Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 8

Killing surrendering prisoners
Under article 23 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (convention IV) of Hague Conventions (1907) states that:
 * To declare that no quarter will be given

which clearly means that on order can be given to take no prisoners. But in the preceding sentence it says:
 * To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

What does "has surrendered at discretion" mean? It is obviously important because otherwise the sentence could have missed it out. It seems to me that in this article we are implying that killing enemy soldiers who "longer means of defence" is a war crime without considering the phrase "has surrendered at discretion". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Phil, I think you are misreading it. Article 23 says: "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden ... [t]o kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion [or t]o declare that no quarter will be given." Grant  |  Talk  10:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am, because the two are seperated by a semi-colon (";"), as are all the other clauses in the article, but clearly I have not explain my self clearly!

Let us put to one side the clause that it is a war crime for an officer or NCO to order no quarter be given, because I wish to discuss the earlier clause. The way it seems to be interpreted in this article is "it is a war crime to kill or wound an enemy who, has laid down his arms, or no longer has the means of defence". But Hague tacks onto this "[and] has surrendered at discretion". What does this last phrase mean? for example does it mean at the discretion of the potential captor? (I have done a search of the net but could not find a commentary on this treaty which is what is needed to explain such a clause) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't make sense if it meant the captor. I think it's a redundancy typical in legal documents of the period in which it was written. Grant  |  Talk  01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense that its is at the discretion captor, for example Eisenhower threatened stop Germans from east of the Elbe surrender to the to Western Allied forces at the end of the European war unless the German high command agreed to unconditional surrender on all fronts. I have never seen any comments that this would have been an illegal act. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That interpretation of "discretion" puts the passage at odds with the apparent general intention. And it's a quite different situation when a commander says that an enemy state (Germany) can't surrender to some allies (US, UK, Canada and France) and not others (USSR). Ike wasn't refusing to take prisoner individual Germans who handed themselves in to Allied units in Western Europe.  Grant  |  Talk  10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ike threatened Donitz with the threat to order his men not to accept any more German surrenders from the East unless Donitz agreed to sign unconditional surrender. As Donitz did agree to unconditional surrender then between the time of signing unconditional surrender and the hour it came into effect the Americans continued to accept   surrenders by individuals.

With regards what I said about Ike I wrote the following before I saw you posting: It is quite common for terms to be negotiated when a force is surrendering, If terms are not acceptable then fighting resumes. We need an expert to explain what the legal position is for soldiers accepting the surrender of other soldiers, do they have the same discretion as officers? Killing a person under a white flag is illegal but once fair warning has been given that shooting will resume is it still a crime?

I think that the term " has surrendered at discretion" is not a redundant one and I think we need an explanation of it in regards to if potential captor has to accept the surrender of an enemy, because it has a direct effect on the section about the taking of prisoners in the far east. Also we need an experts explanation on the perfidy during the surrender process and if the reasonable expectation of perfidy is a legal defence for killing enemy soldiers attempting to surrender. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would want to see a reference for your interpretation of what Eisenhower meant, before I would be convinced. And since there were no US units on the eastern front, I don't see how they could have taken POWS "from the East" anyway. Grant |  Talk  11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Battle of Berlin and End of World War II in Europe and this map For an explicit source see Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY:Ballantine Books, London:Macdomald & Co, 1969. page 130:
 * That afternoon Jodl arrived at the SHAEF forward headquarters in Reims. Donitz had sent him with instructions to lay before Eisenhower again `completely and openly' the reasons why the Germans considered  a total capitulation impossible. Failing of success in that, he was to try  to get a phased capitulation with as  long an interval as possible between  the time the fighting terminated and  the time the troops had to surrender  their arms and cease all movements.  Fifteen minutes after midnight, Donitz received a radio message from Jodl stating that Eisenhower insisted that the total capitulation be signed  `today' to take effect at midnight on  the night of the 8th; otherwise he  would close the front to all Germans, including troops coming from the east. Jodl added, `I see no way out but  to sign'.


 * Donitz concluded that Jodl, who before his departure had been the one  who argued most strongly against  total capitulation, must have been  convinced that no better terms could be obtained. He, therefore, empowered  Jodl to sign, and at a quarter to one in  the morning the new Foreign Minister,  Graf Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk,  announced the surrender over the German radio. At half past one Donitz ordered all the commanders on  the Eastern Front to take their troops  west as fast as they could and to  `fight their way through the Russians'  if they had to; all hostilities against  the Western Allies were to cease at  once. At a quarter to two, in the SHAEF war room in Reims, Jodl  placed his signature on the Act of  Military Surrender. Lieutenant-General Walter Bedell Smith, the  SHAEF Chief of Staff, signed for the [end of page]
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 23:55:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting quotation. However, I'm not sure that your interpretation of the events is correct, since it is fourth-hand evidence; Doenitz's self-serving account of Jodl's self-serving interpretation of Eisenehower. In some ways, it would hardly be surprising if you were correct, since Eisenhower's treatment of German POWs after the surrender is also controversial. Grant  |  Talk  04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As regards the white flag scenario, you are confusing the person holding the white flag with the side they represent. While it is OK to resume hostilities once a truce has ended, it is never OK to attack someone carrying a white flag.


