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

Crimes and Acts of War
See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1 for earlier discussion on this section.

If you are talking about the 2,000,000 figure then there are other sources besides Beevor available to you, such as Norman M. Naimark whose research reaches the same conclusion as the aforementioned German scholars. "Of particular importance to these relations was the behavior of Red Army soldiers during the initial period of occupation. Naimark's research supports the estimate made by German historians Barbara Johr and Helke Sander that Soviet soldiers raped as many as two million German women between the time their counteroffensive reached German territory and well past the formal end of hostilities." From: HNet review of The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. --Stor stark7 Talk 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From the link it is unclear on what basis he supports this particular figure. He just supports them without explanation - why exactly 2,000,000. Of course it is the fact that excesses and violation against civilians did occur as it goes in any acting army. It is well documented in the Soviet archives - all sort of reports, court martial papers etc. Thousands of Soviet soldiers and officeres were prosecuted and a lot of them executed. --Nekto 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

 * See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1.
 * See Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 1 for previous discussion on this section

I have been looking into the accusation of hypocrisy but it does not hold water because the British did not change their policy, from that at the start of the war that broadly complied with the 1922 Hague Rules of Air Warfare, to that of strategic bombing until the day after Rotterdam was Blitzed. The decision was taken at Cabinet level that the policy would have to be changed because the Germans were clearly not keeping to similar rules of engagement and that the Allies would have to match and surpass them in this area if they were to win the war. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some would say that this is hypocritical, in fact. But when a sentence starts with "some would say" then it's time to remove that topic from a wikipedia page. I agree with you on that removal. --Lou Crazy 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

--Lou Crazy 10:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Democide?
I have removed:
 * ''Rudolph J. Rummel counts most of the above acts as democide, i.e. murder on the part of a government. He includes area bombings, atomic bombings, and other killings such as those of the Holocaust, the Gulags, and due to forced population transfer in the Soviet Union during this time period.


 * ''However, his main thesis is that democratic countries (such as the USA and the United Kingdom) are less likely to engage in democide than non-democratic ones (such as Germany in WWII or URSS).

Because the in the Definition of Democide by R.J. Rummel, from his book Death by Government.
 * I have to again be absolutely clear on this since so much takes place in time of war. War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. That killing explicitly permitted is not democide. Thus, the death of civilians during the bombing of munitions plants in World War II is not democide. Nor is the death of civilians when through navigation or bombing errors, or the malfunction of equipment, bombs land on a school or hospital, unless it is clear that the bombing was carried out recklessly in spite of a high risk to such civilian buildings. Nor is the death of civilians in a bombed village beneath which has been built enemy bunkers. Nor is the death of civilians caught in a cross fire between enemy soldiers, or those civilians killed while willingly helping troops haul supplies or weapons. Seldom is it easy to make these distinctions, but the aim here must be clear. I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle or battle related disease and famine. The former are those victims (which may include the military, as when POWs are massacred) of internationally prohibited war-time killing, what may be called war-crimes or crimes against humanity.

I think we can say that he does explicitly exclude war deaths which occure within the laws of war. and as there were no "international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit[ing]" area bombings, and atomic bombings, the paragraph was incorrect. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the democide paragraph was badly written anyway. We can think about it later. BTW, the following text was part of that paragraph, too, and ought to be removed at the same time:


 * --Lou Crazy 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich and revisionism
From the history of the article:
 * 01:12, 15 October 2006 Lou Crazy ... (Dresden was anyway an instance of area bombing, and historical revisionism (negationism) is the best description I could find by reading article Jörg Friedrich)
 * 11:26, 15 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer ... (Friedrich would not acknowledge that the was a negationist, he does acknowledge he is a revisionsit. From the POV of the article that still makes his views outside the mainstream)

Not even David Irving would acknowledge that he was a negationist. Irving acknowledges he is a revisionist, although the British court sided with his opponents who claimed that he was a negationist because he was a Holocaust denier. From the POV of the sentence it does not matter which Friedrich is providing that it is mentioned to show that his views are not those of most mainstream qualified historians. My own preference it not to link to either article, but if other editors insist that we do it, is better that we link it to the article about legitimate historical revisionists because that is what Friedrich must be acknowledging that he is. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a look at Friedrich's entry in Wikipedia, and that seemed the best description to me. I think it clarifies the text, but I won't insist on it.
 * --Lou Crazy 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber, please explain your tag
See above. Also, I did some editing of some lets just say "less than accurate" English and my explanations are all in my edit summaries. In your "crusade for NPOV" it seems you've given this article some special attention...labels, advisories...that no other war crimes article has. It is illogical to tag something if there is, conceivably, nothing that can be done to "fix" the article - its sole purpose is to concentrate on a select group's war crimes. Also...and I have had this discussion with PBS...ask yourself what it is exactly that makes Friedrich "controversial"? Is he fudging numbers? Is he manipulating sources? Revisionism is a field of study, controversial is just someone's pov (unless the above is occuring).--72.92.15.61 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was me who placed the original tag, not Haber. You will find detailed reasons in the recent archives.  The veracity of the article, and the sources on which it is based, is disputed.  That is why the tag has to remain.  White Guard 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have actually taken the time to read through the archive and I have seen a lot of long-winded analysis of certain topics, but no, the issue at hand is not addressed. The closest explanation I can find is this:

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


 * How would an article about Allied war crimes not be slanted against the Allies. If the article truly sticks to its war crimes focus - which it should - the slant is going to be the inclusion of everything people believe to constitute allied war crimes and the exclusion of everything they do not. Are you suggesting that some of these events are not war crimes per se? What is wrong with the sources? they look legitimate to me.

