Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Why Katyn?

The Sopviet Union was not with the Allies in 1940, as well the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany at that time, PLUS, Poland was a member of the Allies since 1939. I am all for exposing the truth, and if certain allied acts constituted war crimes then they must be shown, that is only fair and just and in the spirit of true history. However, let's not mess that up by placing a reference which really does not belong. Katyn was not really an Allied OR Axis war crime or atrocity. It was a uniquely Soviet Union crime. John 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So, up to now we had two categories: "Allied war crimes" and "Axis war crimes". Would you like to have a third one "war crimes by neutral countries that later joined the Allies"? Of course, any war crime is "unique" and any categorization is somewhat artificial but if you start to categorize you should stick to your categories.. --145.253.238.10 11:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

American Rapists

Now for step two. Rape.

Is wide-scale rape a war-crime? Shall we include information in this article about American rapes?

It all depends on what this article uses for definition of "War-crimes".

If the answer is NO, then we need to include the topic in a new "American Atrocities during WW2" article. Besides, the Japanese War-Crimes article includes the topic of "comfort women". By the way, I recommend that you download a copy of the CNN article on the U.S. use of comfort women, since it seems to be undergoing censure, and probably won't remain as google cache for long either... google cache of CNN article --Stor stark7 Talk 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think rape should be included on this page, but it should be described clearly; that it was not condoned by the leadership, instead a total breakdown in discipline amongst the rank and file. I question the comfort women issue being placed here though, as the article you provides states that the Japanese government created and ran the brothels, and procured the women who were forced to work there. The American troops were just the customers. If anything should be mentioned, it should be that for the first year or so, the American commanders turned a blind eye to the problem, before outlawing the brothels. Parsecboy 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Wow, you both could not be further from the truth. "Comfort women" were women forced into prostitution yby Japanese authority for the sexual gratification of Japanese soldiers during wartime. Has nothing to do whatsoever with the allies, and allied soldiers most certainly were NOT serviced by Japanese "comfort women." Please leave your biased and very NON-nuetral agendas out of here, that would be very much apreciated.

If you weren't the product of a nationalist US history, you might be able to accept facts that don't paint the American soldiers as noble warriors fighting the evil Japanese. If you had actually read the article, you'd see that directly after the war, brothels full of comfort women were set up by the Japanese government for use by the American garrison troops, with initially tacit approval from the American commanders. Parsecboy 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now as for rape and wartime in general, sadly it happens. But then soldiers of every nation that has partaken in a protracted war since such a concept has existed on this planet has been guilty of it. --John 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that because everyone does it, it's ok? Are you actually justifying mass rape? And you call us biased? Parsecboy 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No fool, I"m not, and you know that. You are wrong in trying to make it uniquely American when it most certainly is not.

John 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch the incivility. If you insult me or anyone else again, you'll be reported. Tell me something, if you're so wise and unbiased. Why is the rape of Nanking allowed in the Japanese warcrimes page but not the mass rape by American soldiers in Okinawa? Parsecboy 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And also, as for references to Americans using "comfort women" disapearing, it's probably because as I stated earlier it is ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T. I for one am glad that such ridiculous OPINION pieces of VERY BIASED AND AGENDA-ORIENTED pseudo-historians are being put in their proper place: the trash. --John 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one am not glad to have the wool pulled back over my eyes. If you want to live in dream land, pretending American soldiers have never committed an atrocity, then be my guest and go stick your head in the sand. Let historians who care about discovering the real truth, no matter how distasteful it might be, do their work. Parsecboy 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am pretending nothing you ignoramus. "Comfort women" is a specificly Japanese thing. What you are doing is taking things symptomatic of all mankind its its negative forms, in this case violence and warfare, and trying to make it seem somehow more of an American thing. You are agenda oriented and that is not needed here.

