Alleged usage of chemical weapons in Russia by the British

[phylo_roadking]

But, just for you...take a look at E.A. Korovin Mezhdunarodnoe pravo perekhodnogo vremeni, Moscow, 1923

[phylo_roadking]

Or Evgeny Pashukanis' International Law 1925

The bourgeois jurists are not entirely mistaken, however, in considering international law as a function of some ideal cultural community which mutually connects individual states. But they do not see, or do not want to see, that this community reflects (conditionally and relatively, of course) the common interests of the commanding and ruling classes of different states which have identical class structures. The spread and development of international law occurred on the basis of the spread and development of the capitalist mode of production. However, in the feudal period the knights of every European country had their codes of military honour and, accordingly, their class law, which they applied in wars with one another; but they did not apply them in inter-class wars, for example in the suppression of burghers and the peasantry. The victory of the bourgeoisie, in all the European countries, had to lead to the establishment of new rules and new institutions of international law which protected the general and basic interests of the bourgeoisie, i.e. bourgeois property. Here is the key to the modern law of war.

But best of all...

The open denial of international law is politically unprofitable for the bourgeoisie since it exposes them to the masses and thus hinders preparations for new wars. It is much more profitable for the imperialists to act in the guise of pacifism and as the champions of international law.

The norms of written international law, which are fixed in treaties and agreements, are of course distinguished by comparatively greater precision. But there are rather few such treaties which could establish general rules or, expressed in technical language, which could create objective international law. The most important of these are: the acts of the Congress of Vienna (1815); the Paris Declaration on the Law of Naval Warfare (1856); the Geneva Conventions (1856 and 1906); the General Acts of the Hague Peace Conference (1899 and 1907); the London Declaration on the Law of Naval Warfare (1909); the League of Nations Treaty (1919); and certain declarations of the Washington Conference (1921) etc. However, parts of these treaties were not concluded by all states – just by some of them – and therefore the norms created by these agreements may not, strictly speaking, assume the significance of norms of general international law. There are only particular international laws effective within the circle of states which signed them or which later adhered to them. There are, accordingly, few generally recognized written norms of international law.

See what I mean about the role of International Law in the class struggle? And how Bolshevik legal authorities of the period were looking at the Hague Convention? Does any of this read like good Bolsheviks were actually supposed to support the Hague Convention? LMAO

[Sergey]

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...

Dear Phylo_roadking, maybe Yevgeny Korovin (I hear about him first time) or anybody else made some suppositions, eleborated theories. And what?

You claimed that Bolshevik government repudiated ALL previous international agreements. The only way to prove it is to quote mr.Lenin or/and official statement made by Bolshevik government. If it exists then no doubt it would be translated in English and easily available.

So search please, the ball is on your side.

ALL my post-1919 points are ENTIRELY valid

You know my counter-argument.

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

I have made my comments to demonstrate the cause of different attitude of mssrs Lenin and Stalin to international Law.

[phylo_roadking]

And what? Read the links again, then - he and Pashukanis were Soviet lawyers who sought to rationalise the Bolshevik position on international law and treaties. I think David with his professional interest wouldn't regard them as "making suppositions"!

The only way to prove it is to quote mr.Lenin or/and official statement made by Bolshevik government

Unfortunately as YOU know the vast majority of this material is only available in Russian, and is not freely available in the West.

[Sergey]

And what? Read the links again, then - he and Pashukanis were Soviet lawyers who sought to rationalise the Bolshevik position on international law and treaties. I think David with his professional interest wouldn't regard them as "making suppositions"!

The only way to prove it is to quote mr.Lenin or/and official statement made by Bolshevik government

Unfortunately as YOU know the vast majority of this material is only available in Russian, and is not freely available in the West.

So it is only your allegation that Bolshevik government withdrew from all treaties signed by tsarist government. Do you agree that it is not proven well established fact?

[David Thompson]

Sergey -- You wrote:

So it is only your allegation that Bolshevik government withdrew from all treaties signed by tsarist government. Do you agree that it is not proven well established fact?

Some observations:

(1) There's not much point in the USSR ratifying the Hague IV convention in 1955 if it was effective and had bound the Soviet Union since 1918. See the ratifying dates for the RFSR (1955) and the Byelorussian SSR (1962) regarding the 1907 Hague IV convention at:

http://www.minbuza.nl/verdragen/en/sear ... ltaten.xml

(2) The fact is well-established, though the original denunciation of Czarist treaties may not be available on the internet. See, for example:

Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, Gerard Pieter van den Berg, William B. Simons, Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, p. 384
http://books.google.com/books?id=j7gBES ... VtiBbNKNS8

Lauri Hannikainen, Raija Hanski, Allan Rosas, Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland pp. 44-47 http://books.google.com/books?.....s#PPA45,M1

Michael A. Meyer, H. McCoubrey, Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: The Selected Works, pp. 257-260
http://books.google.com/books?.....#PPA260,M1

George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28
http://books.google.com/books?.....Q#PPA27,M1

Bernd Wegner, From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941. p. 294-297
http://books.google.com/books?.....mDLIVRcem8

[phylo_roadking]

Actually no I don't - given that he stood up in front of a LOT of people only a couple of weeks' after the revolution and said this;

"We shall not bind ourselves by treaties. We shall not allow ourselves to be entangled by treaties. We reject all clauses on plunder and violence..."

