Alleged usage of chemical weapons in Russia by the British

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 04 Oct 2007 05:54

Sergey wrote:
Troy Tempest wrote:I'm afraid to say Sergey, after reading all seven pages here, I don't understand your point at all! Thanks David and phylo for your explanation of the technical points of the Hague Convention, I didn't know any of that, and found your postings quite informing! :D
Don't fear Troy I explain it to you. This discussion have led to very important theoretical questions. Let's forget for a moment about armed conflict between the Red army and British forces in the Russian North in 1919. There are fundamental questions that must be answered. I answer them myself and invite anybody to commet.

(1) What are subjects of international Law? Independent states, not governments.

(2) What are 'high contracting powers' in the Hague 1907 Covention? Independent states that signed and ratified the convention.

(3) Does the Hague 1907 convention require as a precondition a formal declaration of war (or ultimatum)? No. Absence of formal declaration of war is not a cause not to apply the Hague 1907 convention.

(4) Can foreign states be participants in a civil war? No.

(5) What is a government of a state? A body that has the power to make and the authority to enforce rules and laws. The organization that is the governing authority of a political unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=government

Now let's look at historical facts.

(H1) Did military invasion by British and British led forces take place in 1919 in Russian North? Yes.

(H2) What side had opened the hostilities? British side.

(H3) Had chemical weapons been used by the British during military engagements? Yes.

(H4) What body was de facto Russian government in 1919? It was Lenin's, Bolshevik governmet.

(H5) Taking into account that the British could regard the Red army as a militia, were requirements of the Hague 1907 convention to militias satisfied? Yes.

- The Red army units were commanded by persons responsible for their subordinates.
- There was a distinctive emblem (a red star, red stripe) recognizable at a distance.
- Red army soldiers carried arms openly.
- The Red army conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So the combination of theoretical (1-5) statements and historical facts (H1-H5) we can conclude that the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention in Russia using chemical weapons.
It is quit clear that you have comprehended little of what phylo_roadking has said to you.

Penn44

.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 04 Oct 2007 06:08

Penn44 wrote:
Sergey wrote:
Troy Tempest wrote:I'm afraid to say Sergey, after reading all seven pages here, I don't understand your point at all! Thanks David and phylo for your explanation of the technical points of the Hague Convention, I didn't know any of that, and found your postings quite informing! :D
Don't fear Troy I explain it to you. This discussion have led to very important theoretical questions. Let's forget for a moment about armed conflict between the Red army and British forces in the Russian North in 1919. There are fundamental questions that must be answered. I answer them myself and invite anybody to commet.

(1) What are subjects of international Law? Independent states, not governments.

(2) What are 'high contracting powers' in the Hague 1907 Covention? Independent states that signed and ratified the convention.

(3) Does the Hague 1907 convention require as a precondition a formal declaration of war (or ultimatum)? No. Absence of formal declaration of war is not a cause not to apply the Hague 1907 convention.

(4) Can foreign states be participants in a civil war? No.

(5) What is a government of a state? A body that has the power to make and the authority to enforce rules and laws. The organization that is the governing authority of a political unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=government

Now let's look at historical facts.

(H1) Did military invasion by British and British led forces take place in 1919 in Russian North? Yes.

(H2) What side had opened the hostilities? British side.

(H3) Had chemical weapons been used by the British during military engagements? Yes.

(H4) What body was de facto Russian government in 1919? It was Lenin's, Bolshevik governmet.

(H5) Taking into account that the British could regard the Red army as a militia, were requirements of the Hague 1907 convention to militias satisfied? Yes.

- The Red army units were commanded by persons responsible for their subordinates.
- There was a distinctive emblem (a red star, red stripe) recognizable at a distance.
- Red army soldiers carried arms openly.
- The Red army conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So the combination of theoretical (1-5) statements and historical facts (H1-H5) we can conclude that the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention in Russia using chemical weapons.
It is quit clear that you have comprehended little of what phylo_roadking has said to you.

Penn44

.
Dear Penn, if you disagree with any my statements (1)-(5) or/and (H1)-(H5) then let me know.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 04 Oct 2007 09:24

phylo_roadking wrote:David, you are quite correct; it's not your problem as a poster or mine that ALL of the above issues raised again by Sergey have already been dealt with. And he doesn't like the answers.