Perhaps a tag is necessary, but I do not feel that we have the right one on here.--Sauerkraut patriot 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Sauerkraut. Unless major changes are made to this article, I must also insist that the tag remain.  Among the specific suggestions that I favor:
 * Name change to "alleged war crimes"
 * Remove strategic bombing
 * Remove links to articles in which the main evidence is made-up quotes. (mainly Patton)
 * Moderate the claims on the Marocchinate link. Haber 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sauerkraut patriot? Hmm, interesting. Well I do think that these are some valid points you have raised. I also forward the notion that the wrong tag is being used here, if any is indeed necessary. NPOV and unbalanced do not appear to describe the situation at hand, as they relate to the content of the article. I think the criticism here is being directed towards the article itself. Is it fair to make an article that takes such a narrow focus, i.e. the dangers of international trade? I think so. However, there had better be a link out of the page that allows one to analyze the entire situation, not just a collapsed, sub-sub-sub category. One should note that other war crimes pages - including those that choose an even narrow context (ie wehrmacht war crimes) - have no such content advisory warnings. Perhaps it would be better to simply introduce the listing as some argue that... or something to that extent.--72.92.15.61 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Name change to "alleged war crimes"  Rheinwiesenlager (disputed)
 * maybe the use of (disputed), like above, is the solution. It is subtle, it isn't as ridiculous as the enormous advisory warning that makes wikipedia look ridiculous and if it really is disputed, well, it is true. Also, this allows for us to look at individual issues rather than pressing what is an obvious "pro-Allied pov"--72.92.15.61 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is best to list all events refering to the individual Wikipedia pages, labeling as "disputed" the disputed ones. The reader will follow the link and decide for himself.
 * --Lou Crazy 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noticed repeated editor comments on the page asking me to justify my reverts. Maybe I didn't explain sufficiently, but in addition to my own comments on this discussion page, I agree with many of the comments of White Guard and PBS.  There are some very specific discussions already here, which sufficiently explain what is going on.  I do not always feel compelled to chime in, but I will edit the main page if I think it will improve the quality of the article.  If you have any more specific questions please let me know. Haber 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Allied war crimes refers to atrocities

 * The phrase Allied war crimes refers to atrocities or other acts committed between 1939 and 1945 by the powers... '

This is a nonsense: War crimes are war crimes and may or may not be atrocities (for example firing a gun while flying a false flag is a war crime, but it may not be an atrocity). Equally an atrocities may or may not be be war crime, for example the maltreatment ethnic minorities perceived by the Soviet Government to be sympathetic to the Germans is seen by many to have lead to atrocities.

The previous wording "Allied war crimes were those crimes of war committed by the Allies of World War II against civilian populations or the soldiers of the Axis Armed Forces, including those of the allies of the Axis." is much more accurate so I am reverting to the previous version --Philip Baird Shearer 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * War crimes are "crimes of war". Please.  It's a circular definition and sounds ridiculous. How about 'illegal acts'? Also, why mention both soldiers and civilians? Who else is there? That can probably be deleted altogether. The entire intro still reads conversational in tone. Michael Dorosh  Talk  18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point so I looked at what it says at the start of the war crime page:
 * In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under International Law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts are typically limited to the local jurisdiction. In essence, the term "war crime" represents the concept of an international jurisdiction as applicable to the most severe crimes, in areas where government is dysfunctional and society is in a state of turmoil.

and altered the start of this article to "Allied war crimes were violations of the laws of war committed by the Allies of World War II against civilian populations or the soldiers of the Axis Armed Forces..." I left "including those of the allies of the Axis." but I an not sure what it means and unless someone can explain why it is there I think it should be deleted. There is a difference between Axis Armed Forces and Axis civilians, becausse some of those who fought for the Axis were not citizens of an Axis state (eg some white Russians like Andrei Shkuro, or Indians of the Indian National Army). --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been away a few days, and I see so many different versions of that starting sentence... some of them were really ridiculous :-)
 * Do we really need that sentence?
 * Lou Crazy--00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it works, Philip. As for the NPOV tag or any of the same variety, I'm still waiting for the explanation. Leaving individual comments from various sources concerning certain events (i.e. strategic bombing) is precisely why I think the article was slanted and the POV tag was merited. I believe it was mitsos who objected to the mass deletion of these "side comments", but it was clear where this was leading to, as the "explanation" opened the door for infinite point, counterpoint analysis, till we have essentially what is on the artice that the link takes us to. This page is more of a list than anything. If we choose to approach it differently, I fear there is too much material we are trying to work with. Small - very small- explanations seem suffice, but we should be mindful of POV.--72.92.12.154 09:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, concerning the rest of the introduction, the overemphasis on humanitarian law at the time in the intro - without including sources that quote otherwise - is pov so I have cut it down to a brief "you should consider this" type of rationale. --72.92.15.61 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aerial bombardment
From the history of the page:
 * 10:46, 24 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer: rv to last version by Haber. What is the source that Aerial bombardment during wold war II was a war crime?
 * 08:25, 25 October 2006 Mitsos: rv are you blind? there are 17 references
 * 12:07, 25 October 2006 Haber: rv see talk
 * 19:26, 25 October 2006 Mitsos: rv there is nothing in talk
 * 19:52, 25 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer: rv to last version by Haber. I must be blind, What is the source that Aerial bombardment during wold war II was a war crime? Friedrich claims it, which source, (or wiki page) explains it?