 * "At discretion", it seems to me, simply means "by choice". Grant  |  Talk  11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But by who's choice the captor or the captured? As I said I would like to see an expert's commentary on this clause. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Logically, a captor does not "choose" a surrender. But I will defer to an authoritative source which says otherwise. Grant  |  Talk  04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been playing on my mind, so I investigated and I wrote a section in the unconditional surrender article (see the redirect surrender at discretion) a Google search on the term with Rome Statute throws up several expert's commentary on this clause. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to Ken Burns' documentary "The War" and the reported killing of German POWs, it turns out that the U.S. veteran interviewed in the episode "The Ghost Front" is Burnett Miller from Sacramento, CA. He was a member of the 21st Armored Infantry Battalion, 11th Armored Division which is held responsible for the Chenogne massacre on January 1, 1945. So, this entry might be a duplicate of the Chenogne massacre. In this case, Miller's report would be the second first hands account by a very member of the inculpated unit confirming the veracity of the charges. It can be watched on YouTube: "(5/5) The Ghost Front". --Meudonnais (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The USAAF bombing Dresden
This is a copy of the a section on the talk:List of war crimes  User:Hmains, you made an edit (Revision as of 03:52, 5 December 2007) to List of war crimes with the comment "an obvious crime; read the rules of war; you were going to research all this article; targeted, repeated deletions is not research."

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please read WP:PROVEIT a section of the Verifiability policy. What is your verifiable reliable source for the "obvious war crime" that was committed when the USAAF bombed Dresden?
 * 2) What was the "obvious war crime" that was committed when the USAAF bombed Dresden?
 * 3) *Which raid on Dresden are you claiming was an obvious war crimes or are you arguing that all of them were?
 * 4) *461 B-17s were dispatched to hit the marshalling yard at Dresden on February 14 1945 what makes that an obvious war crime when on the same morning 457 B-17s were sent to hit the marshalling yard at Chemnitz which presumably you do not think was an obvious war crime?

User:Ahmad.ibn.as.Sayyid I had assumed that as you were editing to put in the USAAF bombing of Dresden that you were well read in the war crime debate about aerial bombardment. But AFAICT from the references you gave with the last edit that you made (Revision as of 21:37, 5 December 2007) shows that you are not.I think you might find this redirect interesting "aerial bombardment and international law". There is a major difference between the stated directives on strategic bombing that the RAF followed and those followed by the USAAF in Europe. For the people on the ground the difference may not have been apparent because of the inaccuracy of bombing methods used in the 1940's but legally there is a big difference. For much of the war the RAF followed a policy of area bombing, for some of the time as a leading component of their strategic attack on Germany, but for much of the time as an alternative secondary target if the primary targets (Oil, subs and tanks) were not available due to weather etc. Bomber Harris was a believer in area bombardment and used the tactic when other commanders might have judged it possible to bomb with more precision. The training and tactics used by most of the RAF strategic bomber force was geared towards area bombardment and in practice altering that proved difficult particularly when the man in charge of day to day operations happened to believe that there was little alternative.

The USAAF Eighth Air Force (and Fifteenth Air Force) used precision bombing. That is they did not area bomb but always went for specific targets that were directly aiding the German War effort. In the case of Dresden they went for the marshalling yards close to the centre of the city. Because in part they used blind bombing from H2X radar and also the inherent inaccuracy of dropping dumb bombs from thousands of feet up the effects on the ground were similar to the RAF. But in a court of law the USAAF would have argued that it was a precision raid against the rail transportation system within the enemy communications zone of an enemy active theater of operations and that any civilians killed or civilian property damaged was allowable under the doctrine of military necessity which makes up part of the laws of war.

User:Ahmad.ibn.as.Sayyid the source you have cited for you edit at 21:37 on 5 December 2007 is from the Guardian a British newspaper reporting the opinions of Jan Melichar the co-ordinator of Peace Pledge Union about the actions of the RAF. (1) There is nothing to indicate that Melichar is a reliable source about the laws of war governing aerial bombardment n 1945, and (2) Melichar is talking about the RAF actions not those of the USAAF. So this Guardian article is not a verifiable reliable source for assessing if the actions of the USAAF breached the laws of war when attacking Dresden. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was mostly RAF. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a war crime unless the U.N. just it's a war crime. SG2090 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the edit history of the article: --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 03:22, 8 December 2007 Hmains wp IS full of uncited text; no special status accored to deletionists who could use that excuse to delete most contents of most articles to meet their POV reasons.
 * 10:04, 8 December 2007 Philip Baird Shearer rv: I do not know what a deletionist is. Is that a personal attack or a complement? I do know that I have discussed this on the talk page with no reply and it fails the Wikipedia policy WP:PROVEIT

