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

Should the article include atrocities

It's obvious that a catasrophic loss of human lives like the A-bomb should be in here. It should be noted that German and Japan war crimes articles contain un-charged atrocities under the tutelage of war crimes. I wonder if the double standard should prevail any further.

Denial Edits

Someone here is deleting material in denial without explanation. I am reverting back some of the contributions by Supermarine and Kilimanjaronum.

Defining the limits of what belongs here

I understand how sensitive topic is but some limits should be set set. If Foiba is included why not Bleiburg massacre? I'd recommend not to add post-war masaacres as they often happen in out of any control situation.

Laconia incident was military operation against submarine trying to save mostly Italian soldiers (on explicit order) and return them back to military service, misusing red cross sign in the process.

The Katyn massacre occured before Soviet Union became Allied power. If anything it was more ally of Germany. So technically it doesn't belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Good point about Katyn, wondered why the link was removed there. The Laconia incident was the start of unrestricted submarine warfare and as far as our article says allied bombers fired in spite of rescuing operations for civilians, so it definitely qualifies for this list. As to Bleiburg, right, had not been sure whether the Yugoslav were allies. There should be something on the rapes and other crimes perpetrated on Germans fleeing to the west when the war ended, but I regard that as a particularly touchy issue. Get-back-world-respect 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen too many discussions about this topic on soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup and do not really wish to get involved in anything like this here. If you want really /complete/ coverage of facts and counterfacts, opinions and counter-opinions, you may search though their archives. Pavel Vozenilek 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Laconia Incident, since it was not a war crime, but a legitimate attack on an enemy submarine that had not surrendered or in the process of surrendering. You can read about it here: http://www.uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=33 It is also incorrect that the Laconia incident was the start of unrestricted submarine warfare. All it did was bring forth an order on the treatment of survivors from torpedoed ships. Unrestricted submarine warfare started long before.Andreas 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Both countries joined the Allies several months before the war in Europe ended. Thanks for pointing this out. Get-back-world-respect 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is so anti allies anti american it is simply a joke and hurts wikipedias credability. The germans were little angels never killed milions never massacered anyone hhahhhh. German war crimes are some of the worst acts in history. I feel bad for the writer of this embarrisment.

NPOV

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

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

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

Andreas 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aerial bombardment

Conventional

This article published on 30-06-1998 in International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 by Javier Guisández Gómez states:

In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

Unless someone has another source which presents a legal argument which contradicts this one aerial bombardment should not be included in this list. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

nuclear

On the nuclear issue I would point to Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3. See specifically the section International Court of Justice. The ICJ case has 5 judements on the debate about whether the use or threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996 was lawful. It has nothing direct to say on the state of international law in 1945, however it does say that in 1996: "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;". Which suggests there was nothing in customary nor conventional international law in 1945).

See also the UK reservations when agreeing to Protocol I UK Declaration made upon signature - 12/12/1977 SOURCE: Corrected Letter of 28 January 1998 sent to the Swiss Government by Christopher Hulse, HM Ambassador of the United Kingdom. Link is to the web site Queen's University Belfast

"(i) That the new rules introduced by the Protocol are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons;".

So the chances that using nuclear weapons was a war cime in 1945 were slim to none. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this become a category?

I can see little purpose in this page at this time, that could not be serviced by having it as a category (e.g. Allied War Crimes, Alleged and Confirmed). As the page is it invites parallel discussion to those already going on at the talk pages of the pages linked here.

I would welcome other opinions on this. Andreas 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No I thing it should not be (just) a category. I have just removed a similar list in victor's justice and put in a link to here to keep the muppits happy. It is best that there is one central list otherwise it becomes a game of "wacka rat". --Philip Baird Shearer 01:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

No. The page should provide overview (based on work of historians), including how controversial the topic is even today, and not to became list. Pavel Vozenilek 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree with the second part of this. I think if we have something here on how controversial it is we end up duplicating discussion that ought to be on the talk pages of the respective articles. That way lies madness. Andreas 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. The current article gives impression that the crimes are few isolated events, these few events are absolutely black and the rest is pure white. And it misses less documented crimes, like shooting civilians when Red Army had retreated in 1941. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Reversion