The current version haber and I (PBS) are reverting to states:
 * The German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich, claims that "Winston Churchill's decision to [area] bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime."[7][8]

Mitos what are your other 15 references that area bombardment was a war crime? Which one states the treaty, or customs of war, that was broken when belligerents used aerial bombardment during World War II? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In "my" version of the article, there 5 refs in that sentence. Mitsos 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Which one explains the "war crime" which was being committed? Which Wikipedia article that this article could link to unequivocally states that aerial bombardment was a war crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you all need a source for a credible opinion on whether Allied area bombing was a war crime or not, here's one:


 * Grayling is a professor of philosophy at the University of London (source: book jacket).  After discussing the issue of Allied area bombing and presenting arguments for both sides (Was area bombing wrong or right?) on p. 276 he finally states his own opinion- "Area bombing was a crime."
 * This article should, of course, present both sides of the argument about whether it was a war crime or not. We shouldn't be offended that an article such as this exists in Wikipedia, because the Allied powers and the members of their armed forces and political leadership sometimes made wrong decisions in  how they conducted themselved during the conflict.  We should, though, make sure that this article presents all sides of the issue. Cla68 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a very good reference, I thing you should includ a mention in in the article. Does he only state crime or does he state war crime? Does he explian why he thinks area bombing was a war crime, (which laws of war were broken) and does he include American targeted bombing in Europe as a war crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He's very clear that the U.S. bombing campaign in Europe was not a crime, because it was directed at military targets. He says that the British nighttime bombing campaign, especially the firebombing, and the U.S. firebombing campaign in Japan were crimes, basically because they targeted civilians and the cultural institutions of their societies (homes, schools, etc.).  I'll outline his argument for why he thinks they were against the laws of war here later once I have his book back in front of me.  I think his argument should actually be stated in the "Strategic bombing during World War II" article with a brief synopsis of it here along with a  link from this article to that article. Cla68 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhapse a paragraph in Area bombardment. Of course if one thinks that the American bombing was different from the RAF in Europe one has to explain why the bomb mix used in the Dresden raid by the USAAF was similar to the RAF city busting mix and not the more usual US precision mix. One also has to explain the raid on Berlin on February 3 1945, along with many other raids of a similar type. I have ordered Grayling's book, and I am very interested to see his arguments. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My copy of A. C. Grayling "Among the Dead Cities" has arrived. So I looked up page 276 he does not say it was a war crime. He starts his book on a chapter called "Introduction:Was it a crime" in which on page 4 he writes "Is this assertion - 'delierately mounting military attacks on civilian populations a moral crime? - an unqualified truth?". In the chapter "The case against the bombing" on page 226 he says of the 1907 Hague conventions "however legalistically one might claim that its provisions were not violated in the letter, seems quite clearly and emphatically violated in spirit by area bombing". On page 244 he examins Harris's claim that there was "no international law at all" and mentions that Geoffrey Best wrote that the assertion was not correct but "if he had restricted himself to saying that there was not much of it, and that what there was lay mostly in the relm of principles". In the chapter Judgement towards the end of the book which includes page 276 he says is that "The history behind the provisions of the 1977 first protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is left in silence by [area bombing]. But its meaning is crystal clear; as a retrospective judgement on area bombing, it nominates it as a crime." (this is a sumation of his argument on page 237). He goes on to say on the next page "In short and in sum: was area bombing wrong? Yes. Very wrong? Yes" but he does not say it was a war crime. Indeed several times in the same chapter (Judgement) he uses the term "immoral act" (page 272) and "moral crime(s)" (pages 272, 274,275) to describe area bombing, he does not use the term "war crime".


 * So I do not think that Grayling is addressing the question was area bombardment in World War II a war crime in the legal meaning, instead he is addressing the issue as a moral crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote of his that I cited doesn't say "war crime," it says just, "crime." Starting on page 121, he goes into the history of war crime law, and, although he never explicitely states that area bombing violated these "laws," he implicitly states this.  However, I believe that he stops short of asserting that the bombings were definite "war" crimes because there is some ambiguity in the "law."  Therefore, he takes the approach of determining if they were moral crimes or not.  Nevertheless, the one sentence where he leaves out the word "moral" and says just "crime" is perhaps an intentional effort to say that the bombings were crimes in other ways besides moral.  I know this article is titled "Allied war crimes" and, if we need a source that explicitely states that area bombings were "war crimes" and not just "moral crimes," perhaps, on second thought, Grayling doesn't provide the source needed. Cla68 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another possiblilty is in the book "Firestorm the bombing of Dresden", edited by Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang. It is a compliation of essays one per chapter. One chapter is entitled "Dresden as a War Crime by Donald Bloxham". But on reading it he is putting forward a similar type of moral position to Grayling (he also quotes Geoffrey Best), but with some specifics for the Dresden raid. The problem is that with unrestricted submarine warfare there was positive international humanitarian law (Second London Naval Treaty etc) which was broken, but with aerial bombardent there was no positive international humanitarian law, so one is left to look at such things as Military necessity which depends very strongly on a POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've effectively summarized the issues involved within the debate over whether area bombing was a war crime or not. Cla68 12:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Tags
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)
 * this thread is moving quickly, so I thought it necessary to begin this here. Haber, take note that the article mentions that the appellation war crime covers more than those which were charged. It also reads underneath the info box that not all agree that these are war crimes. There is no need to repeat essentially the same information a third time, especially in the form of bright, flashing boxes that scream "hello, here is my point of view"--72.94.202.237 00:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Make that four. I forgot to include the "disputed" message in parenthesis next to area bombing for both USA and UK. Actually, because it is repeated for each, that makes five.--72.94.202.237 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now go back and count all the bogus claims that don't have (disputed) written next to them. Haber 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand..--72.94.202.237 05:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


