitz, Operation Steinbock, V-1 flying bomb and V-2. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While nowhere near the level of Allied bombing, the Liverpool Blitz article also provides further evidence to the point being made by Nick and I. Regardless of intent (i.e. the apparent objective of targeting docks) the Luftwaffe inflicted considerable damage to the city with nearly 200,000 houses destroyed or damaged. The housing estates are set back several miles from the docks, in general there are commercial areas between them. The photo in the article is around half a km away from the nearest docks, ones that iirc were built for sailing ships and not that useful for unloading container ships, and looks towards residential and commercial areas. Evidence is still there today, and highlighted within the article, that bombs rained down on the city centre from one end to the other: the city centre containing no military targets.
 * In regards to your own examples Mr Cole, i suggest rather than looking at the number of lives lost and forming an emotional opinion, you look at why these places were targeted and gather as much information as possible so not to draw simple conclusions (i.e. the Germans did not target civilians), take a step back and form a balanced opinion on what happened as after all this was a total war that was being waged. With that said, that position of course does not cover acts which are grossly over the line of what should be appropriate in that kind of war i.e. the basis of articles like these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * how about Coventry? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of you are looking at World War II through a modern lens. The majority of the people on all sides of the conflict viewed it as "total war," not just a conflict between national governments, or combatants, but as a war of survival between whole peoples and all of a nation's resources. Wikipedia--Total War: "The Second World War can be considered the quintessential total war of modernity. The level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the battlespace being contested, the scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of civilians (and civilian property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented and unsurpassed, multicontinental scale." Axis and Allied cities were regarded as legitimate targets for military operations and as such describing the bombing of Dresden, London, or Hiroshima as "war crimes" is a case of 21st century sensibilities being applied to a conflict waged in an entirely different epoch. Arcanicus (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect what reliable sources class as war crimes, not what editors interpret various events as. That's it. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

German POWs in the US
I just read in the September/October 2012 edition of World War II magazine that the US implemented a program to convert German POWs imprisoned in the US from Nazism to US-style democracy, called the "Intellectual Diversion Program". According to the article, this was against the Geneva Convention which prohibited attempts to brainwash or convert prioners of war to their captors' idealogies. Is this a war crime? [Source: Baily, Ronald, H., "Coming to a Town Near You", World War II magazine, September/October 2012, pp. 44-53.]
 * The Camp Forrest article has a few lines about it. Here are a few things i briefly found online to add some detail to the above: Historynet.com article, The University of Chicago conference that briefly mentions it, info on a pow camp that run one of the programmes. The historynet.com article states "There was also the matter of the Geneva Convention. But someone noted a loophole in the document's Article 17, which read, "So far as possible, belligerents shall encourage intellectual diversions and sports organized by prisoners of war."" Granted i have not read the rest of the article, or the others i have just linked to, but at first glances it looks more like a grey area although would warrant a more indepth look?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will keep an eye out for more information on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The methods used to spy on 'high-value' Japanese POWs in a couple of camps in the US may have violated the Geneva Conventions: Japanese prisoners of war in World War II, though all the sources agree that conditions in Allied POW camps were generally quite good. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Worst allied war crime
It was British made famine of Bengal in 1942 in India,no mention of it??Why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.214.8 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because it was nothing to do with the war and only partially to do with the British. And, IIRC it was '43? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with the fact that it was to do with the British. It is not mentioned because no reliable historian has yet to call it a war crime committed by the British upon the Indian people. It was more to do with a combination of factors (a world war ranging just next door to the province, shipping being attacked, lack of transport, administration failure, benign neglect, free trade policies etc) that resulted in the famine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