I think that whoever keeps deleting the bombing of Dresden from the list EVEN as it is put under a 'debatable warcrimes' header should really read on the subject. During the Nuremberg trials they actually convicted German Luftwaffe officers for the bombings on England which were in fact aimed at military targets with collateral damage. The bombings of German cities had the explicit goal of killing german civilians to drain manpower for the factories and the army, as the Allied high command had already foreseen it would not break morale. If you did not know of this, I suggest you read books or summaries of the debate that deal with these controversies and do not make pointless edits on controversial pages like this. Historians have been largely ignoring Allied war crimes, and only occasional historians dare to take on the subject. Because especially in Germany when you try to put light on these war crimes historians suddenly become 'revisionists' and can seriously endanger their career. Especially in the Dresden debate it is obvious that the Nuremberg trials are one big hypocritical case of victor's justice (at least in the bombing and U-boat cases). The debate on the strategic bombing of Germany as a war crime exists, so should be on this already miniscule list. If you want to delete it, prove that no such debate exists. Wiki1609 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No such debate exists? It never did in the first place. It is not a war crime unless the U.N. says it did. True, some people say it is but it cannot be said if nobody puts it to law without U.N. support. SG2090 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside: The British policy of area bombardment is laid out in the two Wikipedia articles the Butt report and the dehousing paper. The dehousing paper makes it clear that the destruction of a population's housing stock was considered more effective at demoralising a population than killing them. "If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these fifty-eight German towns the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home. Investigation seems to show that having one's home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished." If the target was dwelings then the British tactics of area bombing were quite efficient, but if indeed despite the documentary evidence to the contary the intention was to kill people, then area bombing was inefficient as can be seen from this quote from Richard Evans  "Even if the attack on Dresden can be considered the worst of the war, the number of deaths would still have remained in some proportion to the extent of the physical destruction. In raids that had cost Hamburg 3.3% of its population, 48% of dwellings became uninhabitable; in Kobe the destruction of over 50% of its dwellings went with the death of 1% of its population. Even allowing for the unique circumstances in Dresden, a figure of 250,000 dead would mean that 20-30% of the population was killed, a figure so grossly out of proportion to other comparable attacks as to raise eyebrows, even if the population was inflated by refugees." (R. Evans David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: (B) Suppression of internal inconsistencies  paragraph 8). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki1609 you write:
 * I think that whoever keeps deleting the bombing of Dresden from the list EVEN as it is put under a 'debatable warcrimes' header should really read on the subject. -- I have read up on the subject and written about it with citations in a lot of Wikipedia articles. If you have a reliable source that says that the USAAF committed such and such a war crime when they bombed Dresden, and I would be interested to read it and also why they think the bombing of Chemnitz the same day was not a war crime.
 * "During the Nuremberg trials they actually convicted German Luftwaffe officers for the bombings on England which were in fact aimed at military targets with collateral damage." Name one Axis officer who was convicted of war crimes for the aerial bombardment of England. I do not think you will find one (See Jörg Friedrich comments quoted on Talk:Hugo Sperrle)
 * "The bombings of German cities had the explicit goal of killing German civilians to drain manpower for the factories and the army" The Americans never went in for area bombing. They bombed specific targets which were often within cities. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? If not then such assumptions as the one you have made should not be in this article. (see the Wikipedia policy WP:V and specifically WP:PROVEIT).
 * "The debate on the strategic bombing of Germany as a war crime exists, so should be on this already miniscule list. If you want to delete it, prove that no such debate exists." That is not how information is added and subtracted from Wikipedia articles WP:PROVEIT states:
 * --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The arguments advanced by the presumably guilty parties (such as RAF or USAF) in any such discussion are hardly worthy of discussion or support. We can depend that such arguments are self-serving.  I also see that the editor who keeps deleting this material has taken ownership of many of series of articles involving war crimes, genocide, and the like, not accepting material that is counter to what he wants to have in the articles.  Since editors, like anyone else, can rationalize whatever they want to do in the first place, the arguments to do whatever they want to do are usually not worth consideration either.  I suppose the goal here is not historical truth nor any ethnic/legal considerations, but rather the desire to create articles that are fully 'cited' (no matter what is left out to achieve that goal) in order to produce a personal feeling of accomplishment regarding the article.  You say, we share the same goals.  I think not, as I would rather keep information in WP until/if it is proven while marking it appropriately; you, however, are perfectly happy to delete all such material, actions which I see as destructive, bordering on vandalism.  You also make use of wiki-lawyering and editing threats--neither of which I do.  I do notice you keep writing about verifiability.  There is a difference between 'verifiable' and 'verified'.  WP editors are keeping material in WP so long as it is ultimately 'verifiable' and not not concerned whether or not is currently 'verified'. Whether you personally agree with this or not is not relevant here. Hmains (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the view that the bombing by the USAAF was a war crime then find as WP:PROVEIT stipulates find a reliable third party source that explains what the war crime was. If one is not available then the speculation should not be in Wikipedia. This is not wiki-lawyering this is consensus editing "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'." WP:V is one of the core content policies and it should be adhered to because many editors have worked long and hard on such policies as a key component to making Wikipedia a useful reliable source for people who read it. Despite what you have written above you have yet to produce one source that backs up you position that the USAAF bombing of Dresden was a war crime or that the USAAF strategic bombing campaign in Europe in general was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there is no consensus on the Dresden bombings being a war crime, it doesn't mean we can include it in an article that deals with war crimes. As I was trying to say before, because of the Holocaust it is extremely hard for historians to even imply that war crimes were committed by the Western Allies against Germany. As you can read in the Jörg Friedrich article only historians that have written a certain amount of 'neutral' works on the war may begin the task of investigating a sensitive subject such as the Dresden bombings. And even Friedrich was suddenly put in a different daylight after he wrote Der Brand. Therefore even if there are some obvious indications of a war crime (like the small military importance versus rate of refugees and POW's) it will always be hard to make a point for the bombings being a war crime because of the historiography of the last 50 years. So we could give Friedrich as a source that at least implies Dresden being a war crime, but because of the sort of taboo that still exists he is not seen as a normal historian. In other words your demand for a solid source that says Dresden was a warcrime (US and British) cannot be met, as this has not yet been proven. On the other hand it has not been proven not to have been a war crime (it was just ignored altogether for 50 years) so there is as much justification of including it as not including it. Therefore it should be included, because there are people who think this was a war crime..


