Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

'Dachau pic'

Hey, I would like to point out that the picture in the Dachau section is grossly misused. That picture was in fact taken after a German SS made a break for it resulting in a volley of fire from the GI's, the rest of the prisoner, that is except for the 3 still standing, then fell to the ground feigning death. My source is Stephen Ambrose's book citizen soldier.

Evidence for removal/replacment:

Stephen Ambrose citizen soldier If the GI's had been slaughtering them why would the remaining gaurdes still be standing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.29.125 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know no one actually saw anyone run away, according to Howard Buechners book it was a premeditated execution planned by Buechners good friend Jack Bushyhead, but according to Felix Sparks it was a jumpy GI who started firing at the line of waffen SS soldiers with their hands up, until Sparks kicked him off the gun. Even the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website claims these photos depict a 'revenge motivated' massacre, not a combat scene as you suggest. Thisglad (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that info and more in the wikilinked article, but it the description in this article ("The Dachau massacre: killing of German prisoners of war and surrendering SS soldiers" could use amplification -- perhaps inline, perhaps in a footnote. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes and refs

I've removed the {{fact}} tag following the "Even the Soviets expressed shock ..." assertion. A supporting source is cited, and I've verified that the cited source does support this (see this).

I've also renamed the References section as External links.

If it's OK, I'd like to work on redoing the Notes section as separate Notes and References sections, in a style similar to the History of the Philippines and History of the Philippines (1898–1946) articles. This would involve,if I do the work, formatting the references in the Notes section with either the {{harvnb}} or the {{harvcolnb}} templates and the citations in the References section with the {{Citation}} template. If you're interested in the details,look at what is done in those abovementioned articles. Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like complicated templates in citations, so why not lay them out like those in the article the Battle of Waterloo? The advantage is that most of the citation remains in the references section (where I personally do not use the citation templates) and in the text there is usually only the author and page numbers so that the text is not broken up with long citations eg <ref>An Author p. 101</ref> --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the proper forum for a discussion of likes and dislikes re templated vs. hand-formated cites. I happen to favor {{Harvnb}} or {{Harvcolnb}} in combination with {{Citation}}, partially because this combination provides a clickable forward-link from the ref to the cite (the Back button needs to be used to navigate back). That can be achieved with hand-formated citations as well (see WP:CITE#Example edits for different methods) if you have the time, feel free to do the work. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material cited to book reviews

To explain my edits today, I have removed this material as the citations provided did not support the claims being made. The staetment on prisoner killings in the Pacific which is referenced to Jeff Kingston is from a book review (not a great source, IMO) and he was being quoted out of context: He is not expressing an opinion, but rather explaining the message in the book he is reviewing and the full quote was "Controversially, Allied soldiers are shown to be guilty of the very sort of cruelties and callous disregard for civilized norms that Japanese soldiers have been charged with being uniquely capable of." The critical word 'controversially' had been ommited from the quote in the article. Kingston's quote from the one of the books about there being "more in common" between the Japanese and Allies than is often thought isn't related to prisoner killing, and I don't understand why it was being included here. I've also removed a statement that Peter Schrijvers claims that rape was "a general practice against Japanese women" as this is not the case. This statement was also referenced to a book review, and it is the reviewer's view, and Schrijvers did not state this in his book. I have removed this reference and referenced the actual book instead. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning in passing that I've handled some similar cases in other articles by expanding the original book-review citation to make it clear that the cite-supported material is supported by the review, not by the book, and also citing the relevant portion of the book itself, and also explicitly pointing out the discrepancies (sometimes in inline text, sometimes in a footnote — case-by-case). I don't have examples ready to hand, and don't know how relevant this comment might be to these particular cases. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick; I think the key words here are "shown to be guilty". That is, I think Kingston has two distinct points: (1) that Allied personnel were sometimes "cruel and callous" and (2) this is controversial. "Controversy" in the sense of Lewis & Steele's probable effect on their readers and the general public, not in terms of reliability. In other words, I do not read that passage as meaning that Kingston doubts/disbelieves the allegation.

BTW I haven't read Lewis & Steele's book, but I did see all of the TV series on which it was based, and they depicted Allied personnel as sometimes "cruel and callous", although clearly surpassed in these regards by Japanese war crimes. Regards Grant | Talk 11:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My reading of WP:PSTS is that reviews and the like are 'Tertiary sources' as they are a couple of steps away from the source and their use isn't recomended - it's better to reference the topic of the review rather than someone else's interpretation of it. There seem to be lots of good sources on this topic, so I don't think that we need to rely on less than satisfactory sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While that may be true of reviews in newspapers/radio transcripts/etc it isn't true of highly reputable sources like the New York Review of Books, London Review of Books or reviews by academics (such as Kingston); such sources may be more credible than the book they are reviewing, and I'm not sure that Lewis & Steele is even referenced. Kingston was reiterating the point made by Lewis & Steele, that both sides in the Pacific fought a different kind of war to that being waged in Europe at the same time. Grant | Talk 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but why not just cite Lewis & Steele directly, or any of the the other dozens (hundreds?) of references which make this point? As reviews are more or less focused on the thing being reviewed, they're not as good references in my opinion as papers/books/documentaries/etc on the topic. They wouldn't be a satisfactory reference for an undergradate-level essay (at least in my experiance) so I don't think that they should be used, except to discuss the subject of the review, the views of a (notable) reviewer or when absolutely nothing else is available. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO a western academic at a Japanese uni has a unusually strong claim to credibility. If I had a copy of the TV series I would also quote that, since the Lewis & Steele book appears to to be derived entirely from it.

Anyway, my main concern is that a distinct and significant point, referenced from an acceptable source, has been lost. If a better source for that point is available, then great — let's use that, while retaining Kingston as a supporting source. Grant | Talk 09:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete ?

I believe that in the current form the article should be deleted. It consists of false information, synthesis and OR that serves to push private opinions. It really has no merit. --Molobo (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether deletion is in order given that this is a valid topic, but I agree with your assessment of the article's content and it does need a near-total re-write. A useful first step would be to strip it back to include only things which have been proven to have been war crimes - anything else is an alleged war crime and doesn't belong in an article with a title as clear as this one has. War crimes of Imperial Japan deals mainly with incidents which led to people being convicted of war crimes, and this seems a useful precedent to follow - at present this article treats any allegation as being a valid claim of an actual war crime, and this is unsupportable in my view (it seems worth noting that Allegations of Allied war crimes during World War II redirects here, despite alleged and proven war crimes being different things). I would suggest that this article should also take a thematic view on the war crimes which were committed by Allied troops, and note the incidence of these crimes compared to those by Axis troops, the factors which caused them and the public and government responses to the crimes. It may be appropriate to start a seperate and distinct Allegations of Allied war crimes during World War II article to cover things which have been claimed as war crimes but which haven't lead to any convictions, but that would need to be edited very responsibly to prevent POV pushing. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, according to User:Nick Dowling this article: "consists of false information, synthesis and OR that serves to push private opinions.". I pity the editors who have struggled with this article and now see their work labeled thus.

Since Nick Dowling agrees with Molobo (talk · contribs)s assessment. Would he mind to elaborate on which information in the article, according to him, is false? If it is false it should be deleted instantly, but I hope you have sources to justify such deletion.