UK torture camp
Hi, I think the declassified documents about a British torture camp as published by The Guardian should be included in the article, here is the link to the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/topstories3.secondworldwar -- User:TheLastPiece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.39.119 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, a similar article from the same author and the same day has already been used in the article. See the London Cage under the British section. I think, for reliability reasons, any further information that has come to light on the cage or any other British camps should come from a more reliable source (i.e. peer reviewed secondary source as released by a historian either via book or within a journal per the various wiki guidelines) than the newspaper.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rheinwiesenlager
Both this article and United States war crimes fail to mention the Rheinwiesenlager, where the US Army elegantly circumvented the question of POW handling by designating the inmates "Disarmed Enemy Forces" instead of "POWs". I wonder if the 0.15% mortality rate of German POWs in US camps is taking the deaths at the Rheinwiesenlagers into account? -- DevSolar (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't. But then they conveniently hide behind paper,when the atrocities in the Rheinwiesenlager are to be researched and discussed. --105.237.38.144 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why was the using of aircraft to bomb cities war crimes in this article?
It is already made clear that there was no international law that specifically prohibited using aircraft to bomb civilians prior to and during WW2. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials stated that a person has to clearly be in violation of the laws of war in order to be guilty of a﻿ crime. This means that the bombardment of civilians by aircraft, as practiced by Japan, Germany, Britain, and the US in approximately that order, were not war crimes. The Wikipedia articles of German War crimes and Japanese War Crimes in WW2 didn't even list their own aerial raids as one of the list of war crimes either. That's double standards. I'm considering changing this article, adding new information, and revise the article in order to clear this misconception and misunderstanding. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The way the article is at the moment it notes that 'some' historians believe that some of the (or all the) raids constituted a war crime and the Axis leaders believed so too. I think, for the sake of balance despite recognition that Axis bombing wasn't considered in the same light, if you are going to revise the article this would still have to be included.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see a huge justification that the air raids should stay in this article while the Axis ones were not. This is pure hypocrisy at its finest and things have to be fair for both sides equally. Allegations that does not involve major debates, when it's quite clearly it wasn't, cannot be supported by legitimate facts and cannot be considered to be war crimes. You can't just put up a title that says 'war crimes' then put up some allegations that type of action was a war crime when it lacked legitimate evidences. If the authors thinks so, then they don't have their facts being supported by legitimate evidences that it was or that they have their own agenda. I think we should list the war crimes of Japanese using human shields in the Pacific War even though there was no international law against that type of practice. The Axis should have listed their aerial raids war crime in their articles as well to make things fair. The same officers that thought the shooting of enemy pilots parachuting to safety from disabled aircraft a war crime but there was no international law that prohibited the type of practice. A war crime is an action that carried out during the conduct of war that VIOLATES internationally accepted rules of war and even that the air raids in the "war crime" article were not ruled as war crimes. Prior to WW2, everyone thought (or some thought) that bombing civilians was a war crime, whether by land, sea, or air. However, Neville Chamberlain in 1938 recognized that "[t]he fact is that there is at present no international code of law with respect to aerial warfare which is the subject of general agreement. There are certain﻿ rules of international law which have been established for sea and land warfare." Even the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials never directly addressed the issue of a war crime. By universal agreement, clearly the bombing of civilians by aircraft were not considered war crimes and are not subject to debate. It is quite clear to everyone that it was not. Since the the air raids in WW2 listed as war crimes has been put up in this article for years, I believe it's time for a change for the good, especially it is universally clear to everyone and not subject to debate. It was considered unethical to bomb civilians by aircraft in WW2 but by the laws of war, it was not a war crime. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can remove these things from the list of war crimes in the section: Allied aerial raids, the Dresden bombing, and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then put them in "Policy" section where I can place the same information there and revise them. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your point that these actions did not breech the rules of war and that the article needs to be updated. Your proposed edits sound find, be bold! All I would suggest is that, despite your disagreement with some historians point of view, that at least a little should remain noting that some do consider these actions to be crimes or breeches of ethics etc and contrast - like you have said - against the sourced material that provides the other point of view.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