John 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, be careful with what you say to people. It can get you blocked. Yes, the comfort women were an entirely Japanese run establishment. But the fact remains that the American leadership(MacArthur on down) turned a blind eye on the situation until it became a problem for them (i.e., when a possible relevation in the media would be highly damaging, and when a large portion of the garrison troops had VDs). Again, why is it wrong for the Japanese to run the operation, but it's perfectly fine and dandy for American soldiers to participate, and the leadership condone it, and then cover it up? Parsecboy 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If it occured after the end of the war then how was it a WWII war crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is true; you'll see in the beginning of this section I disagreed with including it on this page. Perhaps Stor Stark wanted to include it because it's part of the occupation of Japan, so it's sort of associated with WWII. Parsecboy 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Higher up the page (#Policy of killing surrendering soldiers and POWs Stor Stark wrote:
As to rapes, we have the HNET review of Peter Schrijvers. "The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II". New York University Press, 2002. where reference is made to the fact that rape "..was a general practice against Japanese women". and that "The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the [Okinawa] campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone".
Which is about rape during WWII. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
He also mentioned that:
As to the issue of rape your argument brings up the danger of Wikipedians doing Original Research when trying to interpret legal texts when they themselves are not experts on the subject. Nevertheless, for clarity's sake, lets state the legal texts you refer to. "Geneva" Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Art. 3. Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. Prisoners retain their full civil capacity. I.e. it only says that thou shall be nice to prisoners of war, even if they are women. "Hague" CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Is quite open to interpretation, and says nothing explicit about rape.
To which I say just do a Google search on ["Family honour and rights," rape] returns a number of pages from reliable sources which confirm what I wrote. The commentary on the III Geneva convention makes it clear that the interpretation of Art 14 'The regard due to women' 'Honour and modesty'. -- The main intention is to defend women prisoners against rape, forced prostitution and any form of indecent assault' [1] There is no reason to think that the customary interpretation honour changed radically between 1907, 1929 and 1949. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have dropped this ball for so long, real life suddenly became very hectic, and still is. Doing the Google PBS suggested most of what I find is related to the modern Balkans conflict. Not really anything saying how the text was interpreted after WWII. I did find one though that for example said " The history of twentieth-century warfare has shown, though, how little formal and customary laws of war have been observed—and how rarely they have been enforced. The Soviet Army raped its way across Prussia and into Berlin in the final days of World War II, yet Moscow's military judges took a victor's place of honor on the bench at Nuremberg. In fact, the founding statute of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg made no specific reference to rape, relying on language prohibiting inhumane treatment to encompass rapes committed by Nazis. And the companion tribunal in Tokyo phrased its provision for war crimes jurisdiction in highly general terms, "namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.""[2] And the Japanese government seems to take the position that confort women were a legal activity "the Japanese Government has forcefully denied legal liability on a number of substantive grounds, the most significant of which include: (a) that recent developments or advances in international criminal law may not be applied retroactively; (b) that the crime of slavery does not accurately describe the system established through the "comfort stations" and that the prohibition against slavery was not, in any event, established as a customary norm under applicable international law at the time of the Second World War; (c) that acts of rape in armed conflict were not prohibited by either the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 or by applicable customary norms of international law in force at the time of the Second World War; and (d) that the laws of war would only apply, in any event, to conduct committed by the Japanese military against nationals of a belligerent State and would not, therefore, cover the actions of the Japanese military with respect to Japanese or Korean nationals, since Korea was annexed to Japan during the Second World War (ibid.)."[3]

When I get the time I'll write a simple paragraph about the 10,000 rapes on Okinawa, and on the rapes by the Allied occupation forces in mainland Japan. U.S. use of comfort women can be covered in the comfort women article, to which we could link.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ICC

The text states "The United States have stated that they consider the possibility that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings could be considered war crimes to be "intolerable and unacceptable", and that this is one of the major reasons for their not agreeing to be bound by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." That is certainly not one of the major reasons, these can be found in United States and the International Criminal Court. If arguing otherwise, a direct quote from the source would be required.Ultramarine 09:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bolton say it was a major reason, (please read the article). As to the sources you have provided for the last sentence. It seems to me that you have been trawling the internet and I would like to discuss the souces you have provided:
--Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not added those, if you examine the history.Ultramarine 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I should have replied to this before. Sorry Ultramarine for being so sloppy with my review of the history file.--Philip Baird Shearer 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Atomic Bombings were not a war crime.

I see that after this RFC was archived Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II/Archive_4#RfC:Was_Atomic_Bombing_of_Japan_a_War_Crime, the decision was made that it was not a war crime, and people moved on, that it somehow got re-added. I am reverting this change, since concensus had already been reached, a proper RfC was done, and outside editors agreed that it was not a war crime. CodeCarpenter 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced that a Japanese court found it to be a war crime. A balanced POV is included that other experts do not agree. This is in line with the WP:NPOV policy. Further it is better that a balanced POV with sourcs like this is given than every month or so this page suffers regular revert wars with unsorced POVs over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
(LONG)Actually, the court did not call it a war crime. I had looked over the review before, as part of the previous RfC. Since that seems to be the point of contention, I have decided to look over it again in more detail. The results were surprising.

"The judgement draws several distinctions which are pertinent to both conventional and atomic aerial bombardment." I feel that these distinctions are self-serving and in the case of the Hague Draft Rules cannot be considered because they were never accepted by any country. Since they were not accepted, they are as valid as ERA or the Kobe Accords. That the court used inactive rules as if they were "positive law" (their words) is part of what makes this ruling suspicious. To quote from the case itself "Further, since neither the Draft Rules of Air Warfare nor the Treaty respecting Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, was concluded as a treaty at the time when the atomic bombs were dropped, we cannot recognize such treaties as positive law and cannot make them the source of international law."

"the Court drew a distinction between "Targeted Aerial Bombardment" and indiscriminate area bombardment, that the court called "Blind Aerial Bombardment" and also a distinction between a defended and undefended city." This ignores the fact that there was a target involved in attaching Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that those targets were not hit blindly. Again, from the case notes, I find "Since the Middle Ages, belligerents, in international law, have been permitted to choose the means of injuring the enemy in order to attain the special purpose of war, subject to certain conditions imposed by international customary law and treaties adapted to the times. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exceedingly enormous in destructive power, and the damage was heaviest in history. It is truly a matter of deep regret that a large number of non-combatant Japanese people were killed and wounded as a consequence. However, with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a direct result, Japan ceased further resistance and accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Thus, the purpose of Japanese unconditional surrender was attained as the Allied Powers intended; and World War II came to an end. Thus, the use of atomic bombs hastened the Japanese surrender, and resulted in the prevention of casualties of human life of both belligerents which would be caused by the continuance of war. Taking an objective view of these circumstances, no one can easily conclude whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contrary to international law."