 * I think we should be aware of sensitivities in historiography, concerning the role of Germans in the war both as perpetrators and victims. They have been seen as perpetrators for a long time, but books like Der Brand and Im Krebsgang by G. Grass are beginning to show the other side of the story. It is not wikipedia policy to exclude one POV and favoring another. NPOV means showing different POV's so showing there are concerns of Dresden and the bombing campaign having been warcrimes is wikipedia policy. Wiki1609 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone participating in this discussion really should read Slaughterhouse-Five. --Jack Merridew 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is not about the sensitivities in historiography, concerning the role of Germans in the war both as perpetrators and victims, it is about Allied war crimes. Besides there have been many books written on the subject over the years, What I think is a a good book on the moral aspects of aerial bombardment is Grayling, A. C. (2006). Among the Dead Cities. New York: Walker Publishing Company Inc.. ISBN 0-8027-1471-4. and although he things that the British position was not morally justifiable, and he is of the opinion that the  question of whether or not it was a war crime is not the right one to ask. However when he examined the war crime question in detail he concludes that area bombing was not a war crime because of the lack of positive international law. Another fairly new book on this subject but specific to the Dresden raid is "Firestorm: the bombing of Dresden", edited by Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang (1995). It is a compilation of essays one per chapter. One chapter is entitled "Dresden as a War Crime by Donald Bloxham". In it Bloxham  puts forward a similar type of moral argument to Grayling, but with some specifics for the Dresden raid. (See Archive 2: Aerial bombardment for a previous discussion on this issue) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * During the Nuremberg trial, a fairly wide view of the kind of German actions to prosecute had been adopted, going far beyond the contemporary definition of war crimes. When it comes to allied actions though, many charges were and are refuted as not being formally illegal under the Geneva convention [shooting a civilian by ground forces is illegal but legal when shot down from a plane]. This is dishonest, and it appears more adequate then to modify the subject of this page to "Allied war crimes and crimes against humanity during World War II". As an example, strafing of German civilians by allied fighter planes was common practice in the later stages of World War II [my own mother was targeted as a 6 year old girl after the killing of her family in the bombing raid of Darmstadt in 1944 on her way by foot to the Blackwood Forest region (accompanied by an adult) to join some relatives.]. --Meudonnais (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any Germans were tried at Nuremberg for actions involving aerial bombardment (see Hugo Sperrle and Talk:Hugo Sperrle). War crimes stem from two different branches of law. The first is positive international law where there is a specific treaty which is breached. For example Karl Dönitz was found to be in breach of naval treaties agreed to by Germany over unrestricted submarine warfare (positive international law). The second case is customary law. Customary law can change and in the case of aerial bombardment as everyone was at it, the custom was that it was allowed under the laws of war as expressed at that time (see Aerial area bombardment and international law). This is explained in a round about way by the comments in the advisory judgement of the the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons Case. In paragraphs 54, 55 and 56 of their advisory judgement, that international law on poisonous weapons, – the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 – did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate ("The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate.") So an important point of international law is how states interpret their obligations is in part by their behaviour. As there was not positive international law on aerial bombardment, and the usage on all sides showed that it was acceptable behaviour to bomb civilians and that it was not a crime under international law. Some disagree with the analysis that it was not a war crime, but that is a minority view. Many take the view that it was a moral crime, but this is an article on war crimes not moral crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why then is the Holocaust listed among the German war crimes when you would think of it as a crime against humanity? This is exactly why I had suggested to extend this article to include the latter explicitly --Meudonnais (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is something to argue on the talk page of German war crimes, however the Holocaust also included war crimes when the people killed were citizens inhabiting territory of a hostile state (See Hague IV Section III: Military authority over the territory of the hostile state). Telford Taylor's "When people kill a people" in The New York Times, March 28, 1982, explains the international opinion as it was viewed during and at the end of the Second World War. Since he wrote that article in 1982 there have been further developments in international law particularly for those who have ratified the Rome Statute, however just because something is a crime now, it may not have been at the time, as A. C. Grayling points out over aerial bombardment nullum crimen et nulla poene sine lege(see Archive 7#United Kingdom for the paragraph from which the Latin quote is taken with citation details.) BTW what crime against humanity do you think was committed by the American bombing of Dresden and do you have a reliable source for stating that the USAAF bombing of Dresden was a crime against humanity? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Planning or preparing a war of aggression
Any info on whether planning or preparing a war of aggression is a crime against the peace, even if the plan is not later executed?

The Tokyo trials include "Count 1: as "leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy .. to wage wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law." The Nuremberg_Trials seem to go for the same thing. "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace" The formal definition of the Nuremberg is
 * Crimes against peace:
 * 1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
 * 2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The reason I bring this question up is the fact that during an unrelated information search I picked up this line.  goto page 284. "in 1943 the Allied Chiefs of Staff seriously considered invading neutral Spain as an easier way of getting onto the continent than an elaborate crossing over the channel." An other event that also may be applicable is the British 1940 preparations for a Norway landing that the German Norway strike pre-empted. What was the legal status of U.S. troops on Iceland? And what likely applies was the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran --Stor stark7 Talk 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that these -- while technically illegal -- were far less controversial than the Axis occupations, because there was no resistance or significant opposition on the part of the inhabitants. The Australian-Dutch occupation of Portuguese Timor in early 1942 was a similar case. Grant  |  Talk  03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If they technically apply then they should be included in the article. 800 servicemen and 200 civilians were killed by the Allies in Iran according to the article, we include other war-crimes with far less victims.


 * Perhaps we should create two additional articles, to mirror the Nuremberg division in to
 * Crimes against peace
 * War crimes
 * Crimes against humanity


 * As regards resistance and opposition I am after looking into the werwolf article very skeptical about official Allied reports and the reliability of Allied media reporting. As John Steinbeck later wrote about his time as a war correspondent in the pacific " We were all part of the war effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it... I don't mean that the corespondents were liars.. It is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies. "The foolish reporter who broke the rules would not be printed at home, and in addition would be put out of the theater by the command..."