As to Nicks suggestions for changes to the article, in order to avoid the impression that he is an apologist trying to whitewash Allied crimes, I strongly suggest that he begins by defining which policy the article should follow, and then begin by first implementing it on the articles War crimes of the Wehrmacht and War crimes of Imperial Japan, and possibly also Soviet war crimes; for neutrality reasons. I expect that from Nicks proposal to "include only things which have been proven to have been war crimes", i.e. to remove war crimes "which haven't lead to any convictions" then regarding War crimes of Imperial Japan he will first have to remove "Preventable famine", "Torture of POWs", "Forced labor", "Comfort women" (was anyone convicted of war crimes because of the comfort women?) etc. The same applies for the Wehrmacht article, there is a lot there for Nick to trim away first before he gets going here, if he wishes to be seen as an impartial editor. Good luck Nick, you have your work cut out for you.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

June 1946

I have removed this from the article for further discussion:

During May and June 1946 there were in fact 5 instances where young German women were found dead in American barracks. Incidents of this kind brought about the re-imposition of a curfew upon American troops in the summer of 1946. ^[1] In this respect, one should remember that by "...April 1945, 500 rape cases per week were being reported to the Judge Advocate General of American forces in Europe" (Roehner, Bertrand M., RELATIONS BETWEEN ALLIED FORCES AND THE POPULATIONS OF GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (PDF), Self-published, p. 23, retrieved 2008-05-27, citing note 27 in Biddiscombe (2001), Dangerous liaisons: the anti-fraternization movement in the U.S. occupation zones of Germany and Austria 1945-1948, vol. 34, pp. 611–647 {{citation}}: Text "journal-Journal of Social History" ignored (help)).

There are two major problems with this paragraph:
(1) The first is that the War in Europe finished in May 1945. This is a report of killings of Germans civilians (Not POWS) over a year after the War ended.
(2) It says 500 rape cases per week were being reported to the Judge Advocate General of American forces in Europe (my emphasis). This presumably includes rapes in the UK, France, etc which were allied to the Americans, in which case it is a misleading to include that number on a War Crimes Page. It makes no more sense than including on this page a total for rapes of civilians by US forces in the United States. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to PBS:

I've looked up Biddiscombe. The text in question:

Even in western Germany, how- ever, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945."Ref to footnote 27:

This is footnote 27:

Edward Peterson, The Many Faces of Defeat: The German People's Experience in 1945 (New York, 1990), pp. 40-47, 79,81, 128,130-32,138. By April 1945, 500 rape cases per week were being reported to the Judge Advocate General of American forces in Europe. "Report of the Threatre Judge Advocate for the period 4 April 1942 to 3 April 1946," appendix iv-e, Papers of the Allied High Command, 1943145, Reel no. 7. As for the French, there were 385 rapes in the Constance area; 600 in Bruchsal; and 500 in Freudenstadt. Marc Hillel, L'Occupation Franaise en Alemagne, 1945-49 (Saint-Armand-Montrand, 1983), pp. 84, 108-111; Manfred Bosch, Der Neubeginn: Aus deutscher Nachkriegszeit Siidbaden 1945-1950 (Konstanz, 1988), p. 34; and Hermann Werner, Tiibingen 1945 (Stuttgart, 1986), p. 88.

He goes on to mention that:

In the East Prussian capital of Konigsberg, wounded German soldiers could only watch helplessly as Soviet troops stormed into their Lazarett and literally lined up to rape the nurses.28

and

There were a few cases where Soviet or Allied soldiers were killed in retaliation for rapes, but such actions typically resulted in collective counter-reprisals that discouraged any further incidents of the same type.29 Mostly there was just an embarrassed sense of resignation, as if such things were to be expected: Erst Jiinger noticed the reemergence of the age-old expression "Sie haben die Frauen unter sich gebracht." Near Zerbst, a man complained that his wife had been raped by American troops, but that at least they had "asked"-"The Russians would have come in and grabbed.30

Footnotes 28, 29, 30

28. Bundesarchiv-Lastenausgleichsarchiv, Bayreuth, Ost Dok. 2/21, Ruth Zollner, un- titled report, 25 June 1951.
29. Perry Biddiscombe, Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946 (Toronto, 1998), pp. 269-70. In at least one case, German women discouraged a would-be defender in order to avoid the collective reprisals sure to follow any loss of blood by Red Army soldiers. During a Soviet raid on the Breslau suburb of Elfenhagen, which typically degenerated into a binge of rape and pillage, an outraged German civilian was barely prevented from tossing a hand grenade at Soviet troops. At the last moment, local women convinced him that such an attack would result in retaliations causing the death of every inhabitant of the village. Karl Friedrich Grau, ed., Silesian Inferno: War Crimes of the Red Army on its March into Silesia in 1945-A Collection of Documents (Cologne, 1970), p. 72.
30. Erst Jiinger, Tagebiicher III: Strahlungen-Zweiter Teil (Stuttgart, 1960), p. 425; and Saul Padover, Experiment in Germany (New York, 1946), p. 379.

On the Killings:

These factors, apparently working in conjunction, reduced civil unrest over the winter of 1945/46.111 It is true that the level of violence in U.S.-occupied Germany and Austria surged again in the spring of 1946, especially after the cancellation of the zone- wide curfew in Germany on 30 March.l12 Resentment of fraternization remained a big part of the problem,"l3 particularly in view of the fact that three U.S. soldiers were wholly or partially castrated by German assailants in 1946, 14 but there were also other factors at play.

Chief amongst these was a shocking deterioration of U.S. troop behavior and discipline, a problem that emerged in early 1946 and quickly reached crisis proportions. Unprovoked attacks upon German civilians, and a related wave of retaliatory violence aimed at U.S. soldiers, became the central issue of civil-military relations.

Unfortunately, as German women became better acquainted with American men, some of this anomic violence was directed their way: during May and June 1946, there were five instances where young women were found dead in American barracks, and the problem of rape reappeared, in one case involving a fifteen year old girl assaulted in a corn- field.ll5 It was only in the summer of 1946 that the organization of the U.S. Constab- ulary, the reimposition of a curfew upon American troops, and the increasing severity of punishments for breeches of conduct all began to have an ameliorative affect, and even then troop delinquency remained a serious problem in some parts of Bavaria as late as 1947.11

In reply to the 2 voiced concerns by User:Philip Baird Shearer

1. - 1. Fighting may have ended with the surrender of the German armed forces, but formally the war between Germany and the U.S. was still active until well into the 1950's. 2. This was a military occupation that was part of World War II. 3. A warcrime against civilians is: "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. The U.S. troops were engaged in a military occupation, and they were killing civilians. To try to argue that way on dubious technicalities is just tiresome. Where do you propose we put the text instead, a new article called US warcrimes during World War II related occupations? Seems to me it makes much more sense to keep it in this article, since the final occupations are really indivisibly connected to the war.
2. - The rapes, PBS had an interesting point, but I think I've shown that Biddiscombe and his source refers to the American rapes commited in Western Germany that were reported to the Judge Advocate General, and not to the grand total of rapes that includes France etc.

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That the United States was at war with Germany in 1946 is a minority view and probably a breach of WP:UNDUE. It leads logically to an argument that if an American raped a German woman in West Berlin in 1989 he had committed a war crime, not a position most people would take as reasonable, so please find a couple of reliable sources that states that murders of Germans by Americans in 1946 were war crimes. The citation of a citation still says Europe, not occupied territories, I think to use such a statement in this article WP:SYN because it implies that the 500 were in Germany/Austria for which there is no citation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the voice of reason. It's obvious that the war ended in 1945. There is also tonn of other information that needs to be corrected in the article. I hope we can work together on improving it.--Molobo (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Philip, no straw man arguments, you are really getting me upset here. I never stated anything about rapes in Berlin in 1989 by generic Americans, I was referring to U.S. troops on occupation duty in the U.S. occupation zone in the 1940's as you well know.

Please also be more consistent, you generally want and argue about strict legal definitions in other instances, but here you throw away the legal definitions because of, yes because of what exactly? The average knuckledragger on the streets perception of things? In that case we should also focus in the article of what general public perception says is a war crime, and to hell with any legal definitions. I expect that would not be your cup of tea... I did a quick Google, as you too should have been able to do, had you cared enough:

Termination of state of War with Germany, 1951

From a court ruling where the court denies an appeal by a group of people who claim that in 1948 the "end of the war" had made the ceisure of their property illegal. The court did not agree with them.

The President declared the termination of Hostilities of World War II on December 31, 1946. Treaties of peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary were concluded on February 10, 1947.

By a joint resolution approved July 25, 1947, many wartime statutes were repealed.