"In principle, a defended city is a city which resists an attempt at occupation by land forces. A city even with defence installations and armed forces cannot be said to be a defended city if it is far away from the battlefield and is not in immediate danger of occupation by the enemy." By this unique definition, no city off of the front would be a valid target to aerial bombardment. A city is "undefended" if it is not in danger of being invaded? I guess Pearl and London were undefended cities when they were attacked, since neither was in danger of being invaded.

"The court ruled that blind aerial bombardment is only permitted in the immediate vicinity of the operations of land forces and that only targeted aerial bombardment of military installations is permitted further from the front." Hmm. A military installation was targeted in both cases, since the factories were being used for military purposes, and peole in homes were also building for the military. (I will cite if necessary, but the Bombing of Tokyo page has reference to the full mobilization of the people in creating war machinery for the Empire.

"It also ruled that the incidental death of civilians and the destruction of civilian property during targeted aerial bombardment was not unlawful.[14] The court acknowledged that the concept of a military objective was enlarged under conditions of total war, but stated that the distinction between the two did not disappear.[15]" So they acknowledge that this was total war, and that if the bombs had a target that incidental deaths were not unlawful. I submit that the bombs had a target, and were not "blindly" dropped.

"The court also ruled that when military targets were concentrated in a comparatively small area, and where defence installations against air raids were very strong, that when the destruction of non-military objectives is small in proportion to the large military interests, or necessity, such destruction is lawful." Who in their right minds would then put all their eggs in one basket for easy targeting. The US did that, at Pearl Harbor, and they learned to not do that anymore. In Germany, the military installations were large and separate, and got bombed because of it. In Japan, they were smaller, merged into the cities, and the workers lived next to the factories. There was NO location in Japan where the atomic bombs could hit a military target without civilian casualties.

"So in the judgement of the Court, because of the immense power of the atom bombs, and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities"." Again, from the case, we find "War is a means of settling disputes of interest between sovereign states, and a state conducts a war for the benefit of the state itself and the people. Therefore, the legality of individual acts which compose such a war should be treated exclusively by international law, and responsibility for acts deemed illegal should be solved by agreement between the countries concerned. A country does not assume responsibility of compensation for damage resulting from illegal acts directly inflicted on the people of the other country, in accordance with municipal law." So, by signing the Peace Treaty, an agreement was made by the countries concerned that the atomic bombs were not illegal.

Finally, the Hague 1907 rules specifically state "among the above-mentioned objects against which bombardment is prohibited are not included military works, military or naval establishments, depots of arms or war material, workshops or plants which could be utilized for the needs of a hostile fleet or army, and men-of-war in the harbor..." Since the target fo the bombings included factories being used for military purposes, and those factories were successfully destroyed, the atomic bombings were not against the Hague rules. The court even admits that "The Draft Rules of Air Warfare cannot directly be called positive law, since they have not yet become effective as a treaty." (They still are not effective treaty, and at that time 40 years had passed, so the "not yet" is self-serving and specious.), but they then claim that America should be held to this standard. This is despite the fact that Japan did not feel bound by the Geneva Convention, since they did not sign it, but held America to it's rules, since they had signed it. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

The Japanese plaintiffs claim that the bombings occurred without warning, and was directed at civilians, by saying "the atomic bomb was dropped without notice on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.", but that flies in the face of the facts. "OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs(bold added by me). These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.” (See Richard S. R. Hubert, “The OWI Saipan Operation,” Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)" The people were warned to get out, and chose to stay. They had five and eight days to get out, and in the case of Nagasaki, proof of the extent of the bomb's effects, and chose to continue working at building war materials for the glory of the Emperor. Of course, the US could not say "We are going to use an atomic bomb on 8/6/1945 at 8:15 am on Hiroshima", the bombers would have been shot down before deployment.

The review also states "However, if a war unfortunately occurs, it goes without saying that every country is required to minimize damage and to protect its nationals." The fact that they were told that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the list of targets, and chose not to defend them, is the fault of the Japanese military, not of the US. The US, by using the bombs, "minimized damage" to the rest of the country, and "protected it's nationals" by not having to go through a costly invasion of enemy territory. Ask the American soldiers in Iraq if occupation of a hostile country is fun.

The review also states "The defendant State (Japan, remember that this was a trial against Japan) caused many nationals to die, injured them, and drove them to a precarious life by the war which it opened on its own authority and responsibility." In other words, Japan is liable for the starting of the war, and the blame falls on their shoulders for prolonging the war after Germany and Italy had already surrendered. The terms they finally accepted were the same as given to them a month earlier, and the American POWs that died in that last month would have lived had Japan done the honorable thing and accepted the inevitable. As the review states: "The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exceedingly enormous in destructive power, and the damage was heaviest in history. It is truly a matter of deep regret that a large number of non-combatant Japanese people were killed and wounded as a consequence. However, with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a direct result, Japan ceased further resistance and accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Thus, the purpose of Japanese unconditional surrender was attained as the Allied Powers intended; and World War II came to an end. Thus, the use of atomic bombs hastened the Japanese surrender, and resulted in the prevention of casualties of human life of both belligerents which would be caused by the continuance of war."

The net result of this "judicial review", not a trial, was that the US was not liable for the losses incurred by the atomic bombings, and could not be held liable, due to the facts of the law, not only on the date of the bombing, but by further laws paced in effect in both countries even after the war was over. In fact, nowhere in the case does it call the bombings a war crime, or even a crime at all. It states based on a non-approved treaty, a ruling against dum-dum bullets, and a reach on balloons dropping poison gas, that it was illegal in the opinion of three Japanese judges using 2 Japanese "expert witnesses", and without the input of the United States. That the opinion was given on December 7th is ironic, at best.