By the Haager Convention the deliverate bombardment( artillierie) of a city was not allowed. But this was written in a time where there was no air force. So generaly it was seen like this, that on basis of this Convention the areal bombardment of a city was only allowed, when it was in the cause of the war effort. So most of the early use of airpower was not close to a war crime. It started later with the british attac on Lübeck ( Red Cross town) and the German counter bombing the so called Bedekker bombings. In this light the German use of the V1 and V 2 would be a war crime but the bombing of Dresden too ( their was no real war production in the city outside yes but exactly that was not bombed) further the bombing of Braunschweig und Potsdam is in Question. So on the allied side mainly the British conducted bombings witch where designed as revenge and could be seen as war crimes. The american bombardments where brutal but had as far i know all a clear defined war aim. Railwaystation, Industrie and so on. In Hamburg you can list the harbour in Dresden you can not. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.84.178 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
Maybe Rape during the occupation of Germany could be linked in the appropriate sections. Maybe a (more) prominent reference to war crimes by Axis powers could be included. --Mythographus (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reprisals
The following sentence appears in the article:
 * "At Seedorf, in Germany, British armoured forces randomly selected and burned two cottages on 21 April 1945, as a reprisal against local civilians who had hidden German soldiers in their cellars"

At the time such reprisals again civilian populations were not considered a war crime by any or the major belligerents during World War II—see Hostages Trial: as that article says "The tribunal also remarked that both the British Manual of Military Law and the U.S. Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals against a civilian population. (The British manual did not mention killing, but the US manual included killing as a possible reprisal.)"

-- PBS (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) In this case and who is stating that it was crime?
 * 2) Under what code of law are the stating it was a war crime?
 * As the relevant reference page is available online, I linked the citation to the actual text before removing the content as WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, although WP:POV would be far more accurate. In context, the event is discussed as a reprisal, not as a war crime. It was merely alluded to as being an atypically ferocious reprisal for the British, and a breach of rules (although the 'rules' were ill-defined). There's a distinct line between the description of actions and a POV revisionist refactoring of events. It's not Wikipedia's role to make personal judgement calls in ascribing legal terminology retrospectively. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources not used in citations
There are two sources that are listed in references but not used in citations:



I suggest that they be removed. Both authors are former SS officers and their works have been shown to be revisionist apologia (see Waffen-SS historical revisionism). They are not used for anything in the article.

Further, I see that Kurt Meyer was already discussed here earlier to a similar effect.

Please let me know if there'd be any concerns over the removal. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly not reliable sources, especially for a topic such as this. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They would have npov issues to say the least, especially Kurt Meyer and good secondary sources are always better when they can be found and used for subject matters. And if not used, no reason to keep them in. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert of invasion of Iran
Pinging User:Rjensen about this revert. Will Sunrise at Abadan: The British and Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1941 or Nationalism in Iran: Updated Through 1978 do as reliable sources for the deliberate mass murder of disarmed prisoners of war, etc.?
 * You keep adding the same material in, yet you have not demonstrated that any of those titles call the Anglo-Soviet invasion a crime against peace, or a war crime. Nor have page numbers been provided, what pages support your material? Using Google Books, I was unable to locate the terms war crime or crime against peace, etc. In addition, I was unable to find any mention of the alleged murder of prisoners of war as stated above.
 * Thus far, the material seems to be a breach of WP:SYN; the guidelines of the wiki state we cannot make conclusions. You need a source that very clearly, and precisely, lays out that a historical assessment/judgement has been made and that the actions could be considered a war crime, since no judicial action has ever taken place that - as far as I know - states it was one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Allied war crimes during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715172056/http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9705&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=P&P=1025 to http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9705&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=P&P=1025
 * Added tag to http://www.gendercide.org/case_soviet.htmlCase
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923090607/http://www.desertwar.net:80/hms-torbay-n79.html to http://www.desertwar.net/hms-torbay-n79.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

British war crimes
The Royal Navy's blockade was illegal under international law. The RAF began civilian bombing on 11 May 1940. The destruction of Dresden was the most notorious Allied war crime. (217.42.27.140 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
 * not true--& no reliable sources provided. Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The blockade violated the Hague Convention of 1907. The RAF's bombing of civilians from May 1940 was illegal under international law. (217.42.27.140 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
 * You need reliable secondary sources that state this. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Allied war crimes during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm to http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816025402/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk:80/genocide/yugoslav-hist1.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yugoslav-hist1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527063915/http://www.jutarnji.hr:80/tezno-je-najveca-masovna-grobnica-hrvata/267893/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/tezno-je-najveca-masovna-grobnica-hrvata/267893/
 * Added tag to http://www.gendercide.org/case_soviet.htmlCase
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002104342/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk:80/WCC/ghctrial8.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/ghctrial8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Allied war crimes during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010045411/http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/ to http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jutarnji.hr/tezno-je-najveca-masovna-grobnica-hrvata/267893/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030824011504/http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/bismark/ to http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/bismark/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817084455/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Norman Davies quotes and context
Chapter 1, subchapter "The war in the air" (or something inline with that) about two full pages after the headline. (p.44 in my Swedish translation) re-translated:

