If I thought your question had something to do with this thread, I would answer it. However, I don’t, and consequently won’t.Mr.Thompson, how do you define a term 'civil war'?
(a) The operative question in the discussion is whether or not the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907, prohibiting the use of poisonous gas in certain conflicts, applied to the military conflict in Russia following the collapse of the Czarist regime. The terms of these conventions, as I have already pointed out on several occasions, apply only to conflicts between the contracting powers. The bolshevik government of Russia in 1919 was not one of those contracting powers. Furthermore, in 1919, few if any of the signatories to the Hague conventions recognized the bolshevik government as the legal successor to the Russian Empire. The Hague conventions do not deal with, recognize, or even mention de facto governments. They deal with wars between national governments recognized by the contracting powers, which in 1919, the Bolshevik regime was not.
(b) In any event, the Polish and Czechoslovak governments were both in existence in 1918 -- if not de jure, then certainly de facto -- a year earlier than the alleged gassing incident. Both of those countries were participants in the 1919 fighting in Russia, as was Greece. As I have previously shown, neither Poland not Czechoslovakia had ratifiied either the 1899 or the 1907 conventions, since those countries didn't exist at the time the treaty was signed.
Consequently, even assuming that some of our readers buy into your contention about the bolshevik regime being the de facto successor to the Russian empire in a national war, your argument still fails. There were other governments (Poland and Czechoslovakia), just as much (if not more) de facto rulers of their respective countries than the bolshevik government of Russia, which were involved in the Russian civil war. These governments had not ratified the Hague conventions by 1919, and were participants in the Russian civil war when the alleged use of poison gas by the UK took place. If the war was in fact a war between nations, as you contend, the Hague conventions still wouldn't apply because several of the participants were not contracting powers to those conventions.
(c) Furthermore, the evacuation of troops does not end a war -- a peace treaty does. In the case of the Greek expeditionary force, their withdrawal does not conclude the state of belligerency. That "war" -- as you put it -- would go on until it was concluded by armistice or treaty.
(2) You also asked:
Yes. That's the way the framers wrote the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is obvious to even a casual reader that the terms were drafted to allow the contracting powers to avoid their obligations except in the narrowly-drafted, agreed-upon circumstances specified in those conventions. I have already explained this defective feature of the Hague conventions to you and our readers at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 57#1058657Mr. Thompson, maybe you suggest that it is sufficient for invading power to have absolutely insignificant ally (that has not signed or ratified the Hague conventions) and the invading power would be free from any obligations of the conventions?
(3) You also, after quoting me, remarked:
That's correct. However, since the Hague conventions did not apply to the circumstances of a free-for-all civil war in the former (and in 1919, collapsed) Russian empire, the only way there would be a war crime here is if there were independent written assurances between the belligerents that each would respect the Hague conventions on the use of chemical weapons. Apparently, that didn't happen.David Thompson wrote:
and
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1115650 (no evidence of an independent collateral agreement between the combatant forces to respect the prohibitions).
The Hague conventions do not require any such previous agreement.