Congress, by a joint resolution of October 19, 1951,9 declared the 'end of the war' with Germany. So at [95 U.S.App.D.C. 372] the time of the vesting orders here involved [1948, my comment] hostilities had ceased and many factual circumstances premised upon peace had occurred; but no treaty of peace with Germany had been executed, and neither the Congress nor the President had formally declared the end of the war with Germany.10

In no case has the Supreme Court held, as a matter of decision, that war does not cease until a declaration or treaty. But it has held repeatedly that various combinations of circumstances do not terminate a war, absent formal political action to that purpose.20

These cases seem to establish that the war power, once existent, continues to exist until either a declaration by the Congress or a proclamation specifically to that effect by the President.

In Commercial Trust Co. of New Jersey v. Miller21 a joint resolution declaring the state of war with Germany (World War I) at an end had been adopted by the Congress and the President had issued a proclamation of peace, but the Supreme Court held valid the reservation by Congress of the Trading with the Enemy Act from the legislation ending the war. Thus the Court held valid a congressional reservation of a war power even after a declaration otherwise ending the war. In the case at bar we need go no further than the cited cases go. The sum of the facts and circumstances enumerated by our appellants does not total a termination of constitutional war power, so long as neither the Congress nor the President had declared the end of the war.

The U.S. ended its state of war with Germany on October 19, 1951 at 5:45 p.m. The U.S. state of war with Germany had been maintained for legal reasons[1] (In 1949 the state of war was modified but not suspended since "the U.S. wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a U.S. force in Western Germany") but in mid 1951 the Western Allies; the U.S., UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Italian Republic moved to end the state of war with Germany.War's End

This is clearly the case of a military occupation, since they used the state of war to justify it, conducted by soldiers acting on behalf of their government as occupying troops. Your argument that U.S. troop actions following the VE declaration are ineligible to be mentioned here gives me a bad taste to the mouth, to be frank.

I'd like to repeat my question to you, if you still stick to your argument on the state of things, in which article do you want to place that specific topic (the 1946 killings) instead? A more Generic US crimes during the occupation of Germany????????

Second Topic: "citation says Europe", fine, lets quote Biddiscombe instead, (""Even in western Germany, however, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945."" and note in the footnote that he makes reference to the 500 reported rapes per week, amongst other things.

CHEERS!--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not proved that the majority of sources agree with your stance that the war in Europe did not end with the introduction of the ceasefire at one minute into the day of 9 May 1945 (BDST). After all the ending of a state of war does not mean that the war ended then for Americans, one can just as arbitrarily take the date of December 31, 1946 when Truman declared a cessation of hostilities, or 1990/91 when the Two Plus Four Agreement was signed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Philip, user Stor's Starks claim seems to be synthesis based on Original Research.--Molobo (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you are still not convinced of the U.S. situation. How very odd. Especially since Time specifically mentioned that the state of war was maintained so they U.S. could have legal claim for the occupation troops in Germany also after the new German government was formed in 1949.

I can give you another example, this time regarding the general treatment of the civilian population in occupied Germany.

The adequate feeding of the German population in occupied Germany was an Allied legal obligation^[2] ^[3] under international law: Article 43 of The 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare.^[4]

So both Richard Wiggers, and Nicholas Balabkins state that the U.S. was bound by the Hague rules concerning conscerning the maintenance of the civilians during the occupation. If if that part applied, I see no reason why not all the rules would apply.

Am I to take your above statement that you now accept the sentence that started all this "During May and June 1946 there were in fact 5...", since you mention the cessation of hostilities of December 31, 1946?

You also still have not answered my question, if not here, then in what article should we put the activities in question, as well as similar acts?

And another question creeps up, you have not proven that the date of the formal surrender of the German armed forces means that crimes against the civilian population or against prisoners of war during the occupation after that date are no longer covered by the Hague, Geneva, or the customs of war. Maybe you don't feel I've proven anything to you, but I certainly don't feel you've proven anything to me regarding your claims.

I am considering creating the complementary articles Allied crimes during World War II, and Allied crimes during the post World War II occupations to get away from this constant strife. Would that be OK with you?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Allied camp ceased to exist with the end of the War. So no that is not a proper name. If they were any crimes comitted by indvidual soldiers who liberated Nazi occupied Europe could be possible, soldiers sometimes use their authority in wrong way, but that is no normal and doesn't seem to be notable subject to deserve an article, unlike for example systematic extermination comitted by Nazi soldiers in line with racist theory of their state, which is an unique situation --Molobo (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Germany surrendered unconditionally in May 1945, ending the war in Europe. After this Allied troops occupied Germany and there was no notable resistance movement. As there was no war at the time, these can't have been war crimes, and nothing in the sections from the source article above say that they were. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's always nice to see that there are people who are not shy about sharing their opinions (although I find it odd how often you've been teaming up with Molobo lately). Do you agree to something specific in what Molobo wrote above, or is it your as of late usual blanket endorsement of all Molobo says? Is is the "Allied camp ceased to exist with the end of the War" or is it your own text that states "Germany surrendered unconditionally in May 1945" etc etc that you agree with? Let me humbly correct you on point one, Nick. If the Allies ceased to exist in May 1945, then how do you explain such names and organizations such as the Allied Control Council which operated until 1948? Let me also ask you some questions, to see what you have to back up your agreement with: (Note first that you are wrong when you claim that Germany surrendered unconditionally, the German state never surrendered, only the armed forces did). Please provide evidence that an army of occupation can not commit war-crimes. If you do find such then I'm sure there is much we can remove from the crimes of the Wehrmarch article, since they were in full control of Poland, and since Germany argued that the Polish state had ceased to exist. Therefore whatever crimes the Germans committed in Poland against Poles after September 1939, they certainly cannot have been war crimes. Come to think about it, Nick, did you bother to read any of my arguments at all before making your voice heard? I would dearly like to see how your blanket endorsement of Molobo helps explain or refute the two authors stating that the Hague regulations were valid in occupied Germany. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The German state did not surrender because it had ceased to exist as the four powers of the United Nations (another word for the Allies) declaration of 5 July 1945 in Berlin "The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority." The four powers could do this thanks to Article 4 of the German Instrument of Surrender "This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.".

Stor stark7 and I can pull up different experts who disagree on whether this was a debellation or not, many German sources argue it was not, because it helps to justifies the reunification (and not unification) of Germany in 1991, and certain other domestic legal issues, while many English speaking sources argue it was, because it helps get around the legal problems Stor stark7 is raising. So if one think that the declaration of 5 July 1945 is valid, then after that date the government representing the German people was that of the four powers of the United Nations! In which case it was not a hostile military occupation but an occupation like that of any other United Nations peace keeping force. In that case the obligations of a belligerent occupier no longer exist. OK at this point most peoples heads start to hurt which is why, as legal opinion is split on this issue, it is easier to go with the popular understanding that the war ended on 8 May 1945 or if you want to push the envelope 5 July 1945. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

YOU ARE GUILTY! (Part of the Collective Guilt propaganda campaign) (see this]

You are really making it simple for yourself Philip Baird Shearer. Maybe the popular understanding is that "war" ended in May 1945, but the popular understanding is also that this was no UN peacekeeping occupation, this was a military occupation of a hostile enemy population that was to be pushed down into the dirt as far as possible. They were not given any food, their men were not released do they could tend to the fields, instead they were used for years for dangerous slave labor, a violation of both the Geneva and Hague conventions. (Hague, article 20, specifies that they should be released " After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible.") So, Philip Baird Shearer, was there peace as you argue, since there was no more war... and what were German soldiers sent to France by the US for slave labor doing there in 1948 then?

Then also answer this, does the German refusal to recognize the Polish government, and the German annexation of the former Polish territory mean that there were no German war-crimes committed in what used to be known as Poland, since the citizens were formally under allegiance to Germany (including all the unfortunate Jews)?