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

rvv
Mitsos regarding you use of rvv (reverting vandalism) in the "edit summary" of the article which shows up history of the article. Please see Vandalism
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism

and also Three-revert rule
 * Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also assumptions of bad faith. Blocking can be expected in such cases.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok... Mitsos 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mirsos regarding your recent comment in the edit summary "(rvv this is vandalism the article is blanked)" which of the two Wikipedia policies above did you not understand? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mitsos's latest edits appear to blank large sections of the article. --SandyDancer 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm Gustloff
Is there a reliable source that the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff (ship) was a war crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IF (!) I remember correctly, a German documentary stated that the Wilhelm Gustloff was
 * a) going with shut down lights and in camouflage paint, not red cross or anything, and
 * b) carried, besides refugee,s serving members of the Wehrmacht
 * Point a means that the Soviets (or any other enemy) could have had no clue that the ship was a refugee ship, and point b means that it was not eligible for status as a refugee ship, since it transported military units. Again, IF (!) I remember correctly.

Dresden?
The specific targeting of Dresdens civilian population by the war criminal bomber harris isn't mentioned in this article. I see from the chatter on this page that a bunch of english revisionists have decided to pervert history (once again). Don't you people give a shit about reality? Squealing about POV and ignorantly chopping away at articles until they contain nothing at all. Bomber Harris was a war criminal who specifically targeted civilian areas to terrorise the German populace. The people who removed this fact are racists/imperialists who wrap themselves in the blood soaked union jack, the butchers apron. Your english history books don't contain the information because you learn propaganda not history, don't confuse your ignorance with reality. Ignorance is not a point of view children. Churchhill dropped gas on the Kurds in Mesopotamia long before Saddam Hussain did it. 83.70.240.88 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your diatribe is unsourced, anonymous, hostile, and profane. Please learn how to be constructive.  Policies and guidelines is a good starting point. Haber 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The text of this anonymous user should be used as an example on how NOT to "argument".


 * I recommend that you see a History Channel's documentary about the Dresden bombing, especially the part about the U.S. Mustang attack against civilians in parks and roads the following day. -- anonymous 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the Wikipedia article Bombing of Dresden in World War II section The attacks
 * There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims have been refuted by the historian Götz Bergander ( Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen. by Götz Bergander, see References. Also The Bombing of Dresden in 1945:Misstatement of circumstances: low-level strafing in Dresden., by Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, a detailed critique of problems with David Irving's book ). During this raid there was a brief, but possibly intense dogfight between American and German fighters around Dresden, some rounds may have struck the ground and been mistaken for strafing fire ( Frederick Taylor References, pages 497-498 ).
 * Hope this helps to clear up this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Request for comments on two possible aditions
I would like some comments on two possible additions to the article.


 * 1: German refugees who died at the hands of the Danish, I.e. Danish doctors and Red Cross refusing to give medical aid to German Children.

Der Spiegel article, Deutsche Welle article


 * 2: U.S. deliberate refusal to give enough food to ethnic Germans for the first year of the occupation, leading to many civilian deaths.

Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Available as MS Word for Windows file (3.4 MB) (the result of the conference on Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe held at Duquesne University in November 2000.) ISBN 0-8803-3995-0. subsection by Richard Dominic Wiggers, “The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II”

What is certain is that many more POWs and civilians suffered and perished than needed to in the aftermath of World War II, and that the victorious Allies were guided at least partly by a spirit of postwar vengeance in creating the circumstances that contributed to those deaths.

You can read the links as well as I can so I won't elaborate further on their content. Comments please, I would like to insert the two as cases (Allied military occupation of West Germany didn’t end until 1955, peace treaty not signed until 1991) but it would be fairly pointless if it just get reverted at once., So, any agreement, disagreement, dont cares?--Stor stark7 Talk 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the refusal to provide "adequate" food and medical care to civilians a war crime under the conventions established before World War II? If so, then these should be included in the article.  If you in-line cite your sources, I don't think anyone will revert them at once. Cla68 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a given that it was a war crime, but I guess I'll have to try to find the time to look into that. For now, the Hague convention from 1907 article 43 might cover it, depending on interpretation "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.".  Then the Nuremburg trials used the conscept of "ill treatment of civilian population" for some acts comited by Nazi Germany during the war. Article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter provides:
 * " (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;
 * " (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."


 * As a side note, I expect the Allied use of forced labor (briefly covered here)might also be seen as a war crime, in view of the judgements used at Nuremberg for acts committed before the trials (and hence also valid to acts comitted during and after?).--Stor stark7 Talk 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the Danes. Please try to find the direct reference (the paper this newspaper article is talking about), and include a reference from the Danish viewpoint.  I'm wary of the extraordinary claims that 80% of children under 5 died and "What kind of monsters masquerading as human beings were those Danish doctors of 1945?"  A lot of psychological speculation seems to be going on without facts to back it up.


 * Second, U.S. withholding of food from civilians, I can't get the reference to open. Is anyone else having this problem? Haber 13:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think I can find her doctoral paper, which probably was in Danish anyway, but I might find what she published in historicals journals to bring the subject into the open. The Danish TV seems to have made a documentary on the subject as well.