Therefore, these facts, combined with the previous RfC coming down against the bombings being treated as a war crime, support the revert of this addition. It has not been there for years, and just because someone might bring it back is not a good reason for it to be left in place. The judicial review itself (the only claim the other side has) does not call it a war crime, it is not in the category of war crimes, and its addition here would be a slippery slope to getting it added in all other locations where it does not belong. I would like to avoid doing another RfC for the same issue that another RfC had already decided. Please reconsider your position and allow the removal of what had already been removed months earlier. I have no desire for a revert war with someone of I respect as I do your efforts here and elsewhere in Wikipedia. CodeCarpenter 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I noticed that you undid my change with the comment "(rv: unwarented and unagreed deletion)" despite the placement of an explanation in the talk page that showed it to be both warranted (based on the RfC results) and agreed upon (for those that had been in that discussion). I hope you understand the reasoning for the deletion, and still do not hold the belief that it was unwarranted or unagreed upon. I will not revert, but I think the RfC might need to be revisited, or even a case for mediation exists, due to the controvertial nature of this item. I welcome the opinions of others on this issue. CodeCarpenter 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I contributed to the discussion during the RFC and in my judgement there was no consensus to remove the Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. As I made the second to last comment in that section and you made the last I think I am just as able as you to judge if there was a consensus, and as I wrote in that second to last comment "However, some think that the A-bombings were a war crime. At least one court has pronounced it as such, (which is the source given) and it ought to be included for that reason." I do not see how you come to your conclusion that the RfC consensus was to remove the item.
As to your analysis of Shimoda: I am glad to see that a least one person has read an article and wikisource to which I am by far the largest contributor  :-)
And if you had read the archives to this talk page you would also have seen a few other points (see Archive 3: A-bombs):
With reference to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State made a case for the attacks being outside the laws of war BUT basing their arguments on the 1923 Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare while ignoring the later Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 (where a defended city was defined) draws into question the usefulness of the judgement, which is not widly quoted as a precedent under interntional law (for example AFAICT the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons did not quote its findings as a precedent).
However this analysis of mine like yours is OR and is not relevant to whether a sourced accusation made by a Japanese court should or should not be included here. What does matter is that verifiable reliable sources can be found to show that a Japanese court found the A-bombings to be a war crime and also included in the paragraph are other sources which contradict that finding to give a balanced POV.
BTW the court did find the bombings to be a war crime, the exact words in the Japanese judicial finding are (1)"Thus, the aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb of an undefended city, if not of a defended city, should be regarded as tantamount to a blind aerial bombardment and as such contrary to international law of the time.", (2)"This is so since aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb, even if its target is confined to military objectives, bring, about the same result as a blind aerial bombardment because of the tremendous destructive power of the bomb." and (3)"If, as has been shown at length above, the act of atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contrary to international law,.... Notice that these words have not been used in the accusation because they are from a primary source. Instead an interpretation of that primary source, by Richard Falk, has been quoted ""the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."" (as this better fits the WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources criteria of using secondary sources to interpret primary ones). --Philip Baird Shearer 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I claimed concensus because of the six people that spoke on the issue, CodeCarpenter, IvoShandor, ParsecBoy, and Haber came down on the side of one or more of 1. It was not a war crime, 2. that the page should not have alleged items mixed in with actual items, and 3. that US publications could be used as citations on controvertial US issues. One person, Jadger, claimed that it was a war crime, and one, Philip Baird Shearer, stated that it was okay to make the claim as long as the alternative POV was allowed. And, since the original person to cause the controversy chose to not respond, Arigato1, it appeared that the purpose of reaching a concensus had been achieved. The following topic, Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II/Archive_4#What.27s_going_on.3F, over one week later, in which ParsecBoy asked for an update and I stated that it appeared the other side had backed down from their claim, went unchallenged, providing further appearance of concensus.
"Killings that have a complete and valid justification, such as might occur where the perpetrator had a reasonable and honest belief that he was acting in self-defense, had to kill or take action that foreseeably might result in killing someone in order to prevent loss of innocent life, or pursuant to a lawful order must be found Not Guilty." From [4]. In this case, the bombers were following a lawful order from their commandants, with the view that taking action would prevent the loss of innocent life, being POWs, Chinese citizens, American soldiers, and even Japanese citizens that would otherwise be conscripted in a mainland defense as had occurred in Okinawa.
My discomfort is with the fact that it is on a page where "alleged" is discussed in the opening, but none of the other items have the level of dispute that this one does.
Really? I would have thought that The German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich, claims that "Winston Churchill's decision to [area] bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime." was even more disputable given it is not a legal finding but an opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The "slippery slope" is that this gets added to War Crimes, and that the page gets labelled as a War Crime, when this is not been the case to date. I do not feel that the claim of a belligerent court (there was no US representation in the case) should be treated as impartial.
It was not a belligerent court the war was over. If that was a belligerent court then what were the Dachau Trials? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
By 1994, the Japanese government was less hostile. "The Japanese government prepared a response which repeated its position in the Shimoda case: that their wartime note against the bomb was the judgment of a belligerent and that on cooler reflection they were forced to acknowledge "the lawfulness of nuclear weapons."" and "However, what was asked by the ICJ was what would be the legal assessment of the use of nuclear weapons. Our finding that, if you study very carefully the existing international treaties, customs or laws, experts' opinions, we do not see any concrete position which would suggest that the use of nuclear weapons would be prohibited." - Mr. Temsuke Terada, June 10, 1994. from [5]
However, I am trying to focus my efforts at restoring Attack on Pearl Harbor to Featured Article status, so I wave the white flag, and just hope that any attempts to further label the bombings as a war crime are carefully and objectively scrutinized. CodeCarpenter 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner Execution Sources