1/ The Hague Conventions do NOT apply to civil wars within the body of a High Contracting Power, but BETWEEN High Contracting Powers.
You are absolutely right. However, the UK (as an external force) was not a participant in Russian civil war. So British invasion in Russia should be regarded as a separate war.
phylo_roadking wrote:2/ It was NOT a "war" de jure and the Hague Convention is VERY specific about the wars it applies to.
Back you claim by a quote from the convention. A term 'war de jure' is not used in the text.
phylo_roadking wrote:3/ The Hague Conventions didn't protect anyone against gas warfare in wartime at that point in history - "wartime" as it applied to the Conventions - so it CERTAINLY didn't apply to a civil war.
Again, i don't mean any civil war. I mean British invasion in Russia that was not a civil war.
phylo_roadking wrote:4/ The Italian and German forces were NOT at war with the Spanish Republic, no war had been declared, they were assisting the Nationalist Government. For THIS reason AND the fact that it was a civil war the Conventions did not apply against them in Spain.
Italian and German troops invaded Spain, Spanish cities were bombed and destructed. Invadors waged military operations agains Spanis troops. and it is not a war from your point of view?
phylo_roadking wrote:5/ There is no question at all of a difference between the forces the British were facing - "regular" or "militia" - when as said NEITHER had the protectiojn of the Conventions as they didn't apply - non-starter.
So you simply repeat your opinion without any additional arguments.
phylo_roadking wrote:6/ The Hague Conventions don't apply to wars de facto. They only apply to a VERY specific set of wars between High Contracting Powers that are MADE de jure by carrying out the steps and circumstances set out in the Conventions themselves, and those have been quoted often enough here, they couldn't be clearer.
I don't see any limitations in the text of the convention. Place a quote to back your point.
phylo_roadking wrote:7/ I'm sorry, but the fact that YOU prefer the term "country" doesn't make it applicable in ANY way to the Hague Conventions. The reasons for this have been gone into MANY times, and you don't like the answer.
In another message on this thread I expressed my position very clearly:

States are subjects of internetional Law and High contracting powers in the Hague 1907 convention were namely states. Ask mr.Thompson and he no doubt would confirm that I'm right.
phylo_roadking wrote:8/ Neither "nation" or "country" depend on ANY of the factors you mention for their existence. Cities, armies and the ability to protect from invasion do NOT make a country or a nation. A "nation" is a political entity, a "country" is a geographic/political/racial entity. I could list right now dozens of nations and countries that couldn't withstand invasion - but it didn't make them NOT a nation or country!!! I know of several even MODERN nations that don't have regular armed forces!
I'm not a native English speaker. In Russian country and state are very close notions. So let's use only a term state further.

I repeat. There are states that are subjects of international law and there are governments. Government of a state is political body that controls the territory of the state, rule the state, issue laws and orders and inforce them.
phylo_roadking wrote:9/ Actually it WAS objected to that the VTslK was the de facto National government. The Kolchak regime was recognised as the NATIONAL Government by those nationas that just happened to ALSO be High Contracting Powers....
Government is not a High contracting party. I repeat, namely a state is a high contracting party. To determine what body is actually a national government we should look at such things as effective control over the territory of the state, ability to rule and so on. International recognition is irrelevant.
phylo_roadking wrote:10/ It meant that in relation to the USA, the Bolshevik regime could not in any way carry out any of its diplomatic/economic functions at government level. It did NOT mean that it was UNlawful....it meant that the USA didn't acknowledge it existed. Which is very different.
I'm happy that you understand my point. So the fact that British government didn't recognise Bolshevik government did not mean that it was UNlawful.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Oct 2007 10:41

Sergey -- Your claim at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 59#1122959 :
I mean British invasion in Russia that was not a civil war.
is inconsistent with your earlier claim at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1118650 :
I propose to collect some information (about British intervention in Russian North, about principles of international legislation)before continuation of our discussion.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... uchado.htm
As Pipes notes, "[T]he first Western involvement on Russian soil occured at the request of the Murmansk Soviet and with the approval of the Soviet government. In a speech which he delivered on May 14, 1918, Lenin explained that the British and French had landed 'to defend the Murmansk coast.'" (The Russian Revolution)
...
Allied forces first landed at Trotsky's invitation.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 14:02

"What are subjects of international law?"
NOWADAYS nations, at the beginning of the twentieth century this was NOT fixed, and was HEADS of States.
"Does the Hague Convention require as a precondition a formal declaration of war (or ultimatum)?"
Most definitely YES, that's exactly what it says.