Again, as I wrote on the Japanese war crimes talk page, please write down your list of demands for what the different war-crimes articles should consist of, what criteria they must fulfill. I realize that you see the headache it will be to enforce the same strict kind of exclusionist policy that you are advocating here at Allied war crime also over the sibling articles dealing with German and Japanese war crimes, but if you are not willing to be open about what criteria we are to follow then, besides smacking of something bad, I don't see you being able to enforce them in the long run.

Back to what started this, "(1) The first is that the War in Europe finished in May 1945. This is a report of killings of Germans civilians (Not POWS) over a year after the War ended.", the opinion of PBS is that there are no war crimes during occupations. I have shown that at least two historians have stated that the rules of war applied during the occupation of Germany at least as far as it applies to what Hague says regarding the legal obligation of the U.S. to provide adequate food to the subjected population. If this applies, then it follows that the rest also applies. To throw another spanner into Philip Baird Shearers argument, it was not until September 1945 that GI's were allowed to talk to Germans (those who were caught were court martialed), and it was not until December 1946 that the strict prohibition against US whites in the army marrying with Germans was rescinded. (The racist U.S. army did not rescind the general mixed marriage prohibition until 1948 by the way) sounds a lot like a UN occupation? Are U.N. occupations allowed to take whatever they want home as "liberated" war booty? Maybe this was a special new type of occupation, but don't try to pretend that legally it was anywhere near a UN occupation.

Again Philip Baird Shearer, please write the proposed critera list so we can start going through the various articles to see what must be deleted, and perhaps what can be saved by creating new articles such as US war crimes during World War II and associated occupations. Although personally I'm more partial to "atrocities articles", much easier to include stuff then. Cheerioh--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor, there's a really easy way to settle this dispute so it endorses the position you're arguing: provide some reliable sources which prove that this behaviour led to Allied personnel being convicted of war crimes, Allied governments' appologising for these war crimes or something which proves that this stuff is very widely accepted to have been war crimes and there's no significant dispute over the matter. Alternately, you can prove that it has been alleged that these were war crimes by providing some reliable sources which either claim this or state that such claims have been made. The sources you have provided above do not use the word 'war crime' or any equivalent term. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I find it really odd that you seem to have failed to understand by now that I also argue that if we are to use that type of criteria that you advocate we must state so explicitly, and also ensure that they are applied equally throughout the war crimes articles! Otherwise it will just be a question of U.S. Australian and British editors unilaterally imposing harsh exclusionary criteria on articles dealing with their own countries crimes, without ensuring that neutrality is served by also extending those harsh criteria to the war crimes articles of other nations. It should be all or nothing, instead of the selective introduction of national bias that you seem to advocate. Try to argue for your proposed exclusion criteria in the Japanese war crimes article, and see how far you get. This should be self evident.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As to Philips argument, let me note that actions committed by the U.S. in Iraq in 2005 can be charged as war crimes[2] even though the war was "won" in 2003 and the Iraqi government abolished. And, pre-empting your expected response, if you want to claim there was no German resistance in 1946 - 1947 then look again.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

<<--outdent. If you want to look for modern war crimes, you are better off looking at a British case (see Uses of torture in recent times#United Kingdom) as they have ratified the Rome Statute and incorporated the provisions into UK law. But that is not really helpful in looking at the end of World War II because there is soooooo much more international law over things like annexation and occupation than there was before 1949. Looking at various sources the problem one runs into with the post May 8th surrender, is that the Western authorities at the time were not doing joined up law. Different legal arguments were used by different parts of the United Nations to justify actions which under law were contradictory. In the case of the UK these were never resolved because no one in a position to resolve the contradictions wanted to. An example of the contradictions were bought up in the Küchenmeister habeas corpus 1946 case, where the Foreign office insisted he was an enemy alien and that a state of war existed between his government and the UK while at the same time recognising the validity of the declaration of 5 July 1945, which meant that the UK government recognised that his government was that of the 4 powers. Therefore it follows that in that court case, the UK government was at war with the UK government's representatives in Germany! As I said before it is enough to make ones head hurt.

Also when looking at the world post the UN Charter one has to consider the special circumstances of Chapter VII Articles 107 53. Which put the treatment of the Axis powers on a special and unique footing.

The reason why the 5 July 1945 declaration is important is among other things it gets around the problems raised by Nuremburg Trials for the War time Allies. If a state of debellation existed in Germany then the findings of the Hostages Case (as explained by source are not applicable as there was no occupation of the territory of an enemy state, because the enemy state did not exist -- in the occupation by the Germans of countries like Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece the war between them and the Axis powers continued as the governments still existed in exile. Now I am sure that Stor stark7 will be wanting to list some sources that say that no debellatio took place because as I said above it is quite easy to find reliable sources on both sides of this fence. As these issues are extremely legally complicated it might make an interesting article in its own right, but I do not think that this list of an article is the place to discuss the finer legal points of debellation and if war crimes existed depending on the legal opinions of experts on if a debellatio of Germany occurred. It is this lack of legal clarity why I don't think we should list alleged Allied War crimes post the surrender on 8 May which is seen by most English language sources as the de facto end of World War II in Europe. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Philip's arguments make a lot of sense, while Stork's seem to be pushing for a self made thesis by Stork. I think at this point we can safely tell that a consensus is reached that the war ended on 8-9 May 1945. Now that we are past that we can start sorting allegations and provacative thesis from real war crimes sentenced by courts.--Molobo (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip, look below for War crimes conducted after the "end of the war", although we have discussed those before so you should be well aware of them. Molobo, my name is not "Stork", please respect that. And just a friendly reminder, as part of your tentative parole from your permanent block, you are only allowed one (1) revert per week per article, and you must fully explain any edits you make on the relevant talk page. Cheers.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor, if you're going to start reminding people of restrictions (rather needlessly in this case given that Molobo hasn't edited the article recently and his posts here have been civil), I'll add a reminder that you are also subject to the Digwuren restriction [3] and need to be careful about how you discuss articles (as, of course, do we all). Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern Nick, since you've been closely associated with Molobo lately. I got placed on the Digwuren restriction list thanks to baiting by Molobo. More importantly, the restriction relates to Eastern Europe, as you'd have known if you'd been interested in it in any other way then in its connection to me. Also, you'd then have known that it has already been superseded.... Do your homework better next time before reminding me of anything. Let me also just point out that it is not only the written word that is important, but also general conduct, such as what articles you choose to edit or argue in. As far as you are concerned I am troubled about your recently developed habit of following me around to articles relating to the war in the pacific and elsewhere that as far as I can tell you've never edited before and which I surmise you found by going through my edit history. And you consistently seem to assume the opposing side. I'm also troubled by your very blatant campaign canvassing in relation to the mutilations article. Lest someone reading your comment misunderstands your edits, we do not have an amicable relationship here. Are you here in this article simply because I wrote about rapes committed by Americans and Australians? That reminds me of your position on the subject "Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well."[4] Tell you what Nick, if you are willing to prove that you are not here arguing against my position simply because I'm here, why don't you contribute the opinions you have expressed here also at the Japanese war crimes article. There you and Philip could easily prove your neutrality and that I'm completely wrong in my suspicions by suggesting the deletions of Preventable_famine for example and a range of other sections which don't seem to mention war crimes. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor question

This article tells under title "Death rates of POWs held by the Allies"

German POWs in East European (not including the Soviet Union) hands 32.9%[73]