Are there more sources than just Aldrich and Ferguson? With millions of men in arms from whom to cherry-pick memoirs, and Charles Lindbergh telling third-hand stories about executions, I'm not sure about the reliability of the tales of Allied murder of prisoners.

To be clear, I am an American and I have edited many articles on the US military and the United States Marine Corps.

If there is valid evidence, I think it deserves attention. I simply find it odd that only two books, published 60 years after the end of the war, discuss it. --Habap 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it that strange, really. Ever heard the phrase "the victor writes the history books"? One must remember that a lot of negative aspects, of really everything, were covered up quite a bit more then than now. Compare it to the number of what are essentially war crimes that have been perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference is that the media is everywhere in Iraq, whereas it was a totally different story in WWII. I myself am American, as well as a current member of the US Army, so one cannot assume I'm biased in this issue one way or another. I do agree with your point about Lindbergh telling 3rd hand stories being not so reliable. Parsecboy 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be making the assumption that for the reason that the text is sourced to two books (actually one book and one article in a history publication), they are the only books that deal with the subject. I believe that to be an error. I doubt the number of editors of this article, and their scholarly background and overview of available literature, is nearly enough sufficient to provide an adequate coverage of the topic. Nevertheless we add information as we find it. If you look at the history of this talk page (including archived) you'll see how difficult it is to insert anything into this article, sourced or not. you'll find some links to other questionable acts as well. Two in particular that I believe provide some insight are:
"In 1943, Leatherneck, the monthly magazine of the Marine Corps, reportedly published an article about the taking of trophy skulls at Guadalcanal. But the Allied propaganda machine turned on the cogs of the mainstream American press, where such unflattering representations of the American warrior were off-limits. Author John Steinbeck confessed as much in 1958 about his days as a war correspondent. "We were all part of the war effort," he said, according to a 1989 article in The Atlantic Monthly. "We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. I don't mean that the correspondents were liars. It is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies."The Pueblo Chieftain Online
and
A quote by another the war corespondent, Edgar L. Jones: One War Is Enough
WE Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.
As victors we are privileged to try our defeated opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic enough to appreciate that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be found guilty on a dozen counts. We fought a dishonorable war, because morality had a low priority in battle. The tougher the fighting, the less room for decency, and in Pacific contests we saw mankind reach the blackest depths of bestiality.

--Stor stark7 Talk 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stor, I was hoping there were more sources from historians, that some documentation in military orders or dispatches could be cited or that there was more firm evidence of the execution of prisoners. I'm looking at it as objectively as possible, as a historian. I'll probably pick up a copy of Aldrich's book, though based on the anecdotal nature of the evidence he cites, I'm not sure of the value as a historical work.
The abuse of Japanese and American corpses by their enemies is described in most of the books I've read recently about the Pacific War, so I have no doubts about that. Similarly, I think submarines from both sides routinely left their prey to the hazards of the seas (with exceptions in both humanitarianism and cruelty on both sides).
So, if there are a variety of historical works on the subject, I will search the archives so I can learn more. --Habap 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Great, and please, if you happen to get a hold of a copy of "The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II". New York: New York University Press, 2002, reviewed by HNET here, could you please start a paragraph on the topic of rape by U.S. servicemen. I'll eventually have a go at it myself if no-one else can be bothered, but I'm kind of busy in real life and I'm more into editing articles on German post-war history right now since thats where I've managed to gain some overview.--Stor stark7 Talk 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Schrijvers' book looks like a better source, though I don't see anything in a quick scan of the review that deals with prisoner executions. I don't have plans to expand my study of this area extensively, but will look over some materials on allegations of prisoner executions. --Habap 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stor seem to he happy with the article conveying that it was only Americans and Australians who killed Japanese POWs. This approach is supported in the article by two references, both of which apparently ignore: (1) the two largest fronts of the Pacific War (China and Burma), (2) the historical context, e.g. the attitudes and practices of Japanese soldiers which inspired Allied policies and; (3) well-known statistics on the capture of Japanese POWs.

Needless to say, I believe that this approach is non-NPOV because it ignores the historical context and similar attitudes/actions by Allied soldiers of other nationalities, which they themselves linked to the conduct of Japanese soldiers, from an early stage of the war and throughout its course. (We talk about the rationales for Bombing of Dresden in that article so why not mention the rationales of Allied soldiers here?) Stor is creating a Catch 22 in insisting on citations which counter tendentious, one-sided, illogical and unprofessional publications. This insistence presupposes that such publications exist. For these reasons, I think, this article at present is unworthy of Wikipedia.

I guess it is understandable that someone apparently from Sweden(?) is not very knowledgeable about World War II, especially the Pacific War; even more so the "forgotten war" of the British Commonwealth forces in Burma, which is not even well-known in the UK. However, I have to wonder about someone apparently so ignorant about what transpired in 1937-45, and so disinterested in challenging their own preconceptions.