***REMEMBER, in 1945, the Nazi leaders were charged with, among other things "making illegal war"!***
"Can foreign states be participants in a civil war?"
No. Can foreign states assist combatants in a civil war? Yes.
"Did military invasion by British and British led forces take place in 1919 in Russian North? Yes. What side had opened the hostilities? British side."


...except it was not a WAR between Powers, noone declared war as defined in the Hague Conventions, and it ANYWAY would have involved only involved ONE High Contracting Power, so wouldn't apply for the protection of the VTslk, its forces or its territory, as they were not signatories or High Contracting Powers.
"What body was de facto Russian government in 1919? It was Lenin's, Bolshevik governmet"
The Bolshevik VTslK was the de facto government of only a part of Russia, and was not recognised as the legitimate national government. And this is not relevant ANYWAY as Russia was no longer covered by the Hague Conventions...
"Taking into account that the British could regard the Red army as a militia, were requirements of the Hague 1907 convention to militias satisfied? Yes"
No, they weren't the franc-tireurs/guerillas/ armed citizenry of a High Contracting Power engaged in a war between High Contracting Powers.
"we can conclude that the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention in Russia using chemical weapons. "
No. The Hague Conventions did not any longer apply to Russia, and particularly not the VTslK...

*** A Recommendation , Sergey - careful how you comment on this last reply...***
"the UK (as an external force) was not a participant in Russian civil war. So British invasion in Russia should be regarded as a separate war"
The UK was assisting the legitimate government at THEIR request.
"...mean British invasion in Russia that was not a civil war"
Britain was in 1919 assisting the Kolchak regime in it's fighting of the Russian Civil War.
"Italian and German troops invaded Spain, Spanish cities were bombed and destructed. Invadors waged military operations agains Spanis troops. and it is not a war from your point of view?"
No, They were assisting the Nationalist Government. Do YOU regard the RUSSIAN participation in the Spanish Civil War in assisting the Republican government an invasion and Russia fighting a war against the Nationalist government of Spain? ;-)
"So the fact that British government didn't recognise Bolshevik government did not mean that it was UNlawful."
No, it meant it was not the legitimate government at all in the eyes of the international community.
There is no question at all of a difference between the forces the British were facing - "regular" or "militia" - when as said NEITHER had the protectiojn of the Conventions as they didn't apply - non-starter

So you simply repeat your opinion without any additional arguments"
Oh, I have an argument on my side okay, which I think It's time I ventured forth with...believe me, I didn't want the discussion to end this way, you were given EVERY chance to accept that no War Crime was commited as the Conventions did NOT apply...
"Government is not a High contracting party. I repeat, namely a state is a high contracting party."
And this is your final position on this? Think carefully....
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 04 Oct 2007 14:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 14:12

Sergey - just a little aside before you choose to reply to any of the above, though I will give you this opportunity now to admit that the British didn't commit a War Crime in breeching the Hague Conventions by using gas in 1919.....

There's a saying in the modern English languge, comes from a western. "You should never bring a knife to a gunfight".

My recommendation before you comment on any of the above is - if you intend raising very contentious threads for discussion such as this, you need to be MUCH more fully aware of your own country's history than you are now. Before I posted a single post on this thread, I was aware of something you either weren't, or have forgotten....or just don't want to bring into the discussion. I have TWICE asked you in this thread for one specific piece of information...and your refusal to do so is now about to turn around and bite you....and I have in the last two pages given you a clue as to what it is that you apparently don't know...