Which "hands"? Does it mean territories occupied by Red Army in East Europe during WW II? Biophys (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it refers to the period 1945 onwards, i.e. it means those German POW's that the Russians handed over to the new communist regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. There was a lot of shuffling of Prisoners going on, the Americans sent 740,000 to France for slave labor (clearing minefields etc), and several hundred thousand to Russia. Russia in turn shared its prisoners amongst its new client states as well. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That some Germans were used to rebuild countries devestated by the war Germany unleashed in Europe in order to destroy several nations is perhaps true. However as this happened after the war it can't be in the article, besides the fact that nobody reliable calls it a 'war crime'.--Molobo (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My my, thank you for joining in again Molobo, it reminded me of the concentration camps for civilian Germans (prior to their expulsion) that the Poles ran for many years, such as Central Labour Camp Jaworzno, Central Labour Camp Potulice, Łambinowice, Zgoda labour camp and others. Here you can read the story of a litle 5 year old German girl who had to suffer in one of these death camps for many years. And fact is, the Poles were slightly ashamed afterwards, so they tried to bring some Polish criminals to justice, such as the commandants Salomon Morel and Czesław Gęborski. And gee look at that, even though what they did took place "after the war was ""over""", they were both indeed charged with War Crimes.[5],[6] Thank you again for reminding me Molobo. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have to exclude everything after World War II or create a separate "post-war" section. More important, death rates during what period of time? In which exactly countries? How many prisoners were transferred to Poland, Czechoslovakia etc.? Biophys (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to that guess, reasons are legio. To answer your question, most of the information comes from a table compiled by Ferguson using the available literature. I dont think it is that important to know over what period of time, presumably much less average time than other prisoner groups held by other nations, since the Eastern europeans only got them in 1945. A guess would be that the surviving prisoners were released in the late 1940's or early 1950's. As to the number Ferguson writes: The USSR handed over 25,000 men to the Czechs and 70,000 to the Poles. The US handed over 5,000 to Luxembourg, 667,000 to France, and 31,000 to Belgium. The British handed over 33,000 to the Belgians, 7,000 to the Dutch and 25,000 to the French. A footnote referenced to "H. Nawratil, Die deutschen Nachkriegsverluste unter Vertriebenen, Gefangenen und Verschleppter: mit einer U¨ bersicht u¨ber die europa¨ischen Nachkriegsverluste (Munich and Berlin, 1988), pp. 36f." also notes:The Americans handed over 765,000 to France, 76,000 to the Benelux countries and 200,000 to Russia. In Saxony and Bohemia they [the U.S.] also refused to accept the surrender of German troops, who were handed over to the Russians (to face a 35% mortality rate, my note), perhaps there is disagreement over the numbers in various sources and Ferguson uses an average in his main text. In is interesting to note that apparently the U.S. stated it had given the French 1,000,000 German prisoners in 1945.[7], but in 1947 the official number had shrunk to 740,000 transferred by the U.S. to France in July 1945[8], of which 290,000 had been "vanished" by 1947, causing some concern as to their fate...--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The figure of 34% of prisoner deaths occurring in the Soviet Union must brought into question. It is widely reported that 90,000 to 100,000 men from the 6th Army taken at stalingrad went into captivity and that ONLY 5,000 to 6,000 returned. This to me would surely produce a much higher figure of deaths in custody of the Soviets of Axis Troops. (MVC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.22.172 (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dönitz and unrestricted submarine warfare

I've just removed this section as it miss-represents what Dönitz was convicted of:

In the Nuremberg Trial, German Admiral Karl Dönitz was tried (among other crimes) for issuing orders to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare. He was found guilty and served over 10 years in prison, despite evidence that both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy also issued similar orders.^[5]^[6]

According to the Karl Dönitz article, the crimes Dönitz was found guilty of did not include waging unrestricted submarine war and this charge against him was not included in the final sentance as Britain and the US had issued similar orders. As such, it's a bit of a stretch to say that something which Dönitz unquestionably did but was not punished for in his war crimes trial was a war crime. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the sources provided, he was convicted of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, he just did not get any time in prison for it as the Allies had issued similar orders. See the last sentence:

The Tribunal finds Doenitz is not guilty on Count One of the Indictment and is guilty on Counts Two and Three.

Then look at the top "COUNT ONE: THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY", Count Two COUNT TWO - CRIMES AGAINST PEACE, COUNT THREE - WAR CRIMES. Under war crimes:

Doenitz is charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to the Naval Protocol of 1936 to which Germany acceded, and which reaffirmed the rules of submarine warfare laid down in the London Naval Agreement of 1930. ... The order of Doenitz to sink neutral ships without warning when found within these zones was, therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal, violation of the Protocol. ... The orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the Protocol. ... the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.(my emphasis)[9]

Here is a source that confirms this interpretation.

Some sources [10] [11] state that he was not guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare against British merchant ships, which is true, but it had to do with the use by the British merchant ships of radios to tell the British Admiralty the location of submarines and that made them legitimate targets of war without the need to use the Cruiser Rules:

Shortly after the outbreak of war the British Admiralty, in accordance with its Handbook of Instructions of 1938 to the Merchant Navy, armed its merchant vessels, in many cases convoyed them with armed escort, gave orders to send position reports upon sighting submarines, thus integrating merchant vessels into the warning network of naval intelligence. On 1st October, 1939, the British Admiralty announced British merchant ships had been ordered to ram U-boats if possible.

In the actual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared to hold Doenitz guilty for his conduct of submarine warfare against British armed merchant ships.

But this does not mean he was not found guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare, just that the British countermeasures meant that their merchant fleet was under the same rules of engagement as those of her warships.[12] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake - that's the last time I trust Wikipedia as being a reliable source ;) Thanks for setting me right. That said, would it be better to re-write this section so it's not about Dönitz, but rather about the Allies? Was attacking German and Japanese merchant shipping found to be a war crime? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the nearest you are going to get to a trial of Allied policy in open court (see the London Charter) "Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. (my emphasis)" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Treuenbrietzen

Regarding Philip Baird Shearers removal of Treuenbrietzen since according to him it needed a citation saying that the massacre of 1000 civilians in the city was a war crime.

Obviously, going by Philips, (and Nicks) definitions he did the right thing, and since the reference[13] only calls it a massacre this highlights the need for the new article Allied_Massacres_during_World_War_II. I'll get started on it pronto. Hopefully someone.... won't later request that it be merged with this article.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I simply restored it with the link used in the article. But of course, if it goes away again then we will need some new articles.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Either someone was found guilty of war crimes in which case they should be listed, or a reliable source needs to have alleged that it was a war crime. At the moment the source given does not say that it was a war crime instead it uses the word murder. But as is shown in the hostages trial the laws of war in this area were not clear cut during WW II. So we need a reliable source that says it was a war crime.

Stor stark7 the introduction to this article makes it clear what should be added to this list;

There were a number of alleged war crimes involving Allied personnel that were investigated by the Allied powers and that led in some instances to courts-martial. Other incidents are alleged by historians to have been crimes under the law of war in operation at the time, but that for a variety of reasons were not investigated by the Allied powers during the war, or they were investigated and a decision was taken not to prosecute.

All that is required is a reliable verifiable source that states that an incident was a war crime, preferably with the name of the person/unit who committed the crime and if it is a scholar making an accusation the name of the scholar. I do not think that such a request is outside WP:PROVEIT.

Stor stark7, there is already a list of events called massacres. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, this was no execution of hostages, and by the way I saw that most defendants were found guilty of that crime at the hostages trial. This was a random act of murder in revenge, just as Oradour-sur-Glane. I guess that wasn't really a war crime either?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7 we don't have to guess, all we need to do is provide is reliable sources that state an incident was a war crime. You have guessed that Treuenbrietzen was a war crime, but to date no reliable source has been provided that states it was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Philip here. Reliable sources should be brought which consider those acts war crimes. We shouldn't turn this into collection of quotes and undefined incidents that Wikipedians consider legitimate war crimes.--Molobo (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Context

I seem to recall somewhere a call, I think by Nick, that we should provide some context on the sections. Perhaps we should, for example by mentioning that on the western front the Allies were just as bad or good depending on viewpoint as the Germans. Some Ferguson:

Yet such atrocities were committed by both sides.(Referring to Malmedy)

German soldiers also came to fear falling into the hands of Australians (‘because of the way the Aussies treated their prisoners’), New Zealanders (‘We were told they would cut the throat of every POW’) and French North African troops, whose ‘reputation for fairness was bad’. Such behaviour might have been expected to encourage retaliation. When Corporal Donovan C. Evers (who had participated in prisoner killing) found himself trapped by a German tank in a basement near Hamburg in March 1945, he:

started up the steps to surrender. I had a lot of thoughts walking up those steps about all the atrocities that we had committed on the German soldiers. We didn’t know what to expect from the Germans. When I walked out the door of the house with my hands up, a young German soldier about sixteen years old stuck an automatic pistol in my stomach and said, ‘For you the war is over.’ I thought that was it, that he was going to shoot me

Major-General Raymond Hufft ordered his troops to "take no prisoners" when he led them across the Rhine. And, as in the Pacific, American troops were encouraged to regard their foes as subhuman.