The rationale for Allied soldiers not taking POWs is abundantly clear if you bother to read the testimonies of Allied soldiers. I quoted the testimony above of an Australian soldier, regarding the Japanese Marines at the Battle of Milne Bay in 1942:

Lying across the [air]strip were dozens of dead Japs... As our officer crossed in the vanguard a Jap, apparently wounded, cried out for help. The officer walked over to aid him, and as he did the Jap sprang to life and hurled a grenade which wounded him in the face. From then on the only good Jap was a dead one, and although they tried the same trick again and again throughout the campaign, they were dispatched before they had time to use their grenade.
Our policy was to watch any apparent dead, shoot at the slightest sign of life and stab with bayonet even the ones who appeared to be rotten. It was all out from then on, neither side showing any quarter and no prisoners were taken. (Arthur Traill, cited by Gabrielle Chan, 2003, in War On Our Doorstep [Hardie Grant Books: South Yarra, Victoria, Australia], p. 188.)

There is the similar testimony of Gian Singh, who fought with the 7th Indian Division in Burma:

...on the night of about 8th or 9th February, the Japanese broke into our defences. They chose to break in where we had our field hospital.
About 500 of them killed the wounded and even doctors who were operating. They took a few prisoners who we found the next day when we sent out patrols. They found Indian surgeons and orderlies bayonetted. From even before that day most of us were determined not to show these small yellow men mercy. We often saw on patrols what they did to captured men. They even killed villagers by bayonet and sword. We saw our men who, when captured, had been tied to trees with their turbans and used for bayonet practice.
Also on that night I learnt how easy it is to push a bayonet into some­one’s body. I was surprised that it made me feel somehow good. After all we were fighting those who did not behave like people should.
[...]
The enemy tried many times by day and night to throw us out. Each attack cost them heavy in numbers killed. It was said that if a patrol brought a prisoner he or they would get special leave. I don’t know anyone who got leave — we killed them as best we could.
[...]
...One thing we all noticed was the Japanese never seemed to fear death. They were very, very brave.
What we must acknowledge was that among the Japanese were many of our own troops. When Singapore was captured thousands of Indian troops became prisoners. They were treated as bad if not worse than the British or Australian troops. They were starved and often used by new Japanese troops for bayonet practice. To escape such treatment many joined the Indian National Army formed by the enemy. Their political leader was Subhas Chandra Bose, a Bengali, who hated the British. He promised to liberate India and said the Japanese were the friends of India. Not many truly believed him. Least of all us who saw the Japanese in their true colours. Much as we felt sorry for our brothers who had taken the salt but turned traitor even though they had an excuse. We often gave them no mercy. (Gian Singh, 1998, Memories of Friends and Foes, Cwm Nedd Press: Castell Nedd)
And so on. There are many more accounts like this by Allied soldiers in the war against Japan, but I have to wonder what it would take to change Stor's mind, or whether he/she would accept them in the article.
Grant | Talk 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, the newly appointed administrator has quite a lot to say. Lets dissect it shall we.
"insisting on citations which counter tendentious, one-sided, illogical and unprofessional publications. This insistence presupposes that such publications exist. For these reasons, I think, this article at present is unworthy of Wikipedia."
Quite a mouthful.
First; The publications are apparently by reputable scholars. What are your qualifications to judge them? Can you supply a published review to support you allegations, or are they merely empty words meant to discredit the publications as sources?
Second; I have not asked you to provide citations that counter the publications. I ask you to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. No original research! I have asked you to provide cited motives for the general behavior of prisoner killing. I explicitly asked you not to come dragging with motives for incidents but for a source providing analysis of the general practice of prisoner killing. Bundling together testimonies of random events is Original Research, as you well know or you would not have been made administrator, but nevertheless: Wikipedia:NOR
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position
" We talk about the rationales for Bombing of Dresden in that article so why not mention the rationales of Allied soldiers here?" I'm more than willing to include the rationale, I'll include the rationale that can be including according to wikipedia policy. I know you will not like it. I'm very disappointed that you continue the discussion here that we had in
Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Historical_context.2F.22US_and_Australian.22
and that you apparently didn't read
Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Some_Other_Ferguson_quotes.
" I have to wonder about someone apparently so ignorant about what transpired in 1937-45, and so disinterested in challenging their own preconceptions.". Same back at you pal. More even; being from the other side of the world, a part that really couldn't care less about what went on in the pacific I came to this arena without any preconceptions at all, all I know is what I've read. I figure that living in Australia you are more likely to have had preconceptions fed to you from an early age onwards.
" The rationale for Allied soldiers not taking POWs is abundantly clear if you bother to read the testimonies of Allied soldiers. I quoted the testimony above of an Australian soldier, regarding the Japanese Marines at the Battle of Milne Bay in 1942" Again, OR.
" Stor seem to he happy with the article conveying that it was only Americans and Australians who killed Japanese POWs."
Let me quote myself, since you apparently conveniently forgot our discussion above.
"As I said, please find sources with evidence of war-crimes committed by members of the Allies, that is what this article is about, but think carefully before trying to water out the content in the article e.g. by changing Australian to Allied."
" I guess it is understandable that someone apparently from Sweden(?) is not very knowledgeable about World War II"
I know I've been borderline by pointing out your Australian background, but I thought that Administrators were held to considerably higher standards and really not supposed to make comments like that. That aside, I'm really curious, how do you figure my nationality affects my personal ability/interest in learning about the war? Are natives of the combatant countries according to your world view somehow blessed with greater intelligence or reading skills? Personally I'd say that not being from a combatant country would give me better odds at being able to produce NPOV edits, seeing as I haven't had to endure being fed leftover patriotic hero worship from the war and whatever else goes on.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to "dissect" (interesting choice of word) your post, because I don't see that most of what you have said above really addresses the issues that I have raised. And while I can't speak for Americans, the racism and war crimes of Allied personnel in the Pacific War are well known in Australia, as are the war crimes and racism of Japanese soldiers.