Now, if you don't accept that the VTslK wasn't covered at all by the Hague Convention for many different and explained-in-detail reasons, and that you believe that Britain DID commit a War Crime, feel free to comment on the above now.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 04 Oct 2007 15:28

David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- Your claim at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 59#1122959 :
I mean British invasion in Russia that was not a civil war.
is inconsistent with your earlier claim at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1118650 :
I propose to collect some information (about British intervention in Russian North, about principles of international legislation)before continuation of our discussion.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... uchado.htm
As Pipes notes, "[T]he first Western involvement on Russian soil occured at the request of the Murmansk Soviet and with the approval of the Soviet government. In a speech which he delivered on May 14, 1918, Lenin explained that the British and French had landed 'to defend the Murmansk coast.'" (The Russian Revolution)
...
Allied forces first landed at Trotsky's invitation.
Thank you mr.Thompson for your remark. Indeed British forces initially landed in Mumansk with permission and invitation of Bolshevik government in 1918.

However, very soon British guests opened hostilities against local Soviet authorities and the Red army thus transforming their status from welcomed guests to unwanted invadors. The hostilities were opened by British side.

As I have mentioned before on this thread

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=30

mr.Lenin made a governmental statement July 15, 1918 where he said

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archiv ... jul/15.htm
To this action we would have been obliged to respond as we have responded to the Czechoslovak mutiny and to the military operations of the British in the North, namely by expanded mobilisation, by the calling up of all adult workers and peasants for armed resistance, and for the destruction, in the event of a temporarily necessitated withdrawal, of absolutely every road and railway without exception, and also of stores, particularly food stores, so that they do not fall into the hands of the enemy. War would then be for us a fateful but absolute and unconditional necessity, and this would be a revolutionary war waged by the workers and peasants of Russia shoulder to shoulder with the Soviet government till the last breath.
So mr.Lenin declared armed resistance against the British, He called them enemies. He used a word war in this context.

Btw, the fact that the British initially accepted the invitation shows that Bolshevik government was regarded (at least in 1918) as a de facto Russian government by the UK.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 16:51

So mr.Lenin declared armed resistance against the British, He called them enemies. He used a word war in this context

....there's slight problem with this....

Let's have a quick summary of pertinent parts of Soviet international relations in the 20th century at this point...

The Bolsheviks believed that there should be NO international treaties between nations. These meant the new Bolshevik State would be adhering to all the old trappings of Colonialism and Imperialism. The ONLY agreements the State should make with its neighbours are those made on the basis of mutual assistence between class equals to futher the Revolution. Therefore, on the 8th of November Lenin did THREE things publically - 1/ he repudiated ALL Russia's international debts and loans, as these were Imperialist chains on the Russian people, 2/ he published and repudiated all the Tsar's secret treaties with the other Entente powers about the dismemberment of the Central Power's empires after victory, and the ceding of Bessarabia etc. to Russia from Britain - this was done to embarass the Entente Powers because they were publically condemning the Revolution - and 3/...he OFFICIALLY repudiated ALL international agreements and treaties made by the Tsar and his government. I shall repeat that for clarification - he repudiated ALL international agreements made by the Tsar and the Tsar's government...on that date.

No, Sergey - the Bolsheviks did NOT say in 1917 they would accept and abide by the Hague Conventions, they very deliberately withdrew from them on the 8th of November, exactly as they withdrew on ALL the OTHER "Tsarist treaties" they repudiated on that date! THAT is why you couldn't find the date I requested several times, the date in 1917 YOU said they agreed to abide by them! That date and event simply wasn't there for you to find.

Let's move forward, shall we? To 1941. July 17th, 1941 to be precise. What major event happened on that day? Well, no earth-shattering battle...but on that date Stalin offered directly to Hitler that BOTH nations should abide by the Hague Conventions - JUST like David said that TWO combatants, either ONE of which wasn't a signatory or High Contracting Power, need to do IF the Conventions don't apply because both nations are signatories. And what happened? Hitler told Stalin where to go :lol: Sergey, if you're not aware of that idiom - it means he told Stalin exactly where he could stick his "mutual agreement".Therefore there was NO agreement between the two, and the Hague Convention did NOT begin to apply to Russia then either.... Further to this - some time later the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross, were asked if Russia's offering to abide by the Hague Conventions gave her protection; the ICRC ruled - No. Why? BECAUSE it was offered DIRECT, and NOT via the Convention Monitors in Holland. You see - the Hague Conventions ARE more specific on all this than you think, and there WAS a monitoring body for signatures, agreements, declarations of war and conditional declarations; everything had to move around via them to meet the terms of the Conventions. IF Stalin had offered to Hitler to abide by the Conventions VIA Holland...then Russia WOULD have had the protection of the Convention! But Stalin didn't he tried to sort it directly, thus bypassing all the Convention's provisions - the idiot.