 * I've reread “The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II”, I get some weird error message when I open it in wordviewer, but other than that it works fine for me. Rereading it I realised that the question of legality of the actions in question are extensively reviewed in the book, so it's indeed a warcrime under Hague IV as the US then interpreted it. (A sidenote: dealings with civilians was later replaced by a Geneva convention in 1949)--Stor stark7 Talk 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked at it, I am amazed at how bad it is. The statements are usually unverifiable, stating things like "During Senate hearings in Washington in 1946, another witness testified that" or "He explained to one U.S. Senator", but does not mention what witness, what hearings, what senator, or what he is using as a source! The author does however admit that he represent a minority view on this subject: "The ensuing famine continued for nearly three years, but the few scholars who have examined the issue have concluded that the German famine was simply a tragic by-product of world-wide food shortages." Ultramarine 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're being very unfair to the author. Is it possible that your reader isn't set to display the footnotes? As far as I can tell 50% of the text consists of footnotes, I've hardly ever seen such a well referenced text. Footnotes to the text examples you provided:
 * "During Senate... ( Alexander Boker, "Human Events," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings on A Bill to Amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, as Amended, to Permit the Shipment of Relief Supplies, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, 25 April 1946 (Washington, 1946).)
 * "He explained.... ( Harry S. Truman to Burton K. Wheeler, U.S. Senate, 21 December 1945, HST/B-File/Germany/F2; Harry S. Truman to Burton K. Wheeler, United States Senate, 6 October 1945, HST/B-File/Germany/F1; Mr. Philip E. Ryan to Mr. William H.G. Giblin, 15 October 1945, NA/RG200/B1016.)
 * Or on the question on previous literature on the subject, the last sentence you refer to:
 * John H. Backer, Priming the German Economy: American Occupational Policies 1945-1948 (Durham, 1971), 50, 52, 200; James F. Tent, "Food Shortages in Germany and Europe, 1945-1948," in Guenter Bischof and Stephen E. Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts Against Falsehood (Baton Rouge, 1992), 97, 100; Edith Hirsch, Food Supplies: in the Aftermath of World War II (New York, 1993). See also Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (New York, 1985), 137-257; Eugene Davidson, The Death and Life of Germany: An Account of the American Occupation (New York, 1961), 127-61; Franklin M. Davis, Jr., Come as a Conqueror: The United States Army's Occupation of Germany 1945-1949 (New York, 1967), 135-61; Josue de Castro, The Geopolitics of Hunger (New York, 1977), 425-39; Guenter J. Trittel, Hunger und Politik: Die Ernaehrungskrise in der Bizone (Frankfurt, 1990); Harold Zink, The United States in Germany 1944-1955 (Princeton, 1957), 293-303. A published account by Canadian novelist James Bacque has alleged recently that as many as nine million civilians died of starvation and mulnutrition in postwar Germany: Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (New York, 1997). --Stor stark7 Talk 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my reader probably did not show the footnotes. Regardless, the author himself admits that he represent a minority view. Also, mentioning James Bacque detracts from credibility.Ultramarine 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you jump far to quickly to unwarranted conclusions, It is just a list of literature dealing with the subject, of which Bacques book is one of the more well known, regardless of its credibility. Not listing it would have been a flaw. The author also uses the words "novelist" and "alleged" when refering to him. He also lists the work which Bacques angriest critic Ambrose wrote in responce to Bacques earlier book. As to the minority view, I again think you reach too hasty conclusions. If you read the paragraph after the one you chose to quote what he seems to say is that he has investigated an important aspect of the occupation that most other authors have either been unaware of or have neglected to research.--Stor stark7 Talk 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the paper states that the major causes of the famine was the utter desctruction of infrastructure and social organizations in Germany due to the war and the bad weather (and that the famine affected the US part of Germany the least). The author thinks that part of the famine was caused by malice by deliberately not distrubting available food, I see the quotes as supporting that there was a widespread famine in Europe and that the allies primarily argued that the Germany should not have more food than other parts of Europe.Ultramarine 09:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we come to very different conclusions when reading the paper then. As I see it the situation was bad all over europe, but the allies made it deliberately worse in Germany. As Clay stated: "The U.S. Deputy Military Governor, Lucius Clay, confided that "I feel that the Germans should suffer from hunger and from cold as I believe such suffering is necessary to make them realize the consequences of a war which they caused,”". When the situation was gettin OK in the rest of europe in early 1947 there was still famine in Germany as President Herbert Hoover's report shows read it here. The section in the document we're discussing called "The Isolationist as Interventionist: Senator William Langer on the Subject of Ethnic Cleansing, March 29, 1946 Charles M. Barber" also partly discusses the area and time-period and might be intresting to read for context. I might not be able to respond further for a few days due to work so bear with me if I'm silent for a while.--Stor stark7 Talk 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, he quotes selectively (and you from him), but even so I think that the primary argument was the Germany should not be better off than the other European nations, and secondarily that this should also be a lesson. Note also that the destruction in Germany was far worse than in the rest of Western Europe, with a very large part of the most produtive male population dead or dying in the Russian POW camps. All major ciites were reduced to rubble (and in the Soviet zone whatever remained of industry was dismantled and removed to the Soviet Union). A large part of the population were refugees and could not return what was now Poland and the Soviet Union. So obviously a famine would be worse and last longer in Germany than in the rest of Western Europe. Finally, the famine in Germany was insignificant compared to what took place at the same time in the Soviet Union, where at the same time over million people died from famine.
 * The Danish event seems much more clear (according to the discussion here) than the U.S.-witholding-food-from-the-Germans. I would suggest going ahead and adding the Danish incident but trying to find more supporting sources for the other one. Cla68 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I resent this. If such a section is to be added then it should also mention that thousands of German children were offered the chance to come to Denmark after the war. That Denmark, being left virtually unharmed due to the non-violent surrender of the German troops here and the fact that the British never made it to Danish soil before the Germans surrendered, offered these completely innoncent children hospitality and a chance to get away from the completely bombed out Germany where they would have been left to take care of themselves. You cite 2 German newspaper articles. How is that in any way NPOV? This is the same revisionist bullshit being pushed all over Wikipedia. MartinDK 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Martin. That's exactly what it is. Haber 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that it's true that Denmark assisted many German children after the war. But, it also appears to be true that in at least one instance, that didn't happen.  This article exists to document crimes or events that may have been crimes.  I'm sure another article can exist, if it doesn't already, that shows the successful humanitarian efforts of the Allied countries after the war, including Denmark.  That, however, is a separate article from this one. I don't feel threatened or resent the fact that some Allied personnel didn't act as honorably as they should have in World War II.  It's obvious by how short this article is that these incidents were isolated and uncommon. But it doesn't change the fact that some crimes occurred and should be documented. Cla68 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From the Spiegel article:
 * In the final weeks of the war, between February 11 and May 5, about 250,000 German refugees fled across the Baltic Sea to escape the sinking German Reich. Most were from East Prussia, Pomerania and the Baltic provinces and were fleeing the Soviet Army. And most were women, children or elderly. A third of the refugees were younger than 15 years old.
 * When they landed, they found themselves stranded in putative freedom and at the start of a new martyrdom. The refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by heavily armed overseers. The largest camp was located in Oksboll, on the west coast of Jutland, and had 37,000 detainees.