However, prisoner killing continued to be overtly encouraged by some American officers. Patton’s address to the 45th Infantry Division before the invasion of Sicily could not have been more explicit:

When we land against the enemy . . . we will show him no mercy. . . . If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and, when you get within two hundred yards of him, and he wishes to surrender, oh no! That bastard will die! You must kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick it in. He can do no good then. Stick them in the liver.

On 7 June 1944 an American officer at a SHAEF press conference declared that US airborne forces did not take prisoners but killed them ‘as they hold up their hands coming out.

One Foreign Office official noted:

American troops are not showing any great disposition to take prisoners unless the enemy come over in batches of twenty or more. When smaller groups than this appear with their hands up, the American soldiers . . . are apt to interpret this as a menacing gesture. . . and to take liquidating action accordingly. . . .

Perhaps it is in the warcrimes of the Wehrmacht article that it should be added for context, that they were no worse in this regard than the Allied soldiers.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"the Wehrmacht article that it should be added for context, that they were no worse in this regard than the Allied soldiers"Completely unsupported Original Research. Wehrmacht soldiers fought and were indoctrinated in racist ideology which claimed they were of Master Race and their duty was to exterminate creatures that weren't human(according to German state's ideology of that time) such as Poles or Jews. The above mentioned unspecified incident is not comparable to racist murders on massive scale comitted by forces of Nazi Germany, and for that matter is so unspecified that we don't know if it was a war crime or not.--Molobo (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, what part of "on the western front" did you find difficult to understand? I also find it hilarious that you accuse Niall Ferguson of original research, which may well be true... but it indicates that you've completely misunderstood WP:OR.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jews on Poles weren't classified as untermenschen based on the front but generally. I don't accuse Ferguson of OR(although he is a poor scholar and lacks essential knowledge about things he writes i.e First World War), but you as you attribute claims of yours which are not supported by his quotes.--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, this is a war crimes article and I was very obviously referring to prisoner killing on the western front. The article on the topic you seem to be discussing; the article on the Holocaust; is this way by the way.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your distinction. Jews and Poles Were considered untermenschen based on their nationality not on their location of residance. Likewise the soldiers in the East continued to be German so why for some reason seperate them from rest of Nazi German army ? The Nazi German army was a whole, regardless of location, and its acts were clearly motivated by racist genocide led by Nazi Germany.--Molobo (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless racist murder was quite well recorded on Western Front as well: [14] Whereas German troops, with some notable exceptions, treated white French and British POWs according to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929), they dealt with the black Africans in a way that anticipated the horrors of the racialized warfare associated with the later German campaigns in the Balkans and the Soviet Union. The Germans often separated the black prisoners from the whites, North Africans, and soldiers from other colonies and subjected them to abuse and neglect. On many occasions, black prisoners of war were shot – sometimes up to several hundred at a time. Just an excerpt. --Molobo (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"(A): Molobo Straw man arguments are not nice. Have I denied that German soldiers killed prisoners? Nooooooooo, so why dig up evidence that they did so and pretend that you are arguing against me? What I've done is show that Allied troops killed German prisoners on the Western front just as German troops killed Allied prisoners on the western front. I've even cited Allied attempts to dehumanize the Germans as a motive for the killings. So what exactly is your point here. Is it that you wish to bring in "abuse and neglect"? Look no further than Rheinwiesenlager then. What is your point exactly Molobo???????--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I denied that German soldiers killed prisoners?

Killing of prisoners can happen in any army. Not in every army it is part of ideological war to exterminate "untermenschen" viewed as something below dogs. That is what makes Nazi Germany's action so distinct from other states actions and why its violations of law have such horrific dimension. Please don't compare widespread organised racist genocide and murder comitted by Nazi Germany to individual incidents by soldiers from other armies(often due to shock at Nazi German atrocities as it was the case in Dachau). Not comperable to Nazi German massacres.--Molobo (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC) What I've done is show that Allied troops killed German prisoners on the Western front just as German troops killed Allied prisoners on the western front. I've even cited Allied attempts to dehumanize the Germans as a motive for the killings. This is perfect definition of Original Research and Synthesis. Wikipedia is not for publication of your personal research, beliefs and conclusions.--Molobo (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(B) Ah, I see what problem you seem to be having. You are under the impression that war crimes must be government sponsored to be war crimes. They need not, glad we could clear that up for you.

I'm sad to see that after so many years at Wikipedia you think that quoting what a specialist source has to say on the topic, i.e. Niall Fergusson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat", War in History, 2004 in your eyes is OR and Synthesis. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"We" ? Is your nick a front for a group of people editing Wikipedia ? Also you already answered the issue why you are wrong-Allied soldiers likely had a incident or two, but they are completely different from racist organised genocide made by Nazi Germany and its forces(and of course not every racist murder by soldiers of Nazi Germany was organised by the state). I have nothing against writing at such incident as in Dachau where shocked soldiers seeing what Germany has done, executed people they thought were responsible. But it is completely different then Nazi German war crimes and its not comperable. As to Fergusson-he nowhere supports your personal thesis.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Common expression in English Molobo, "wee" is, but I see you didn't really get it anyway. I get the impression that you are arguing here simply for arguments sake, refusing to listen to what I'm saying. Therefore I feel that this essay might be useful reading Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Instead of repeating myself I'll simply label my previous posts (A) and (B) and probably in vain direct you to reread them. I'll also copy what I wrote at the start of this section, which somehow you dont really seem to be debating about "on the western front the Allies were just as bad or good depending on viewpoint as the Germans". And I'll quote a longer snippet of a paragraph by Ferguson, a source that you profess very many opinions about but which you evidently haven't even read. The highlights are mine

Thus, when American met German in the battlefields of Western Europe after the invasion of Italy, both sides had experience of lawless racial war, even if the scale of the German experience was vastly greater. Not surprisingly, prisoner killing was carried over into the new European theatres. Perhaps the most notorious example was the murder of 77 American prisoners at Malmedy by the SS Battle Group Peiper on 17 December 1944. That taught Allied troops to fear Waffen SS units more than regular Wehrmacht units. Yet such atrocities were committed by both sides. On 14 July 1943, for example, troops of the American 45th Infantry Division killed 70 Italian and German POWs at Biscari in Sicily. Sergeant William C. Bradley recalled how one of his comrades killed a group of German prisoners captured in France. On 7 June 1944 an American officer at a SHAEF press conference declared that US airborne forces did not take prisoners but killed them ‘as they hold up their hands coming out.

Interpret the quotes as you wish Molobo, I don't care one bit.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

both sides had experience of lawless racial war This is indeed true-the Germans waging it, and Americans experiencing it on European and Asiatic theatre from their opponents. Not surprisingly, prisoner killing was carried over into the new European theatres. Can't argue here as well, Americans certainly experiencing it on the European theatre. Yet such atrocities were committed by both sides. This is in relation to one incident of shooting prisoners, Fergusson doesn't say Americans like Nazi Germany were waging a racist genocidal campaign. He doesn't say the sides are the same. As to the rest he brings an unspecified comment that could just as well be meant to impress press or blunder. Nothing specific, nothing serious or worth noting. In conclusion-please do not attribute your opinions to quotes which don't support them. --Molobo (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish forces

There are several bullet points that have had the fact template on them for more than two months, for which if not citations are given soon should be removed. Also the Polish section mentions lots of nasty things but there are no reliable sources stating that these nasty things were war crimes. If no accusations from reliable sources are provided then those paragraphs should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this again seems to be badly formed synthesis, and in part inaccurate as well as false.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "war crimes" debate is over at Japanese war crimes, and should be resolved first. As to Molobos claim, it is worthless unless he provides specifics.