And THIS is why your "So mr.Lenin declared armed resistance against the British, He called them enemies. He used a word war in this context" has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE...because he DIDN'T issue this Conditional Declaration of war via Holland as the Convention specifically says...so exactly the same ICRC judgement applies; he just made a speech as far as the Convention monitors were concerned. IF Lenin had set this out VIA HOLLAND as the Conventions said to do - then it WOULD have been a proper Conditional Declaration and Russia WOULD have had the protection of the Conventions - but he didn't. Another idiotic move.

Sergey, did you not at any point wonder why there was so much fuss about Russian POWs in the Reich and German POWs in Russia during WWII? Russia REFUSED to accept the 1929 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, specifically because it meant letting the Red Cross inspect the Gulag camps. Instead, Stalin announced that Russia would abide by the POW regulations in the Hague Convention of 1899 ONLY - note that for clarification - ONLY those parts of the Conventions that applied to POWs, NOT the whole body of the Conventions!!!...and as because of this NO element of International Law applied to the situation between Germany and the USSR, the Germans acted on Customary Law, the next rung down, and treated their Russian POWs in the same way i.e. NO ICRC inspection, and forced labour....

So - on THREE separate and major occasions the Bolsheviks not JUST messed up on claiming the protection of the Hague Conventions by doing simple tasks IN THE PRESCRIBED WAY SET OUT IN THE CONVENTIONS (They did this TWICE, remember?), and in 1917 they had very specifically WITHDRAWN from it, along with all other international agreements from the Tsarist Era! First they pulled out of the Convention, and messed up their attempts to opt back in.

It's a bit conclusive, isn't it? They KNEW they didn't have its protection because they had repudiated it....so attempted to make individual recognition agreements, just like David said was necessary, remember?....except they messed THAT up too.

And finally, as if THAT isn't conclusive enough - remember the 7th of March 1955? And "what happened on that date?" Well, as I'm sure you know, the USSR refused to ratify the ENTIRE Geneva Agreement of 1949, because of all the provisions over the treatment of civilians, forced labour etc. and of course POWs, all the parts that ran counter to how they ran their own nation and the handling of POWs. However, finally on the 7th of March 1955 after a lot of international pressure was brought to bear....the USSR ratified NOT the FULL 1949 Geneva Convention but something else; they ratified something that would give them the protection of the internationally-recognised Laws of War that were buried in the Geneva Agreement....but without all the awkward stuff ;-).....

They at last ratified the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions! Thus formally acknowledging that no matter what else they had tried to claim over the years, they had NOT had its protection up until that date, the 7th of March NINETEEN FIFTY-FIVE.

Sergey, I'm afraid your argument - all eight pages aboove - was doomed from the start by the Bolsheviks themselves. They hung you out to dry. Don't start threads like this unless you know ALL the pertinent information. I did this stuff at uni 25 years ago - you need to go and complete your education on your own country's history before you accuse other countries of wrongdoing.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 04 Oct 2007 18:25, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Oct 2007 17:08

phylo -- Don't forget to add your source(s). Our readers appreciate it.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 17:14

Most certainly.