 * Denmark was occupied by the Germans! Nothing took place with out the approval of the Germans. The only armed guards in Denmark at the time were the German army and the Gestapo. Denmark was not a free self-ruling country until May 5. From August 1943 the Danes were without a legitimate government. You cannot possibly in any way refer to these socalled documented events as crimes committed by Danes against Germans as "revenge". Denmark was not a free country, how hard is that to understand? As for the murder allegations against Danish doctors in the article I would like to remind you that such charges must be proved. MartinDK 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created 3 new subsections below, please post in the corresponding section and not in this subsection--Stor stark7 Talk 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. refusal to feed German civilians
Spinoff from Request for comments on two possible aditions

Reply to User:Ultramarine I do not believe that I quote selectively. The quote I used was to show just what the reasoning behind U.S. activities, or lack thereof, was. Clay had to say things like that to be taken seriously, regardless of his true feelings. If you disbelieve that U.S. policymakers back in Washington were hungry for blood in the year immediately following the surrender then I can recommend reading: Casey, Steven (2005) The campaign to sell a harsh peace for Germany to the American public, 1944–1948. History, 90 (297). pp. 62-92. ISSN 1468-229X

If you read what General Draper had to say you can se that the powers that were in Washington actually tried charging him with not carrying out the official policy strictly, and that General Marshall had to defend him.

And I think mr Lightner sums it up beautifully Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. LIGHTNER: Well, to us those months between V-E Day and mid-'46 seemed a long time. That's when much of the dismantling was taking place. It was a crucial period when much time was being lost in restoring the economy and our group in CE found that we were being opposed at every turn by those who wanted to carry out literally the provisions of JCS-l067. You know, Jimmy Riddleberger was the one who sweated out this whole business of dealing with the Civil Affairs Division of the War Department during the days of planning for the occupation of Germany, and also later on in dealing with the Kindleberger group. MCKINZIE: You look at the period between the Morgenthau plan and the Marshall plan, one of which represents a "salted earth" policy, and the other an industrial development policy. The question of historians who are always concerned with pinning things down to precise things inevitably comes down to: what was the turning point? Was there any particular event or any absolutely crucial time period in which the change from the Morgenthau plan to the direction of the Marshall plan was made? LIGHTNER: I think it was fairly gradual. I think the military had their directives based, as I said before, very much on the philosophy of the Morgenthau plan, the basic JCS-l067.

I’m curious as regards to the allegation in your first sentence anyway Again, he quotes selectively (and you from him) Can you please provide any examples of where Richard Dominic Wiggers is supposed to quote selectively? And why the use of the word "again"?, I can’t se you making this claim before anywhere in the talk page text.

As to the refugee situation caused by the Expulsion of Germans after World War II these were a consequence of the territorial changes the Allies had ageed upon. The Allied had discussed what was eventually to become known as the Oder-Neisse line since 1943, So they had plenty of time to plan for the refugee situation, had they wanted to.

As to the situation in Germany; yes it was bad, with many millions of Germans used as forced labor, both by the Russians, the Americans, the French, and the British. But this was a joint Allied policy that had been agreed upon at the Yalta conference. (Here you can read in the meeting on June 11th 1945 the U.K. prime minister bickering about just how many slaves the Russians should get.) For a brief overview on American forced labor activities you can read American_forced_labor_policy_in_Germany_shortly_after_the_war

And yes, the industry was being dismantled in the Soviet zone, but this was done not only by the Russians, but by all the Allies, both by the Americans, British, French and the Russians. The industrial dismantling in the Brittish and French areas didn’t end until quite late (see Ernest Bevins letter to Robert Schuman).

Allied economic policy was one of de-industrialisation (Morgenthau Plan) in order to preclude any future German war-making capability. U.S. policy began to change at the end of 1946 (Restatement of Policy on Germany), and by mid 1947, after lobbying by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Generals Clay and Marshall, the Truman administration finally realized that economic recovery in Europe could not go forward without the reconstruction of the German industrial base on which it had previously had been dependent. In July, Truman rescinded on "national security grounds" the punitive JCS 1067, which had directed the U.S. forces of occupation in Germany to "take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany." It was replaced by JCS 1779, which instead stressed that "[a]n orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a stable and productive Germany."