The material is adequately sourced, so please point to which specific segment in the text that is in violation of which specific part of WP:OR.
The material is adequately sourced, so please point specifically to what in the text that is Quote: "in part inaccurate as well as false"

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The material is synthesis, as to sourcing-we can source many untrue things which doesn't make them true. As to untrue-organisers of German sabotage were awarded-for example Kożdoń in Silesia. So this is untrue. Some organisations were disbanded due to insubordination so its manipulative to claim they weren't awarded. It's obvious they wouldn't be if they were discharged due to insubordination. And so on. Anyway, nothing here points to war crime and if not it should be removed. Further manipulation-German state after WW2 issued two amnesty laws for former Nazi's and German courts on routine basis denied any demands to sentence former Nazi activists by Poland. So its no no wonder many escaped justice. Although some went to courts where they were cleared by German courts from guilt despite the court finding they murdered Poles and comitted sabotage for example Jakob Lölgen. Others continued to serve West German intelligence service(Emil von Augsburg)...Oh and the claim that none were ever sentence is untrue. Just a quick search came with names [15] Jan Szweda,Weizner, Jan Aberg, Artur Marter More could be named. German historian Dieter Schenk claims they were for example circa 20,000 members of Selbstschutz directly involved in murder of 60.000 Poles. Of those only 1701 were identified by Germany. Of those 258 were subject to German court trial after the war. In 233 cases the investigation was stoped. Only in 12 cases was there a sentence, and only in 10 case was it exectuted. He calls this event Das ist eine Schande für die deutsche Justiz (Shame for German justice). So if the source claims there were no people sentenced-it is completely false. In conclusion-as the evidence above can prove-the whole section is terribly manipulative, composed of original research and incomplete missing the context and the picture, if nobody describes those events as war crime, they should be remove as Philip advised. --Molobo (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again Molobo, could it be that you are talking about something completely different? Please re-read what the article actually says. The article briefly deals with the Polish allegations that ethnic Germans engaged in "armed insurrection" or "diversion" during the few days of the actual invasion. You provided a link that apparently far down mentions some members of Selbstschutz. These people apparently committed many crimes against Poles and Jews during the many years of German occupation of Poland, but since the sourced text in the article deals with what happened during the September 1939 invasion all the stuff you have provided here is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and does not disprove anything. Please stay on topic.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor Stark, the information I provided quite extensively shows that the the claim that organisers were not sentenced is manipulative due to several reason-amnesty, work for German intelligence, refusal to trial former Nazis, and so on. Without this context the text is manipulative and POV. Anyway if no war crimes allegations are supported it will be removed.--Molobo (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided seems to be someones self-published web page, but if you can provide direct quotes from reliable sources disproving the current text then that would of course be interesting. But please let me make sure that you go looking for the right sources; you wrote "claim that organisers were not sentenced". If you go looking for sources relating to that then you are on a wild goose chase since that would be utterly irrelevant. What the article says is that "not a single person accused of armed insurrection or "diversion". This is not about sentencing. You need to show that somehow Poland was prevented from even making the accusation of 'armed insurrection' or 'diversion' against ethnic Germans. You also need to find a source which explains why "almost none tried to gain status by boasting about such activities".--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Sources can be easly shown that inform about Poland being prevented by post-war Germany to trial former Nazis, sources can easly be provided about Selbstschutz(all your links are about it de facto) being disbanded due to insubordination. Several Germans were sentenced for armed sabotage in Poland so I don't see a problem with that fact. Anyway all those facts would need to be presented-if the information would be relavent. So far it isn't as you haven't provided as source calling it a war crime. Oh and btw the claim "Polish historians claim it was sabotage" is false. Germans do also. --Molobo (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The two of you have lost me completely. I am not at all sure what you are talking about. My issue is with paragraphs like the one below picked because it is small and near the start of the section in this article called "Polish forces":

Some Germans were also killed when the Poles deported them eastwards. Those who could not keep up were killed. The deported included the old, pregnant women, and women with babies.[3] The dead also include ethnic Germans in the Polish army killed by their Polish comrades.[3]

There is nothing there that says that the events that are described in the paragraph were war crimes. Which historian/scholar (reliable source) is making the allegations that the events were war crimes. Take the UK section as a template, there two historians are quoted accusing Churchill of war crimes, is there nothing similar for theses allegations? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Philip. Nothing was provided that it claims it was a war crime. It was mentioned by me, but it seemed to be lost in discussion, you are right we should focus on that. I suggest deleting all the dubious non-related info, and leaving sourced claims about war crimes.--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a Polish communist historiography myth that tries to explain away the massacres of maybe 5,000 ethnic Germans in Poland during the September campaign. They did this by claiming that the dead wanted to be killed for propaganda purposes or were 5th columnists trying to delay the Polish retreat etc. Molobo seems to be championing this communist era myth by claiming that evidence to the contrary in the article is "false".

As to the unilateral "war crimes" criteria that you are using in this article: a direct question to you Philip, will you when you are done here in this article apply the same criteria also on the topics in for example War crimes of the Wehrmacht, or is it only this Allied crimes article that you plan to "clean up" thus?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7 I am consistent in this. I have already explained this to you on the article Japanese war crimes (where again I am trying to get people to see that that article suffers from the same problems that the Polish section in this article does). As far as I can remember I have not edited the War crimes of the Wehrmacht, but I did edit German war crimes in a similar manner to the way I edit this page. I have also edited List of war crimes and for example removed the World War I German section because it did not carry any sources alleging war crimes. If you look through my edit history of the List of war crimes and read the talk archive for that list, you will see that I am consistent on this issue for the last couple of years. There are far too many articles on Wikipedia that are embarrassingly amateurish because of this type of lets put in any allegation that we might have read somewhere on the net or half remember from a documentary, instead of just including crimes or crimes alleged by respected historians and other scholars published in reliable sources. Stor stark7 we do not need complicated rule compliance. All we need to do is follow the content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to turn these into good articles. In this article I have added the USSR rapes (Beevor), UK bombing (Friedrich and Bloxham), the US Atomic bombing (Ryuichi Shimoda -- an article I wrote along with posting the judgement transcript to Wikisource), and the submarine paragraph. So I am not asking for anything that I do not do myself on these articles. In the good old days on Wikipedia I did not always put in my sources (no one did), but over the last couple of years I have hardly added any facts to an article without citing a source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But back to this section on "Polish forces" I suggest we give it a couple of days but if no reliable sources are provided for war crimes and war crime allegations, we should remove the text. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A second question then, you say you added Beevor for the USSR rapes, I presume in reference to the battle of Berlin. Does Beevor state that the USSR rapes were war crimes?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He does in this article Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army. In that article it is clear it was also a crime for the Red Army "There were also a few arbitrary attempts to exert authority. The commander of one rifle division is said to have 'personally shot a lieutenant who was lining up a group of his men before a German woman spreadeagled on the ground'." -- I'd have to look through Beevor's Berlin book to tell you if he explicitly called it a war crime in his book, but life is too short when we have an article with it in the title. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section back to a neutral version. Again. Unfortunately, some editors who apparently want to blackwash Poles and stress the suffering of German people keep restoring the most biased version. I hope more editors (thanks, Philip and Molobo) can keep watch on that section to ensure its neutrality. Do note that we have managed to correct and improve the Bloody Sunday (1939) article, which was also the target of similar POV pushing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You astound me Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, you try to attack editors instead of presenting arguments about the text. Have you no real arguments?

Philip Baird Shearer, would you mind adding the same type of citation requests to War crimes of the Wehrmacht that you have added here, for example of the type which "Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus" used to remove links to articles on Polish crimes against Ukrainians?

I have restored the earlier version, please discuss changes of this type first, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus.