"The British and American Armies fought in North Africa and later in southern Italy, far out of reach of UK-based aircraft. The only major task for these nations' air force was therefore a persistent bombing campaign against the German heartland. They devoted themselves to the task with increasing fierceness. The chief protagonist of the strategy, the head of the RAF bomb command, Arthur Harris, seemed to think his aircraft would make the opening of a "second front" superfluous. He went in to put all German cities in ash, one after the other until no one could function. The first "Thousand Bomber-Raid" was carried out on 30-31 May 1942. Cologne, Germany's oldest city was laid in ruins." (It then goes on about the destruction of Hamburg and other cities) Chapter 1, subchapter "The moral landscape" (or something inline with that) about four page from that headline. (p.79 in my Swedish translation) re-translated:

"The Western powers should not be too self-complacent given the allegations directed against themselves. The strategic bombing officer who might have killed half a million civilians must be labeled as "excessive violence" and if the German raid against Coventry, which cost 380 human lives, is considered a crime, it is difficult to understand why the British raids against Cologne, Hamburg, Kassel, Berlin and Dresden are not classified in the same way. ." (the underlinings by me, nothing else) There is more on the bombings but I hope these quotes are sufficient.

Where exactly in this article these bombings belong, can well be discussed. But that the "Thousand-Bomber-Raids" without military targets are war crimes, is not my invention - but Norman Davies'. Boeing720 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * But the material you added is generic, and rather rambling, text about the raids. The placement of this material is also rather random. If Davies' considers them to have been a war crime, the article should focus on that. It seems surprising that this issue isn't discussed in the article at present: many historians and legal experts consider the air raids which targeted civilians to have been morally indefensible and perhaps legally problematic (though, as I understand it, bombing civilians was not a war crime until after WW2), but many experts also regard them as either being defensible, or somewhere in-between. The article needs to reflect the differing views. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * First only - isn't it all rather generic and rambeling ? The UK-part of this article. Beginning with : "On 4 May 1940, in response to Germany's intensive unrestricted submarine warfare, during the Battle of the Atlantic and its invasion of Denmark and Norway, the Royal Navy conducted its own unrestricted submarine campaign..." - What kind of a war-crime... Do we sow mosquitoes but swallow camels?
 * Isn't the main purpose of this article to illuminate crimes in the war against civilians ? I've been at Coventry, but am far from certain on the German raid on the city where Lady Godiva once rode naked.. (but I think Rolls Royce manufactured airplane engines close to the city centre) but if that was an "official" war crime (and to quote Davies a second time) "if the German raid against Coventry, which cost 380 human lives, is considered a crime, it is difficult to understand why the British raids against Cologne, Hamburg, Kassel, Berlin and Dresden are not classified in the same way." Personally I agree with Davies on that. I don't think we here and now (Wikipedia, 2018) are obligated to reason like if we were the Nuremberg judges in 1946.
 * Put it any way you like, and wherever you like, but I really think this has to be mentioned somehow. I should add, far from all UK or UK-US bombings were war crimes, many bombings aimed to decrease the German production and transportation system etc. But Harris wished to destroy about 100 German cities, and was even criticised in the UK already during the war. "We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end. We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly." he said []. Boeing720 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, most legal experts agree that none of the air raids against civilians during World War II were war crimes, as this was not outlawed until after the war. I don't think that any Axis commanders were prosecuted for conducting such attacks after the war for this reason. While the article should discuss this issue, the text you're proposing is both vague and partial. This, of course, was not limited to the British: the USAAF also attacked German cities and destroyed most of urban Japan. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Legal experts ? From where and when ? Surely this a piece of history by now ? I'm aware that the USAAF also carried out lots of the bombings. And presumably more bombs dropped on the German cites came from American bombers than from the RAF. However Arthur Harris has become well-known for his insistence of the total destruction of cities. (But naturally this can be shared)