 * An example; [the occupation of Iceland] was although not really bloody not at all as peaceful as some would believe. --Stor stark7 Talk 03:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable third party sources that state that any of the above were crimes against peace or is this speculation original research? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no more speculation original research than the un-sourced OR reference to DEF used in this article (by you PBS I believe). I find it odd to hear this type question from you, who otherwise seems to jump on the opportunity to scrutinize legal texts in order to draw your own conclusions. Nevertheless, as you can see, this section is based on the question "does anyone have any info". I have opened up the question that there may be room for expansion, and hope someone has information that can lead to this expansion.
 * For now I don't have time personally to dig into it, so it will have to remain resting for now, unless someone responds to the challenge. I did however do a search on Google books, and uncovered this reference to the Allied invasion of Iran (the Britts also invaded Iraq by the way)
 * According to "Customary International Law and Treaties" by Mark E. Villiger, M. Sornarajah. Page 391. The Allied invasion of Iran was comparable to the Axis invasion of Norway. Was the Nazi invasion of Norway a crime against the peace? Perhaps not, perhaps it was justified. Poor Erich, in that case he was falsely convicted by a kangaroo court --Stor stark7 Talk 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * The terror-bombing of German civilians in the cities by the RAF in conjunction with the US Air Force was considered a warcrime by the American historian A. de Zayas in a 1983 documentary.(Polarfilm: Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen (original 1983) Documentary (2005) EAN: 4028032065466)


 * Needs a little more detail. Who are "Polarfilm", are they a reliable source?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "A. de Zayas" Alfred-Maurice de Zayas? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why the use of the Nazi propaganda term terror-bombing used? What was the war crime that A. de Zayas said happened? Any secondary sources (like a publication by A. de Zayas) to collaborate the accusation? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The deliberate sinking of German Red Cross ships and the attacking of German Red Cross facilities by the British Royal Air Force.(Polarfilm: Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen (original 1983) Documentary (2005) EAN: 4028032065466)


 * Which Red Cross ships? What facilities? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"
 * The terror-bombing of German civilians in the cities by the US Air Force in conjunction with the British RAF.(Polarfilm: Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen (original 1983) Documentary (2005) EAN: 4028032065466)


 * Why the use of the Nazi propaganda term terror-bombing used? What was the war crime committed? Who said that this war crime was committed? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Terror-bombing is a good word for the allied bombings against the civil population of Germany. It clearly targeted the civil population (bombings of Hamburg ex) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The deliberate sinking of German Red Cross ships and the attacking of German Red Cross facilities by the US Airforce.(Polarfilm: Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen (original 1983) Documentary (2005) EAN: 4028032065466)


 * The US did not have an Air Force it had an Army Air Force. Which Red Cross ships? What facilities? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These subjects are discussed in the article The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945. The "deliberate sinking of German Red Cross ships", as I recall, refers to a single incident in which the ship Tubingen was sung by the RAF with the loss of six lives. The British immediately apologied to the Germans, claiming that it was a mistake. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, we still don't have an article on the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau itself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've realized another reason why we need a crimes against humanity section or article
Is running slave labor camps a war-crime or a crime against humanity. Anybody know under what heading the Germans were sentenced? Germans were for years used as forced labor in Polish concentration camps run by people such as Salomon Morel, Czesław Gęborski. For example Central Labour Camp Jaworzno, Central Labour Camp Potulice, Łambinowice, Zgoda labour camp and others. (see also this HNET review) tens of thousands died/were killed. (some more info on the camps here)

Note: The German armed forces may have surrendered, but legally the war was still on, the U.S. was formally at war with Germany at least as late as 1949, I presume the same applies to Poland. The formal occupation of West Berlin did not end till 1990 (It was not subject to the German "basic law" until the signing of the peace treaty around then).

I was thinking we could insert this topic (slave labor camps) into the article for now at least.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See the article End of World War II in Europe, there is a legal argument that lthe war ended on 5 July 1945 with the signing of the four powers agreement because as the German state was no longer existed the war with that state had ended. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that you often refer the the debellatio concept, it was a way for the U.S. to attempt to weasel its way out of its responsibilities for the protection of civilians and POW's under the Hague convention. However, it is not universally accepted as valid not even in the U.S., and especially the Germans do not seem to consider it valid See the German article. I think a better fact to point to would be the fact that the U.S. formally ended the state of war between the U.S. and Germany on October 19, 1951 at 5:45 p.m. Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may have been used by the US to " weasel its way out of its responsibilities for the protection of civilians and POW's under the Hague convention" but it was not just a US action. It was one carried out by the four powers. As far as I can tell the date you suggest is an internal US matter and has little to do with international law.  (Also Bonn-Paris conventions) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stick to providing relevant sources; what has turnpikes in the UK, or the wording of the U.S. declaration of war to do with this? As to your assertion that the U.S. 1951 decision to end the war was "an internal US matter and has little to do with international law"... If so then why wait for so long? Lets see what the news reported at the time.


 * "President Truman this week asked Congress to pass a resolution ending the state of war with Germany. The resolution would be a legal substitute for a peace treaty, long stalled by Russia.".


 * So not at all an "internal matter". And, ho ho ho, lets see what was reported 2 years earlier, in 1949:


 * "The formal state of war which still exists between the Western nations and Germany would be softened by juggling some technicalities, but not altogether suspended (the U.S. wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a U.S. force in Western Germany).".