Soviet views on International Law and the repudiation of treaties -

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Y1ITo ... #PPA164,M1

Treatment of POWS and messing up agreeing on them -

http://books.google.com/books?id=aESBIp ... #PPA310,M1

And

http://books.google.com/books?id=aESBIp ... #PPA294,M1

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 17:18

From the very beginning, German policy on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) was determined by Nazi ideology. German political and military leaders regarded Soviet POWs not only as racially less valuable but as potential enemies, obstacles in the German conquest of 'living space." The Nazi regime claimed that it was under no obligation for the humane care of prisoners of war from the Red Army because the Soviet Union had not ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, nor had it specifically declared its commitment to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Rules of War
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?la ... d=10007183
The foundation of The Hague as an "international city of peace and justice" was laid in 1899, when the world's first Peace Conference took place in The Hague on Tobias Asser's initiative, followed by a second in 1907. A direct result of these meetings was the establishment of the world's first organisation for the settlement of international disputes: the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Shortly thereafter the Scottish-American millionaire Andrew Carnegie made the necessary funds available to build the Peace Palace (“Vredespaleis”) to house the PCA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague#History

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... rbitration

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Oct 2007 18:10

Thanks, phylo.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007 18:31

I'll be a little more specific; in 1949 the USSR signed....but did not ratify the Third geneva Convention. IOnstead they issued a list of bits of it they WOULDN'T abide by! :lol:
Reservation / Declaration text
Reservations made upon signature and maintained upon ratification:
General SLAVIN, Head of the Delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

(I) On signing the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics makes the following reservation:

Article 10: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not recognize the validity of requests by the Detaining Power to a neutral State or to a humanitarian organization, to undertake the functions performed by a Protecting Power, unless the consent of the Government of the country of which the protected persons are nationals has been obtained."

(2) On signing the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics makes the following reservation:

Article 10:" The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not recognize the validity of requests by the Detaining Power to a neutral State or to a humanitarian organization, to undertake the functions performed by a Protecting Power, unless the consent of the Government of the country of which the protected persons are nationals has been obtained."

(3) On signing the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics makes the following reservations:

Article 10:" The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not recognize the validity of requests by the Detaining Power to a neutral State or to a humanitarian organization, to undertake the functions performed by a Protecting Power, unless the consent of the Government of the country of which the prisoners of war are nationals has been obtained."

Article 12: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider as valid the freeing of a Detaining Power, which has transferred prisoners of war to another Power, from responsibility for the application of the Convention to such prisoners of war while the latter are in the custody of the Power accepting them."

Article 85: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the obligation, which follows from Article 85, to extend the application of the Convention to prisoners of war who have been convicted under the law of the Detaining Power, in accordance with the principles of the Nuremberg trial, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, it being understood that persons convicted of such crimes must be subject to the conditions obtaining in the country in question for those who undergo their punishment."

(4) On signing the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics feels called upon to make the following declaration:

"Although the present Convention does not cover the civilian population in territory not occupied by the enemy and does not, therefore, completely meet humanitarian requirements, the Soviet Delegation, recognizing that the said Convention makes satisfactory provision for the protection of the civilian population in occupied territory and in certain other cases, declares that it is authorized by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to sign the present Convention with the following reservations:

Article 11:" The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not recognize the validity of requests by the Detaining Power to a neutral State or to a humanitarian organization, to undertake the functions performed by a Protecting Power, unless the consent of the Government of the country of which the protected persons are nationals has been obtained."

Article 45: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not consider as valid the freeing of a Detaining Power, which has transferred protected persons to another Power, from responsibility for the application of the Convention to the persons transferred, while the latter are in the custody of the Power accepting them."
...so in May, 1954 they ratified this "stunted" version. To back this up, they ratified both the original Hague Conventions in 1955...in effect the SAME position as offered in WWII, because the Hague Conventions' provisions on POWS were much woollier and left out the access and inspection clauses. But it was still an admission that the Conventions HADN'T been in place before that.

http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/48D358 ... enDocument

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 05 Oct 2007 06:03

phylo_roadking wrote:...on the 8th of November Lenin did THREE things publically - 1/ he repudiated ALL Russia's international debts and loans, as these were Imperialist chains on the Russian people, 2/ he published and repudiated all the Tsar's secret treaties with the other Entente powers about the dismemberment of the Central Power's empires after victory, and the ceding of Bessarabia etc. to Russia from Britain - this was done to embarass the Entente Powers because they were publically condemning the Revolution
Dear Phylo_roadking, you are absolutely right here.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DRWP18.html
V. I. Lenin