My intention all along has been to settle this issue here, to avert an edit war on the page, but I must admit to being bewildered by your peculiarly literal/legalistic understanding of Wikipedia policy.
More precisely, let me get this straight: do you think, as you seem to be saying, that direct quotations from the memoirs/oral history of ordinary soldiers are "original research"? You don't seem to have a problem with such material when it is quoted by Aldrich or Ferguson, to support their notion that "war-crimes were committed as a matter of 'standard practice'". What privileges those testimonies over others? Don't try to tell me that Aldrich and Ferguson are "just using examples", because it is just as valid for us to use that approach. We could even put the personal material in footnotes, if you are unhappy with it being in the main text.
Do you actually believe that it was only "US and Australian soldiers" that did these things? I find that hard to believe, since among your quotes from Ferguson and Aldrich are a mention of "Indian soldiers serving with the British in Burma". If you do not believe that it was only "US and Australian soldiers", then you are deliberately allowing the article to present a biased and disingenuous account. Grant | Talk 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I've addressed your "issues", both in your latest posts and in previous ones. And I certainly could not let some of your wilder allegations go unchallenged.
1. Australian War crimes: As I've said before, If you are unhappy with the fact that the war crimes of Australian soldiers are exposed, feel free to expand the article by also adding a new paragraph with sourced material on war crimes committed by other Allied nationalities, to even it out. If you provide sourced material no-one will revert it. I certainly wont, and have never claimed that I would, so I really don't see what your problem is in this matter.
If you find secondary sources stating it was common behavior by one or more allied nationalities, then please add it to the paragraph currently only dealing with general behavior of Australian and U.S. troops.
If you only find random incidents committed by Allied nationalities, please add those in a separate paragraph so as not to mislead the reader that there is evidence of General bad behavior by the Allied nationalities in question.
2. Motives for Warcrimes: If you insert paragraphs on individual Allied War crimes, naturally you can also insert sections on what secondary sources deemed the motives for each individual incident to be. BUT: If you want to create a "general" section addressing the motives of the war crimes in general, you have to find a secondary source that has made a synthesis of the available material and come up with one or more general motives. It's that simple really. I cant see how you can consistently fail to understand that.
3 Wikipedia policy on Original Research As to "peculiarly literal/legalistic" and also "do you think, as you seem to be saying, that direct quotations from the memoirs/oral history of ordinary soldiers are "original research"?".
Tell me Grant, what is your definition of original research, and tell me, is a memoir/oral history a primary or secondary source? From Wikipedia:No original research:
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: (I trimmed slightly)
    1. It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
    2. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
    3. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
  • Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.
Now compare the above policy with what you wrote
"More precisely, let me get this straight: do you think, as you seem to be saying, that direct quotations from the memoirs/oral history of ordinary soldiers are "original research"? You don't seem to have a problem with such material when it is quoted by Aldrich or Ferguson, to support their notion that "war-crimes were committed as a matter of 'standard practice'". What privileges those testimonies over others? Don't try to tell me that Aldrich and Ferguson are "just using examples", because it is just as valid for us to use that approach."
Why, oh why, is it my job to point out to an administrator of all people that Aldrich and Ferguson are scholars who in secondary sources have made a synthesis using primary sources such as memoirs and statistics. And that your attempt to do a synthesis using primary sources yourself is completely against wikipedia No Original Research policy! Besides, an other error that you are making is alleging that we include direct quotations in the article. We have as far as I know only included the secondary sources conclusions.
4"If you do not believe that it was only "US and Australian soldiers", then you are deliberately allowing the article to present a biased and disingenuous account."
We have been through this before, and quite frankly I'm getting fed up. I'll just do a copy paste of what I wrote previously in reply to such an argument from you:

QUOTE:....

Grant, we are not making "allegations". We are providing sourced information about War-Crimes committed by nationals from two nations, nations that belonged to the Allies of World War II camp, and therefore that information is collected in this article. We have only included those two for now because they are the only ones we have backing sources for. Your attempt to take a sourced[6] sentence , and change the charge against "American and Australian soldiers" into "Allied soldiers"[7] is what is non-NPOV. You in that way dilute the charge to also include for example Chinese and Indian Soldiers, or even Brazilian soldiers since Brasil was also one of the Allies (I don't know if Brazil sent soldiers to the pacific, but then few people reading this article would either). I find that type of activity fairly non-NPOV and unencyklopedic. Why not change it to read "male soldiers" while you're at it so we can dilute it even further?
I further find your reasoning strange also on another level. Quote "Making allegations against one or two nationalies, when — as you have admitted — they are not the only ones concerned is non-NPOV." Endquote. Are you saying that:
a) In the cases where we only have sources confirming war crimes committed by one or a few of the Allies, we should nevertheless also level an allegation against all the other allied nationalities, despite lacking sources? This to make it NPOV in your eyes?
or
b) We should only include information about war-crimes in this article when we have backing sources confirming that they were committed by all the Allied nations, otherwise we cant include the information?
Either is patently ridiculous. We insert material as we find the backing sources, stop. You may well "know" that something is true, such as Brittish warcrimes, but without being able to provide a backing source such an entry will not survive for long in this highly emotional article. As I said, please find sources with evidence of war-crimes committed by members of the Allies, that is what this article is about, but think carefully before trying to water out the content in the article e.g. by changing Australian to Allied.
"On that note we may as well also mention the war crimes of Chinese soldiers, who also failed to take many Japanese prisoners": Of course! Yes! If Chinese soldiers committed atrocities, then yes it should be included. Again, this is what this article is here for! It should not need to be pointed out!