Just to let you know, I've also read the review of "WLODZIMIERJZA STRZEBSKID. Der bromberger Blutsonntag: Legende und Wirklichkeit" that you inserted as a source some time ago, and in doing so I see that you have chosen to completely ignore what it has to say about Polish historiography. For those that haven't read it I can point out that it mentions for example about the Polish authors institute "Its substantial publications budget and the anti-German slant of most of its projects have reflected an unpopular, Soviet-imposed regime's belief that to perpetuate the idea of eternal German-Polish enmity was key to its own efforts to justify that regime's existence in Polish eyes." and notes of the Polish publication that it is a reminder "of the political considerations that have traditionally governed the Western Institute." "he seems content to restate the same basic position that he first expressed twenty-five years ago....this quasi-official thesis" Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, please stop regurgitating Polish communist propaganda, especially when you evidently are aware that American scholars have explicitly labeled it thus.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The new version like the old version does not state what the war crime was, or who was found guilty of a war crime, or if no one was found guilty of a war crime the name of any scholars who allege that the events were a war crime. Unless someone can come up with a reliable source that explains what the war crime was then this section should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the section on European rapes into the country sections of the Soviet Union and the Polish forces. IMO the paragraph moved into the Polish forces section should be removed along with the rest of the section as it is to do with post war activities and no source is cited stating that the events were a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think that some mention of that should remain. I am pressed for time now, I will see if I can find any material referring to those issues as a "war crime".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleven days have passed, since the last entry to this section. I have now removed the Polish Forces section, it can always be put back when the the allegations of war crimes have been found to be added to the section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a consensus

Regarding the fact that the war ended in 1945 May, events after that will be removed.--Molobo (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

what would you propose to remove? Wars include their immediate aftermath unless you are going to create a article named 'Allied war crimes during occupations following World War II' Hmains (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The war in Poland ended in October 1939 - so no "war" crimes happened? 84.139.249.155 (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The war in Poland did not end in October 1939 as there was a Polish Government in Exile based in London. There is a long discussion about when World War II ended above #June 1946. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

events after the end of the war should not be removed as for instance crimes against prisnoers of war should still be included as they are being held under the articles of war. Therefore any crime against them would be included as a war crime.Deckchair (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It gets complicated (see Debellatio and Disarmed Enemy Forces). So accusations of war crimes after the end of World War II should not just be done by synthesis (eg they had been soldiers so they were POWs and so it was a war crime to have them clearing minefields), Wikipedia editors need to cite reliable sources that make the allegations of war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GI rapes in England and liberated countries

I removed this section:

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945.^[7] A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.^[8]^[9]

Rapes in England would not usually be classed as war crimes, any more than if a GI raped a woman in the United States. Nor would those of women away from the combat zone (areas not under military law) in liberated lands. Without a breakdown of the figures by nationality the figures are misleading from the point of view of war crimes which is what this article is about. --PBS (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree

I disagree with your edits. I know that the UK was on the same side as the Soviets. But in WW2, "Allies" has a very specific meaning: the western countries which co-ordinated their forces into a single command. The Soviets did not do this. They had a separate command and separate war aims. By rights, their page and Chinese atrocities should not be on this page.

I suppose you are right about the GI rapes not technically being war crimes. However as noted on this very page, 'war crimes' is a moral category as well as a legal one. I think that we should include this information, and if necessary move the page to something like 'Allied war crimes and atrocities during world war 2'

BillMasen (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Allies of World War II with Western Allies. This is not a page about moral crimes, from the start of the article. "Allied war crimes were violations of the laws of war committed by the Allies of World War II against civilian populations or military personnel of the Axis Powers." I would oppose a move to "and atrocities during world war 2". --PBS (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete this article

In responce of some that edit here that article shoud be delete because some ally war crime are not proven is wrong as the allies won WWII so the war crimes are hidden and you dont see much info about them as you see from Axis but this suposed to delete the article deleting the article is not being neutral but I agree that more prove is to be found about the War Crimes of the Allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanSoldier9001 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 Oct 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reputable source?

Who is Richard Dominic Wiggers and why should he be considered a reliabe source? The conference proceedings "Steven Bela Vardy, T. Hunt Tooley, eds. Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe. Boulder, Columbia University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-88033-995-7" are just that. Conference proceedings of a conference of mixed (to say the least) quality speakers. See also this review. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dominic Wiggers, BA (Car.), MA (Ott.), PhD (Georgetown), Adjunct Professor (New Brunswick) - 2002 to date. [16] [17] --PBS (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL this is an actual page?

The German and Japanese War crimes pages need some help. Not enough examples. Why don't you learned authors go over there and write about how Germany, Japan and there allies raped Europe and Asia and comitted attrocities such as the world has never seen, six ways from Sunday for purely ideological reasons? Editing here is a waste of wiki labour. CJ DUB (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That Germany, Japan, and the other Axis countries committed war crimes doesn't negate the fact that many of the Allied powers committed heinous acts themselves. These have a need to be documented just as much as those perpetrated by the Axis powers. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you spent more time verifying war crimes on here, rather than the German war crimes page deleting legitimate entries, there by be some parity. The sheer length of the this page is ridiculous. CJ DUB (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost everything on here is sourced; very little on the German war crimes page is. There is also the much larger War crimes of the Wehrmacht, if you're interested. The only ridiculous thing about the contents of this page is that the acts documented were in fact committed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Allied war crimes were an insignificant fraction of Axis war crimes, and that every civilian killed in Allied bombing was justifiable as a measure to stop Germany and Japan from conquering the world, this does not prevent these deaths from being justifiably labeled as war crimes.

The desire of wikipedia editors to present their own view, or a view that they see as oppressed has probably led to this article becoming rather large. That's okay by me, as long as it's sourced well.68.163.249.192 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing to remember, and I've made this mistake myself, is to differentiate between war crimes and moral crimes. War crimes are incidents that actually violate the letter of a law of war convention or agreement. Moral crimes are acts committed in war which credible observers later condemn as being wrong but were not contrary to any laws of war in existence at the tme. The Allies apparently committed far fewer war crimes than their Axis counterparts. As for moral crimes, the differences in actions between the adversaries is more narrow, but this article only addresses war crimes, of which there were some by the Allies. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific War

why are all the us crimes listed during ww2 are against white people. I understand the atomic bombings are controversial. However there are other crimes such as the killing of prisoners and rapes on okinawa etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2009

If you read on, you will come to the section Allied war crimes during World War II#Pacific War in which you will find the type of information you are looking for. And BTW China and India both Asian countries fought on the side of the Allies in World War II. --PBS (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference ocgpdf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Nicholas Balabkins, "Germany Under Direct Controls: Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament 1945 - 1948", Rutgers University Press, 1964 p. 101
^ Richard Dominic Wiggers p. 274
^ Richard Dominic Wiggers p. 279. "In postwar Germany and Japan, the U.S. Army financed the most urgent food imports by citing obligations under Article 43 of The Hague Rules of Land Warfare."
^ Judgement : Doenitz the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
^ 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"
^ David Wilson (27 March 2007). "The secret war". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-11-22. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Lilly, Robert J. (2007), Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe During World War II, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 023050647X
^ Morrow, John H. (October 2008), "Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II By J. Robert Lilly", The Journal of Military History, 72 (4), doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0151

[ocgpdf-1] Cite error: The named reference ocgpdf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Nicholas Balabkins, "Germany Under Direct Controls: Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament 1945 - 1948", Rutgers University Press, 1964 p. 101

[3] Richard Dominic Wiggers p. 274

[RW-279-4] Richard Dominic Wiggers p. 279. "In postwar Germany and Japan, the U.S. Army financed the most urgent food imports by citing obligations under Article 43 of The Hague Rules of Land Warfare."

[NT-5] Judgement : Doenitz the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School

[6] 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"

[7] David Wilson (27 March 2007). "The secret war". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-11-22. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[8] Lilly, Robert J. (2007), Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe During World War II, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 023050647X

[9] Morrow, John H. (October 2008), "Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II By J. Robert Lilly", The Journal of Military History, 72 (4), doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0151

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]