It is scary to think that former President Herbert Hoover felt necessary to include the following in his 1947 official report on the situation in Germany

In addition to the above courses of action, there have been general policies of destruction or limitation of possible peaceful productivity under the headings of "pastoral state" and "war potential." The original of these policies apparently expressed on September 15, 1944, at Quebec, aimed at:


 * "converting Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral,"

and included,


 * "the industries of the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be put out of action, closed down…."

There are several illusions in all this "war potential" attitude.
 * a. There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France.

Danish mistreatment of German refugees
Spinoff from Request for comments on two possible aditions

--Stor stark7 Talk 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kirsten Lylloff: "Kan lægeløftet gradbøjes? Dødsfald blandt og lægehjælp til de tyske flygtninge i Danmark 1945" i Historisk Tidsskrift. Bind 99, hæfte 1. København, 1999. side 33-68. (From a published article an a historical journal, Summary in English, main text in Danish.)
 * HNN (From the Observer)
 * Barn eller fjende? Her PHD has been published as a book by the Danish University of Education
 * Google cache of German and non-German Refugees in Denmark after the Second World War I cant seem to get a hold of the original PDF, but unitll it disapears from the cache it makes intresting reading.
 * Once again I must remind the less informed that Denmark was occupied by the Germans, was without a legitimate government and that these refugee camps were set up by the German army themselves. Nothing took place without the approval of the German army and/or the Gestapo. Also you might want to take a closer look at how the Germans themselves regarded these refugees. I do not for one second dispute the crimes committed by the Red Army as it moved its way through Eastern Europe. What I object to is the idea that some how Denmark was in control of its own country at a time when there was no legitimate government and the comepletely legal resistance against the German agressors was at its highest. Also, allegations of crimes must be proved. You are playing judge, jury and executioner without the slightest regard to people's legal rights. MartinDK 07:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Denmark wasn't member of Allies.--Staberinde 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As we already established over at Axis Powers Denmark was not part of the Allies in the sense that it was not deploying military against the Germans (or anyone else for that matter). Denmark was, especially after August 1943 when the government resigned and the Germans were de facto in full control, considered a country friendly to the allies but Denmark was not part of the group of countries actively fighting the German army. The resistance carried out operations inside Denmark at the request of the British but there was no real army fighting the Germans. The army was defeated after only a few hours on the morning of April 9 1940. After that and until August 1943 the army was inactive and of no real use to anybody. Denmark never took part in any kind of actual warfare, we were freed by the British after the Germans surrendered to the British when they were at the border between Denmark and Germany. Our odd relationship with the Germans has been described on the above mentioned article. MartinDK 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe MartinDK is correct. Denmark was a member of the Anti-Comintern Pact, arguably making it a member, or at minimum a collaborator, of the Axis.  Therefore, the crime detailed above should probably be in the appropriate Axis war crime article although this crime was, technically, committed against a fellow Axis country. Cla68 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That I can fully accept because in that way it would be clear to the reader that Denmark was not engaging in warfare against Germany. Putting this in the Axis war crime article would also not confuse the reader who might otherwise come to the very wrong conclusion that Denmark was in control of our own country because we weren't. We were occupied by an army that we were not able to, and at the beginning of the war not willing to, properly resist. These are all documented neutral facts that we worked hard at the Axis Powers article to agree on. MartinDK 08:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm certainly no expert on Denmarks legal status in WW2, and we all know how unreliable a source Wikipedia can be, but...
 * I found these paragraphs in Occupation_of_Denmark. I've highligted the most intresting, and sourced, sentence.
 * After the fall of the government, Denmark was exposed to the full extent of Nazi power. In October the Germans decided to remove all Jews from Denmark, but thanks to information leaks and swift action by the Danish and Swedish peoples, almost all of the Jews were transported to the safety of neutral Sweden by an imprompto fleet of small boats, much as in the evacuation of Dunkirk. Sabotage, unencumbered by government opposition, grew greatly in frequency and severity, though it was rarely of very serious concern to the Germans. Nonetheless, the Danish resistance movement had some successes, such as on D-Day when the train network in Denmark was disrupted for days, delaying the arrival of German reinforcements in Normandy. An underground government was established, and the illegal press flourished. Allied governments, who had been skeptical about Denmark's commitment to fight Germany, began recognizing it as a full ally.  In September 1943, a variety of resistance groups grouped together in the Danish Freedom Council, which coordinated resistance activities. A high-profile resister was former government minister John Christmas Møller who fled to England in 1942 and became a widely popular commentator because of his broadcasts to the nation over the BBC.
 * Also, It seems to me like the Germans might not have been in such total control of Denmark as has been claimed in this talk page if the entire Jewish population could be smugled out right under their noses.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * German officials cooperated with the smuggling since they disagreed with the order to persecute the Danish Jews, so this argument is not that strong. Prezen 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Denmark didn't have a "government in exile" like France, Norway, or Poland. Although many of the people of Denmark resisted, such as in the Jewish boatlift or the resistance, the Danish government appears to have collaborated, albeit under some duress.  Cla68 02:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only legitimate government in Denmark during the war had resigned in 1943. There was no legal government, the country was in the hands of the Germans. The reason the Jews could be transported out of Denmark was because the body of water that needed to be crossed to the so-called neutral Sweden is very narrow. As a Swede I would imagine that you understand this. Second, do you really believe that right under the nose of the Germans, without any intervention by the German army, the non-existant Danish army would have been able to establish virtual death-camps for German refugees?
 * You need to make up your minds. Do you consider Denmark a collaborator of the Germans or an allied power who comitted crimes against innoncent Germans. Can't be both unless you want us to believe that the Danes were actually Germans who enjoyed killing their own refugees. Are you seriously suggesting that parts of Denmark was not under German control?! That would indeed be not only original research but downright revolutionary ground-breaking historical research. Also could you please post more sources than the one thesis mentioned because all the others are just reviews of that thesis. You are basing all this on one source, just like you are in the section above this one. MartinDK 07:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, enough with placing words in my mouth and then trying the demonstrate that they are wrong. That’s weasel tactics. I’ll concede that Denmark’s legal status as part of the Allies is dubious. Maybe they were part of the Nazi camp. Probably they were not. They were not occupied as a defeated nation, you’ll agree to that I hope. Anyway, since British troops landed in Norway to disarm the Germans there I suppose Denmark was also “occupied” by Allied troops. This question obviously needs looking into, and maybe it means that the fate of the refugees does not belong in this specific article. That remains as yet unclear however.