 * I make a minor side jump. Not related to Davies' work, but on bombing of cities. I can well remember a British TV-documentary (I'm fairly certain it was a BBC or ITV documentary) about the bombings on Rome in 1943. An at least 2500 year old city. Would it be righteous to destroy "the eternal city" over "a historically local issue" (local in time, some of Rome's buildings has been standing there since BC times, and may continue to do so until the Apocalypse. Could it be in order to destroy them for the future over a military conflict which from a Roman perspective lasted betewwn 1940 and 1943 ? And in a situation in which Italy anyways was about to change side!? Thanks to the fact that a large number of Catholic American airmen (high ranked officers included) protested, the raids were limited to the huge railway station Stazzione Termini and surrounding areas including the working class San Lorenzo district. (It was stated that the station was of huge significance for transports between the north and south of Italy. But even this wasn't true. As the name suggests, it was and still is a terminal station. The north to south railways are located east of the city. The only strategic significance it had, was to regular train passengers. Freight trains and soldier transports didn't need to use Stazzione Termini). However most of the city was spared for the future. But if Rome and the Vatican had been totally destroyed (like Hamburg or Dresden), I think it had been "a crime against the history of mankind". I wished to share this somewhat off-topic matter with you.
 * Back to the issue. Were there any international laws on concentration camps ? Any laws on genocide ? That the Third Reich had signed ? I think, and I'm certain you agree with me on that, such matters are totally beside the point (weather signed by Hitler or not). And Hitler's Germany committed enormous crimes during this war. And by 1946 naturally the victorious allies had to do something about it (including Stalin's Soviet Union). But shouldn't the Western allies today be measured with the same historical measurements as Germany directly after the war, and later also Stalin'sSoviet Union.
 * But please, this is not the same as putting an equal sign between the British war efforts and the one of Third Reich. Very far from it. But still, the bombing and deliberate destruction of city after city Arthur Harris' style was absurd, bad military strategy, morally wrongful and a crime during the war. According to more historical authors than just Davies. It's not a legal matter, but history only. NPOV, I think.
 * The city after city destruction and thereby killings of civilians (a majority of women, children and elderly people) may even prolonged the war, as the German people began to see the UK and US as "monsters in the air", and not through the Nazi propaganda but in reality - and hence they could only see a continued trust in Hitler as their only hope of survival. Equally, I don't think the Blitz made Germany more popular among the Londoners. I can't know this, but well imagine, that more German attempts to kill Hitler had been carried out, if flyers had been dropped on the cities and bombs only on military targets (including factories and infrastructure). Boeing720 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
It reads like all war crimes from the allies were either done by the Soviets (who had the most justifiable for the hatred due to what Germans did) or tiny little things done by the US and UK--like you know, killing 8 civilians or so. Whoops! How about the intensely debated topics such as the firebombing of 68 Japanese cities which roasted to death around 300,000 population or about the atomic bombings of civilian centers? I know those topics are intensely debated. But there's no doubt that some consider those to be war crimes. Read for example, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Hasegawa and others consider the firebomings and atomic bombings to be war crimes. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2011/08/15/the-deterrent-that-wasn/ye2XDdXK3qOcYmcQz9EDfJ/story.html 71.31.30.66 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Air raids were not considered violations of international law before and during the war and thereby should be completely left out of the discussion. This is already discussed plenty of times. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy section
This is not written from a neutral point of view. People may disagree with Freidrich but the job of a wiki article is to present different sides of the debate not simply state that someone is wrong. Also other commentators beside Friedrich have also made the argument and he is not simply the lone voice being depicted. I have made edits to give neutral pov, if anyone objects feel free to discuss further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:811F:8F4A:33C4:864B (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Links to War Crimes of Germany and its allies are missing
Should be linked under see also 134.3.15.126 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)