I reverted Ultramarine's changes, because they just contained too many speculative items, and weasel words 'Some have claimed'. Just because you disagree with someone's action (Warsaw) does not make it a warcrime. Please try not to use the term too loosely. Andreas 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you take look on Ultramarine page you will see he's, ehm, ... quite problematic user. Several administrative processes has been tried and they obviously didn't help much. The Wikipedia is far from perfect and its major weakness is that a dedicated troll is able to take over articles - he simply wages revert war so long that all normal people leave in disgust. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. Why should only some Western crimes be mentioned and not the much larger crimes made by the Communist states? Ultramarine 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see no purpose in having a duplification of the discussion that ought to be conducted on the relevant article talk pages here. I have therefore removed the references etc. in order to discourage this article from developing into something it should not be. Please conduct the discussion on the veracity of such claims in the articles linked. Andreas 09:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Stopping outside Warsaw 1944

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Prussia 1944-5

Please do not use weasel words such as 'some say'. State clearly who said it, and what, citing sources. Also, look up the definition of 'Genocide' and see if it fits the bill, and which part of it. There is no doubt that war crimes were committed by the Red Army in East Prussia in 1944, so those could be included, with a simple link to the relevant article on Wikipedia. Whether the post-war expulsion of Germans from central European areas of Germany should be included in this page is another matter worth discussing. Please do so before including it again. Andreas 13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Gulags

German POWs were held in dedicated POW camps. Only POWs convicted of war crimes were held in the political prisoner system, AFAICT. It is important to preserve this distinction. Mortality rates were probably higher in the normal POW camps. Andreas 09:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted: 13:42, 14 March 2006 Andreas1968

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Millions of German POW

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another source mentioned earlier in this page:

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

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

Enemy POWs never returned:

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

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

Axis POWs Held by the Soviets

The recent addition of:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merging

The merge is dispited at list of war crimes (see: Talk:List of war crimes) Please discuss and add comments there. So far there are only two votes, both nay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrishJew (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed merge template as no consensus for the merge has emerged over the last week. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes in the Pacific

There were several allied war crimes in the Pacific theater that aren't mentioned here. I'll try to research and add them later, but, if someone else wants to do it, please feel welcome. The two that I know of specifically happened at the Battle of the Bismark Sea when the US commander ordered Japanese survivors floating the in ocean to be shot. The other was at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal when US Marines in small boats shot Japanese survivors floating in the ocean. There's more, but I won't mention them until I find a reference for them. Cla68 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the war crime committed at the end of the Battle of the Bismark Sea? Were these men Hors de combat? Do you have a source which says that they were? --Philip Baird Shearer 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Katyn massacre

I changed the phrase "before the involvement of the relevant nation in World War II" because it is incorrect. The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II began with its first act of war, which was the invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939. This was later followed by the attack on Finland on November 30 the same year. The beginning of World War II in Europe is usually defined by Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. The Katyn massacre took place during the spring of 1940. As for references for this interpretation of the events, I will simply refer to the references for the Wikipedia article "World War II". By the way, that article says, in its 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:

Pursuant to a then-secret provision of its non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union joined with Germany on September 17, 1939, to conquer Poland and to divide Eastern Europe.

The Allies were initially made up of Poland, British Commonwealth countries, and France.

So the Soviet Union attacked and invaded one of the Allies (Poland), 2 years before Operation Barbarossa after which it joined the Allies. To say that the Soviet Union was not involved in World War II before it joined the Allies is pure revisionism in my eyes. --Shastra 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that the SU was not an Allied country at the time, and that this particular page is about Allied war crimes. Katyn qualifies as much or as little as any other crime committed by the Soviets before they became an allied country. Andreas 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your phrasing "became part of the allies" is better. Perhaps "Allied war crimes" is too ambiguous as a title? The whole point of this article seems to be to list WWII war crimes that were perpetrated by the powers that in the end won the war, regardless of the status of their alliances at the time of the crime. An observation: the Wikipedia entry "Axis war crimes" is just a redirect to "List of war crimes". Perhaps "Allied war crimes" should simply be merged with that article? --Shastra 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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