As to the Jewish flight, my only conclusion is that the German occupation must have been relatively mild, with few soldiers, since it is not only a question of transporting people across a fairly narrow strait, it is also a question of transporting all of them under time duress and undetected from all across the country to that specific strait. This is a moot point to the issue anyway.

Your main argument seems to be that Germans were in control of Germany, and thus would not have let the Danes place them in camps behind barbed wire. Perhaps not, for those few weeks. But could, and did, the German authorities force reluctant Danish doctors to treat German civilians? Against the fierce arguing on your part stands the fact that the refugees came in the last few weeks of the war, and were there at least until the end of 1945. Plenty of time for the Danes to have full control over their fate. Plenty of time for German toddlers to die. Anyway I presume you’re Danish, since you seem to have such strong POV on the subject. Thus I presume you can read a quote from a reputable Swedish (possibly the most neutral country in the world….) daily newspaper. “Men ingen har på allvar kunnat bestrida att Lylloff avslöjat en skamfläck i nyare dansk historia” SvD (in swedish). Or why not read what a Danish newspaper, arguably not POV against Denmark, has to say. the Copenhagen Post(in english)

As to the fact that all is ultimately based on the research by Kirsten Lylloff, that is fairly natural, since the issue seems to have been buried until she discovered it by chance. The reason it took so long to surface I would personally speculate can partly be attributed to reactions such as I have witnessed here. Regardless, her research seems not to have been successfully challenged by anyone, and in addition to her work and publication in various journals, the  Danish Broadcasting Corporation (Danish State public service TV) has done a documentary on the subject, which as regards NPOV support of her thesis can be regarded as a fairly good indication…. Danish TV documentary--Stor stark7 Talk 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK we are getting somewhere now. First of all it appears that we now agree that Denmark was not an allied power. In fact Denmark was was not a power at all and hadn't been for over 100 years. Remember how Norway became part of Sweden ? ;) Denmark was considered friendly to the allies, partly because the resistance became stronger with the support of the British and partly because as the war progressed it became obvious that Denmark was the small piece of land that laid in the way of the Soviets having free naval accaess to the Atlantic. So we benefited from that.
 * With regard to what happened after the war then yes it is definately documented that refugees who were shipped here by the Germans during the last months of the war were treated in accordance with the popular opinion at the time which was, when reviewed many years later, not good. However, I must insist that at the same time any section on this point to the obvious irony that German children were offered to come here after the war and recieved very generous hospitality especially when you consider the fate that they would have encountered in their own bombed out country. This self-contradicting duality must be stressed because like many thing about the occupation of Denmark it illustrates the very odd relationship we had with the Germans. On the one hand they were hated and treated accordingly, on the other hand there were plenty of examples of the exact opposite. With regard to neutrality I was refering to the fact that Sweden whilst officially neutral was extremely helpful to the Danish during the war and afterwards when the bombed out parts of Bornholm needed to be rebuilt. And I know for a fact that the Danes are grateful for this help. Finally it should be pointed out tha the Germans were not taking care of their own refugees and the Soviets sure weren't treating German refugees correctly. Keep this neutral, balanced and to the point and I will not object to it. Should we try to draft some kind of section on this so that we can move forward with this together? MartinDK 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The hatred she talks about in the article you linked to was not at all apparent until the Germans decided to take full control in August 1943. Up to that point pretty much the only people actively trying to resist was the resistance (of which my grandfather was a member so I know about this). The government even encouraged Danes to turn over those who resisted to the Germans and the public was not being very helpful to the resistance to say the least. This changed after August 1943 MartinDK 07:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With regard to the disarming of the Germans you should be aware that the Germans in Denmark did not resist the surrender. They co-operated and the whole process was (relatively) peaceful. British troops did arrive in Denmark since for a very short while Denmark was technically under British control. The whole process was a lot more complicated in Norway. The Norwegians suffered much more and there was actual fighting going on there. You cannot compare the two, if nothing else then due to respect for the Norwegians themselves.

I am starting a draft on the section on Denmark. MartinDK 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section on Denmark
 * During the last months of the war German refugees arrived in Denmark from areas now under Soviet control. These refugees had been shipped to Denmark following the fierce fighting on the Eastern front. After the war endend on May 5 1945 and the responsibility of these camps was transferred to the Danes themselves it has been documented that these refugees continued to be placed in camps inside Denmark under heavy security and recieved poor medical treatment. In addition to this surviving refugees have explained that they were not being provided with sufficient food. A large number of these German refugees died. Danish officials from the Red Cross have later explained that this was due to the popular opinion at the time. After the war a large number of German children were offered to stay in Denmark, the so-called feriebørn and those were not placed in camps but with Danish families who chose offer their hospitality.

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

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