 * Can it be made any more obvious than that that the state of war was valid and used to justify the occupation and such legal reasons in international affairs between the U.S. and Germany? To trump that you have to provide something better than the U.K abolishing some ancient law about turnpikes.--Stor stark7 Talk 10:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having declared war the US had to declare that the war was over at some point (they could have waited for the peace treaty but that would have been a 45 year wait! The point of the of the UK link is that things get messed up by events and not all legislation is still valid although it may still be legal (See for example the war between Berwick and Russia's successor state the USSR). As The US had declared war on Germany if they were going to be party to the recreation of a German state (with or without full sovereignty), the US presumably did not wish to be in a state of war with that new state and the wording of the deceleration of war was with Germany not the German Empire so the wording could have been interpreted that the US was still at war with the new German state) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources I provided speak for themselves. Nevertheless, let me point some things out. BRD has May 1949 as its inception. In November 1949 the U.S. "juggled some technicalities" to soften the state of war, but chose not to end it completely since the state of war was useful to the U.S. as regards what it could do in Germany (BRD). Remember that the Germans were the enemy for a long time, it was illegal for a white army man to marry a German woman until December 1946.(blacks in the army had to wait till 1948) It was not until October 1951 that the President chose to ask congress to end the war. As to "re-creation" of a German state claim I have already pointed out that that interpretation of events is not accepted by the Germans themselves, they claim an unbroken link between the Reich and the BRD, to them legally it was just a question of reorganization of the state, just as when the DDR decades later was absorbed, the German state itself never ceased to exist)--Stor stark7 Talk 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the dates that apply for this article?
My question is prompted by this deletion by where he removed crimes committed during the Polish occupation of Eastern Germany stating "(this article covers WW2 not events after it)". I hold this to be a totally unacceptable missinterpretation of WW-II Warcrimes. Acts during the occupation of a defeated enemy in a war must be included, I have therefore undone the Molobo deletion. --Stor stark7 Talk 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that you reverted yet again, strange that Piotrus didnt intervene, I though he placed you on informal 1/time revert when you were released from the 1y block? Nevertheless, lets see what the other editors here feel should be the closing date when a war crime is no longer a WW-II war crime. I would be happy to create a new article, War-crimes during the occupation of Germany if need be.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actions against Germans post WWII most certainly need to be in here. They were, after all, committed because of World War II. Oberiko (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More generic name?
Can we get a more generic term to include all massacres, war crimes and forced internment / population transfers? I'm not sure if atrocity is applicable but it would seem to be a better fit. Oberiko (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland
The two articles state that there have been war crimes or war criminals in poland after 1945. This is a proof and can be cited. So War crimes are possible after the war. War crime suspect stays in Israel Polish man accused of 'war crimes' against the Germans --Stone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, this Pole Salomon Morel was sought after by Polish authorities for his "war-crimes" and "crimes against humanity" that took place after the surrender. The argument by Piotrus oft co-editor that Polish war-crimes from after the German surrender should be deleted is very much invalid, and I hope the editors here can keep a lookout for spurious deletions.--Stor stark7 Talk 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. rape section
I added "According to revisionist historian, ect..." because I found no other links supporting his claims and I found one that directly refutes it. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.64.83 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous, some comments on your edits and explanations. (1) According to Wiki policy; if you wish that your phrase "revisionist historian" shall remain in the article you should provide some reliable source that labels Peter Schrijvers as a revisionist, at least when it comes to the book in question. (2) Please state specifically what in the source you provided that according to you quote:"directly refutes it". (3) I am sorry to hear that you were unable to find links that support Schrijver. There are usually many online links to be found when googling for common knowledge topics although we at wikipedia do prefer scholarly books and articles as sources. To try to help you I did a search on books google and can provide you with some sources that mention rapes on Okinawa. First however I suggest you read a reply I wrote to a similar question:
 * Talk:Battle_of_Okinawa.
 * Then I propose you read a New York Times article about 3 rapists from the army of occupation who met their fate one Okinawan night.
 * 3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa
 * Some book pages available through Google: (scroll up to read the preceeding page too),, , ,
 * Cheers --Stor stark7 Talk 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus latest inclusion
I have reviewed latest inclusion, the piece about the Germans themselves provocating the massacres on themselves and their fellow Germans. Page 207 of Biddiscomebs book does mention the German Abwehr in Breslau training thousands of agents for sending into Poland. Biddiscombe does however give no evidence for this claim, in an otherwise thoroughly footnoted book so I'm inclined to believe he has fallen prey to Polish communist propaganda books from the 60's 70's. As a side note he also claims on the same page that 5 million Polish Jews died. I was under the impression that the number from Poland was 3 million Jews killed, but he has no reference here either. All in all I think this part of his book should be taken with a grain of salt, he obviously did not do very thorough research here. On the other hand, on page 208 he mentions that after the war the Poles re initiated even more strongly their pre-war oppression of the German minority. I wish he had written more on the pre-war topic. For a more balanced and actually researched view on German "Provocateurs" I suggest this page and its footnotes --Stor stark7 Talk 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese prisoners of war in Japanese custody
the article claims 99% of Chinese prisoners of war were killed, that seems a little hard to believe, the claim is sourced, but not to an online source, maybe someone should check this and provide more sources if necessary, and provide details to show how many prisoners of war Japan even captured. Thisglad (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it suffices to point out that the source in question, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, by Herbert P. Bix, won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001.  Grant  |  Talk  14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that it did, however that does not mean the prisoner of war death rate claim is beyond scrutiny, as it stands, that controversial claim has only a single source. Thisglad (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have researched the issue of POWs (on both sides) in the Sino-Japanese War as thoroughly as I can, since I started contributing to this article and the problem is that good quality sources on these matters in English are very rare. I have seen nothing to contradict Bix. Grant  |  Talk  16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern front
The article on the Eastern front does not mention Yugoslavia nor its Partisan guerrila as one of the belligerents. So why is Yugoslavia mentioned under the Eastern front section here? Is it merely because of the all too common "communism = Soviet Union" oversimplification of history? If so, something should be done about this division in the article. If not, the Eastern front article is faulty.