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
OF THE WORKING AND EXPLOITED PEOPLE
...
the Constituent Assembly whole-heartedly endorses the policy pursued by Soviet power of denouncing the secret treaties
...
The Constituent Assembly regards the Soviet law on the cancellation of the loans contracted by the governments of the tsar
But the Hague 1907 Convention was not secret. And the cancellation of the loans is irrelevant in the context of our discussion. It is a financial matter.
phylo_roadking wrote:- and 3/...he OFFICIALLY repudiated ALL international agreements and treaties made by the Tsar and his government. I shall repeat that for clarification - he repudiated ALL international agreements made by the Tsar and the Tsar's government...on that date.
First time I hear that mr.Lenin (or Bolshevik government) officially reputated ALL international agreements and treaties made by the Tsar and his government.

Would you be so kind to present a quote from a primary source? I strongly doubt that you are able to do it.
phylo_roadking wrote:Let's move forward, shall we? To 1941. July 17th, 1941 to be precise.
It is irrelevant in the context of our discussion. British government unlikely had in 1919 a time-machine to look into the future. Anything that happened in 1929, 1941, 1955 can't be used by the British to justify the violation of the Hague 1907 Convention in 1919. So all your arguments that reffer to post 1919 events are invalid.

After the death of mr.Lenin in 1924, mr.Stalin came to power and dramatically changed Russian (Soviet) foreign policy. In respect for secret treaties for example (he signed them himself). It should be noted that mr.Lenin was highly intelligent and educated person. He graduated as a lawyer, knew several foreign languages. Also he knew Latin and ancient Greek languges and read Latin and Greek aouthors, philosophers in original. By contrast mr.Stalin was low educaded and spoke Russian with heavy accent.

I repeat that Stalins attitude to the Hague conventions is irrelevant, because in 1919 he didn't determine Russian foreign policy as Hitler didn't determine German foreign.policy in 1919.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 05 Oct 2007 12:22

LOL Sergey, be content in your ivory castle. The fact is the Bolsheviks repudiated ALL international agreements, and as for the proof...you haven't read through ANY of the links I posted then, did you? ;-) I can't quote...because I don't read Russian, but I suggest you study the work of Yevgeny Korovin; he wrote extensively rationalising the Party position and the cancellation of ALL treaties and agreements, and the part of International Law in the class struggle. But if you'd read the links then you'd know that, of course....then you wouldn't have made your comments...;-)

Stalin's attitude is NOT irrelevant, the offer to abide by the Conventions was EXACTLY what David told you about on at least two occasions - that parties to a war who were NOT signatories/contracting powers had to opt in by reaching an agreement and posting it with the Hague that they would abide by the provisions of the Convention. Germany was still a High Contracting Power - the USSR was not....or else Stalin's attempt in 1941 to reach an agreement would have been totally unnecessary.

ALL my post-1919 points are ENTIRELY valid - because they ALL reveal that the USSR did not any longer enjoy the protection of the Conventions as a High Contracting Power. Or else the necessity of reaching separate agreements was unnecessary (Finland as well in 1939!) and the USSR simply wouldn't have had to ratify them in 1955 if they had remained ratified in 1917!

Yes, Stalin made secret treaties; during the early part of his rule, Korovin's work was "revised". But then if you'd read my links you'd have KNOWN this and wouldn't have commented ;-) But yes you are QUITE correct - Stalin had to make NEW "secret treaties"....because none of the former ones stood any longer as of November 1917! :lol: Thank you for confirming that.

I'm afraid ALL Stalin's actions regarding the Hague Conventions, all his attempts to opt in by reaching agreements with other belligerents on a one-to-one basis indicate that the USSR was without the protection of the Hague Conventions; ALL the actions he took were what David indicated to you would be necessary - IF the USSR was to enjoy its protections during individual conflicts.

The role of 1955, 1941, 1939 etc. was to inadvertently shine a light backwards on the fact that in the intervening 38 years the USSR wasn't a signatory of or a High Contracting Power to the Hague Conventions. Or else ALL Stalin's various attempts to reach agreement would be enitely illogical.

(By the way - what do Lenin's and Stalin's personalities and intellectual abilities have to do with this?)

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”