....END QUOTE

--Stor stark7 Talk 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The length of your posts conveys obfuscation, when I'm asking questions that require one word answers: what do you think, was it only "US and Australian personnel" — yes or no?

Your definitions of original research and synthesis are ludicrously broad, and most Wikipedia articles would include "OR" and "syntheses" according to your standards. Grant | Talk 06:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Grant I agree with Stor stark7, that you have to come up with reliable sources to cover other Allied nations. Otherwise we may as well forget about WP:V. But I think your arguments do carry weight, so as I think that as this page is a Wikipedia:Summary style list, and as this topic is far to large for this article, the best course of action would be to create an article with a neutral point of view title and a balanced point of view in the text about this issue. For example you have pointed out that the context of the type of fighting is important, and we both mentioned examples in the Burma campaign, of individual actions of a similar nature. All this if properly sourced and constructed can go into an article which if synthesized into one sentence in this article is a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". The new article can then be linked into this article as are the other articles on Allied war crimes and alleged Allied war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Grant, please show where you allegedly ask questions which can be answered with yeas or no. All I can find from you are comments such as "Stor seem to he happy with the article conveying that it was only Americans and Australians who killed Japanese POWs." and "Do you actually believe that it was only "US and Australian soldiers" that did these things?". If you still fail to see that I apply Wikipedia policy by including information I can source, and wether I believe the British committed the same crimes is irrelevant unless such information can be source. Nevertheless I have in the past answered you quite clearly, but I guess you don't bother reading my replies. Quote "I do not disagree with your assertion that the British and their colonial troops were just as criminal as their Allies". As far as I'm concerned your "questions" are of the "-:So, are you still beating your wife?" category. And conveys obfuscation? I thought english was your native language. Am I expected to let your wild allegations go unchallenged in order to save space???
  • You have argued against "racism" when that word/concept is not even used in the article.
  • You have called the sources used in the article, sources by seemingly reputable scholars. I.e. Prof Richard Aldrich of Nottingham University, and Niall Fergusson for :Quote"It is offensive, unencyclopedic and non-NPOV to use a clearly-biased source". and also "tendentious, one-sided, illogical and unprofessional publications". Do you have any supporting evidence for your allegations, any scholar supporting your position?
  • You have claimed that it is NPOV to source war crimes to two nationalities, when other nationalities (according to you) committed the same type of crimes. Your "logic?" here still escapes me. Why don't you add those crimes instead of making false allegations?
  • You stated Quote "On that note we may as well also mention the war crimes of Chinese soldiers", which seems to imply that you don't realize what the purpose of this article is about. Of course you are supposed to add sourced Allied crimes!!!! What did you think?
  • Quote "I guess it is understandable that someone apparently from Sweden(?) is not very knowledgeable about World War II, especially the Pacific War;"
  • Quote "However, I have to wonder about someone apparently so ignorant about what transpired in 1937-45, and so disinterested in challenging their own preconceptions."
  • Quote "The rationale for Allied soldiers not taking POWs is abundantly clear if you bother to read the testimonies of Allied soldiers" In which case it should not have been any difficulty for you to find a secondary source that makes that synthesis.
I'm not really sure that Philips suggestion of doing the synthesis you are talking about in a separate article is completely cosher with Wiki policy, but do tell me the name of it if you do create it and I'll be more than happy to also include that the Allies considered the Japanese as less than humans and "the fact that Allied troops often regarded the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians – as Untermenschen. "
--Stor stark7 Talk 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting doing a synthesis of anything in separate article. I am suggesting that there is enough information on this talk page alone to add information to such an article about motives, the overall statistics, and specific cases in the Burma campaign to provide enough information for the reader to draw their own conclusions about the theatre as a whole. But only trying to condense this information into a couple of line in this article will inevitable lead to a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I misunderstood you. I agree that we need to branch out of this article, creating proper in-depth articles for each subtopic and only use this article as a summary and connector for them.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So no-one here disputes that Allied forces in China and Burma were also technically responsible for war crimes, and this was influenced by the attitudes and practices of Japanese soldiers themselves, but we still need to reference it? Do we also need to reference statements like "Paris is the capital of France", because there may be extraterrestrials reading? I feel as though I'm in a story by Kafka or Lewis Carroll.

By the way, Stor I have no qualms about "watering down" toxic chemicals or words. If you revert me again, I will ask an admin with no involvement in this debate to lock the article. Grant | Talk 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II/Archive_6&oldid=966908270"