I'd also like to start an avalanche, please. Some editor seems to keep removing Polish killings that occured after the war, stating that what happened after a certain date is in no way connected to the war itself. In my view, this is faulty logic that only serves whitewashing facts - however, if the above reasoning is alowed here, I would like to propose some whitewashing of my own - I would like to see the removal of the foibe and Bleiburg massacres from the list. Both happened after the war, afterall. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Malmedy
Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II - The editor has got this completely the wrong way around. The idea of US soldiers executing SS men at malmedy has been widely refuted. JoeTalkWork 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the earlier edits were done by some pretty far-left editors to belittle the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.61.82 (talk • contribs)


 * 128, I left you a note on your talk page. Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which of you is saying that US soldiers did execute SS men following the events at Malmedy? I'm confused, and not happy with the reference given. Cheers. JoeTalkWork 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism
From the article on revionist history on wiki "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate."

So when we say that a certain historian is a revisionist, we mean that they look back on disputed facts on a differnt light and take a different stance. If any think it is OK to vandalize that (the original was changed to what it is now...so vandalism in a way because it is altering in a sneaky way facts that an idiot would dispute) should not continue to edit on this page or any page of academic standing...i.e. a page where intelligence is demanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.61.79 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 April 2008


 * It is not vandalism to change the text if the edit is done in good faith, and just because someone holds a different point of view from you does not mean that their edit is a bad faith one or vandalism.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Crimes must have a reliable source alleging the crime
See WP:PROVEIT

There has been over the last few months a tendency to extend this article with all sorts of allegations about Allied war crimes which are not supported by the citations given. If the points raised in this article are not to be WP:OR then the alleged crime needs to be supported by a citation that says it was a crime. This does not mean that all the allegation in the article have to be in the form "ABC says such and such was a crime because xyz", but the information provided in the citations should be enough to allow someone to be able to see that that is so.


 * Polish forces
 * Pawłokoma massacre -- citations needed  for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Dubingiai massacre  -- citations needed  for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Ethnic German victims -- What was the war crime? It may well have been murder, but killing ones own civilians is not usually considered a war crime unless it is a civil war. Who says that this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?


 * Soviet Union
 * Treuenbrietzen -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * After the German armed forces had surrendered,... Who says that this was a war crime and what was the war crime committed?
 * Yugoslavia
 * 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Bleiburg massacre -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Foibe massacres -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?

Free French Forces
 * French Moroccan troops -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed? citing another Wikipedia article as in "(see Marocchinate)" is not acceptable as a valid source because  WP:V says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." See also for this entry see the section in WP:V called Non-English sources


 * United States
 * Canicattì slaughter: killing of Italian civilians by an American officer -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Biscari massacre: killing of Axis prisoners of war in Sicily. -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * Chenogne massacre: killing of German prisoners of war by American troops. -- citations needed  for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?


 * Rapes
 * "and the Battle of Budapest". no citation.


 * Post-war incidents involving Axis POWs

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Norway: German POWs in Norway forced to clear minefields. -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * France and the Low Countries: minefields -- citations needed  for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * France and the Low Countries: Oskar Dirlewanger -- citations needed for those who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * United states: Rheinwiesenlager Concentration camps for German POWs --No reliable source is given as a citation. Who says this was a war crime and what was the war crime that was committed?
 * United states: Salina Utah POW massacre -- If the man was insane then he was not guilty of a crime on the grounds of diminished responsibility. citations needed for those who says this was a war crime, and what was the war crime that was committed?


 * Well PBS, here you can see the French admitting that their use of German slave labor for de-mining is in violation of the Geneva convention. And this snippet from a Norwegian documentary based on the research by professor Gokstad speaks of how the British forced the Germans to walk out over cleared minefields to detonate any blinds with their bodies. You are right PBS, we need an article called Allied atrocities during World War II and Allied atrocities during the occupations resulting from World War II. There we can for example insert all the spurious massacres conducted by members of the Allied forces, such as Treuenbrietzen, even if they, as victors seldom are, never were formally tried by a court of law. Please make sure that you insert into the Allied atrocities articles all that that you lift out of this one. Also, just to avoid any risk of you being suspected of trying to whitewash Allied crimes, please make sure you apply exactly the same standards and treatment to the articles Japanese war crimes, and War crimes of the Wehrmacht. Thank you.--Stor stark7 Speak 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favour of only including war crimes that are fully cited in ALL the war crime articles (see my comments on the talk pages of talk:list of war crimes over a long period, and see my recent edits to German war crimes article. I an in favour of including well documented allegations of war crimes even if if there has been not legal prosecution, providing that the historians involved clearly indicate the crimes that were committed. For example see the large changes I made to the Dachau massacre article last August.


 * As to the sources you have provide above that is just what is needed but when there has been no judicial review they should be included in the form of x says y, because it provides a more balanced view and also indicates that it is a point of view and not a judicial finding. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Naval warfare
I've read the Yale Law School reference appended to the paragraph on Naval warfare and it most certainly does not have a thing to say about the United States Navy issuing similar orders to Doenitz's. I propose we return the challenged text without the misleading ref and tag it as needing citation. Perhaps someone can locate the source. Otherwise, I'm curious as to why Doenitz wasn't penalized. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am supprised that you missed the paragraph:
 * In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.

in Judgement : Doenitz the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School

But here is another source from www.navy.mil Gary E. Weir Silent Defense One Hundred Years of the American Submarine Force, U.S. Naval Historical Center, Section "Shaping an Identity". Accessed 25 April 2008.
 * Thus, when Admiral Thomas Hart proclaimed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan on 8 December 1941, it came as no surprise

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you nailed it. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing CN Tags
I've removed a few Fact tags from the main article. The ones I removed were attached to links to events. So if the link went to an event like the Canicatti Massacre, the CN tag is now gone. That kind of link doesn't need another source in this article. Something like this: "Mass rape and other war crimes by Soviet troops during the occupation of East Prussia (Danzig), [18][19][20][21] parts of Pomerania and Silesia; during the Battle of Berlin[22], and the Battle of Budapest.[citation needed]" does. That is wholly appropriate. The article makes an assertion that mass rape occurred during the battle of Budapest. That needs a cite. Listing war crimes explained by their own pages does not. I no more need a cite for that than I do to link the date. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot help but agree. I put many tags into the article as another editor was objecting that if a citation does not exist in THIS article then he was going to do massive deletions of the content of this article and he point to this or that or whatever WP policy or guideline to justify such actions.  Hmains (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put the tags back. This is a controversial subject and all the entries should be fully cited. See WP:PROVEIT "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". There have been many discussion about this I know because I was involved in some of them and links to another Wikipedia article are not sufficient if a citation is requested. Those entries that are little more than links need fleshing out with who alleges that the were war crimes, what was the war crime committed and was anyone found guilty of the crime. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Take the first on the list. Pawłokoma massacre who says that the massacres were a war crime and not brigandry by brigans no longer in a formed unit under the command of the Allies. It is not uncommon for such things at the end of a war see for example mosstroopers and the article does not make this clear. That is why we need citaitons in this article.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Slave Labor camps
This should be inserted: Many of ethnic Germans living within the Polish pre-war borders were prior to their expulsion for years used as forced labor in camps such as the camp run by Salomon Morel. For example Central Labour Camp Jaworzno, Central Labour Camp Potulice, Łambinowice, Zgoda labour camp and others. (see also this HNET review) Considering that Salomon Morell was charged with "war crimes" for his time as camp commandant I think it applies even within PBS new criteria.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then put in a section that says Salomon Morell was charged uvw (whatever the war crimes were) for his time as camp commandant of xyz camp. But do not generalise the unless there is a source to back it up (see WP:SYN). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Expulsions
I saw that Expulsion of Germans after World War II had been removed from the see also section. I think it should be reinstated as it is a disputed case. It is considered a Genocide by some. and yes, we can debate whether genocide is a war crime, better to create the article Allied genocides during World War II?

This is from Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II:
 * The tide started to turn when the charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity, and this opinion was progressively adopted and extended through the remainder of the century. Underlying the change was the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of nation-states to impose fiats which adversely affected them.

Besides, From the Nuremberg Trials definition.
 * 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 labor 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;

--Stor stark7 Speak 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The book you quoted is out of date as ethnic cleansing today is not in its self genocide under international law (a position that a majority of legal scholars agree on), See the Bosnian Genocide article for details of why this. Further in this case most of the the land the populations came from was not occupied but part of friendly states. The ban on such a transfer of territory would no become illegal until GCIV came into force.


 * The crime of genocide is not a war crime, but a similar protection by Hague IV (1907) already made genocidal actions against a population of occupied territory a war crime war crime. The real impact of the Genocide Convention was primarily for barbarities against a states own population. (See Telford Taylor "When people kill a people" in The New York Times, March 28, 1982) More recent developments (since Taylor wrote his piece). However in this case doe not the title of the article make it clear "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" that this is not a subject about "Allied war Crimes during World War II". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't the stomach to argue if a book is out of date based on wiki articles. A source states that Scholars have argued that it was genocide, that should be enough for wikipedia. If you have sources that state that this perticular instance was not a genoside, please insert them too, we should cover all sides, as the book i referenced actually does. By the way, this chapter by de-zayas was for example published in 2003


 * Further in this case most of the the land the populations came from was not occupied but part of friendly states. Exactly where did you get that idea? A majority of the expeles came from the eastern territories that the victorious Allies occupied and subsequently annexed.(contrary to their high stated but ultimately pretend goals with the Nuremberg trials and the "Atlantic charter"). It was most certainly German territory under Allied occupation that was cleansed. I don't think the rump-Germany that was left after the annexations de jure accepted the new borders imposed on them by the kind victors until the 1970's. And of course some millions came from inside the other eastern European nations. So we have massive ethnic cleansing conducted by the allies from both types of territory. Great, take your pick.


 * After World war II. I'm sorry PBS, but I have to say that to me that sounds like weasling to push the topic under the carpet. Ethnic cleansing that took part as a consequence of the war most certainly belongs here. The Allies had been working on the ethnic cleansing conscept already since 1943, see Anglo-American Responsibility for the Expulsion of the Germans, 1944-48, and the cleansing started during the fighting in 1944, and continued for several years under the occupation governments authority. It was infact the Allied Control Council that pressured a resisting Hungrian government to cleanse its German minority.  Also, remember, the state of war with Germany was still legally active until the 1950s.....


 * Oh, and article 6 of the Nuremberg charter: c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 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 domestic law of the country where perpetrated."


 * Obviously the Allies had set the standards already in mid 1945 by creating international law. Deportations are a crime, even if they occurred during the war and regardless to what population they happened to. Now, the choice here is to assume that international law is universal and applies equally to all, or that the Nuremberg trials were show trials, fake justice, victors justice, and thus of no value whatsoever in international law and best forgotten and pushed under the carpet. "might makes right" --Stor stark7 Speak 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you are pushing a particular point of view that is not very well supported. You will have to come up with sources that state that the Allied actions after World War II were a war crime at the time they were committed. Further to write a balanced paragraph unless the is clear consensus that the action was a war crime and only a fringe view that it was not you should include the contrary POV to such allegations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Laconia incident
See previous comments in Archive 1: Defining the limits of what belongs here, Archive 3: POVtag, Archive 3: The Laconia Incident

I have removed the following recently added text:
 * ''The Laconia incident: bombing of German and Italian submarines conducting a rescue operation of civilians.

What was the war crime? Which verifiable reliable source says it was a war crime? (See WP:PROVEIT) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)