V.I.Lenin, Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of
Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, published in the newspaper Rabochy i SoldatNo. 9, October 26 (November 8), 1917

It's a well-established fact, I just don't have access to documentary proof. But I ALSO note that you, living in Msocw and more convenient to archives than myself couldn't prove days ago when I challenged your opinion that the VTtslK DID say they'd abide by the Hague Convention! I and others have only access to limted material via the Internet - YOU have much greater access than us and you couldn't provide that.....

I only have access to Lenin's written material, I of course have NO access to VTslk governmental archives on actions taken, meeting minutes etc. YOU in Moscow ideally should, so why couldn't you provide same?

Two days ago you were quite strident that modern International law on treaties meant that the Conventions remained ratified by the VTslk, then you were shown that this did in fact NOT work as you thought it did - and yet you seem to entirely miss the logic that Stalin having to ask several other nations to abide by it mutually, and THEN it being ratified only in 1955 means it wasn't in place at all between 1917 and 1955. Why? Do you think Stalin would intentionally waste his time making approaches like he did to Finland and Germany IF they still protected the USSR?

[Sergey]

Sergey -- You wrote:

So it is only your allegation that Bolshevik government withdrew from all treaties signed by tsarist government. Do you agree that it is not proven well established fact?

Some observations:

(1) There's not much point in the USSR ratifying the Hague IV convention in 1955 if it was effective and had bound the Soviet Union since 1918. See the ratifying dates for the RFSR (1955) and the Byelorussian SSR (1962) regarding the 1907 Hague IV convention at:

http://www.minbuza.nl/verdragen/en/sear ... ltaten.xml

Mr.Thompson, let's look at your source

Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land
...
Russian Federation:
Signature - 18-10-1907
Ratification - 27-11-1909
Entry into force - 26-01-1910

So in 1919 The Hague 1907 Covention was in force for Russia.

Later in 1955 Soviet government issued some reservations, clarifications, confirmations, remarks. But it happened later. Anyway it can not be used to justify any violations of the convention by foreign invadors in 1919.

Russian Federation: 07-03-1955
The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recognises the Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 as ratified by Russia, to the extent that the said Conventions and Declarations do not conflict with the Charter of the United Nations and provided that they have not been amended or superseded by subsequent international agreements to which the USSR is a party, such as the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Similar Gases and of Bacteriological Means and the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War.

So The Hague 1907 convention entried into force for Russia 26-01-1910 and remained in force. 08-03-1955 Soviet government issued some reservations and the convention remained in force with these reservations.

Mr.Thompson, if you think that Russia withdrew from the Convention (or lost its protection) then when it had happened exactly and why it happened?

(2) The fact is well-established, though the original denunciation of Czarist treaties may not be available on the internet.

See, for example:

Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, Gerard Pieter van den Berg, William B. Simons, Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, p. 384
http://books.google.com/books?id=j7gBES ... VtiBbNKNS8

Lauri Hannikainen, Raija Hanski, Allan Rosas, Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland pp. 44-47 http://books.google.com/books?.....s#PPA45,M1

Michael A. Meyer, H. McCoubrey, Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: The Selected Works, pp. 257-260
http://books.google.com/books?.....#PPA260,M1

George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28
http://books.google.com/books?.....Q#PPA27,M1

Bernd Wegner, From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941. p. 294-297
http://books.google.com/books?.....mDLIVRcem8

Do these authors mention a name (a title) and date of the primary source (a statement by Lenin or/and Bolshevik government)?

If yes, I would try to find the text in Russian.
If not I fear that the cost of such claims is no more than a half penny.

[David Thompson]

Sergey -- The problem with your argument is now apparent to all of our readers, if it wasn't apparent a few pages back. Your failure to acknowledge and deal with it will demolish your credibility here. Our readers can appreciate a credible argument, but not a hallucinogenic one.

[Penn44]

Other than Sergey, has another Russian complained of this alleged incident?

Penn44

.

[Sergey]

Sergey -- The problem with your argument is now apparent to all of our readers, if it wan't apparent a few pages back. Your failure to acknowledge and deal with it will demolish your credibility here. Our readers can appreciate a credible argument, but not a hallucinogenic one.

Mr.Thompson, I'm being told that there exists a mysterious document issued by Bolshevik government in period 1917-1919 where Bolshevik government declares that it withdraws from ALL international treaties signed by tsarist government. I don't see a title of the document, its date. As a 'proof' I'm proposed to accept an argument - read some books where you would find the proof.

I repeat, I strongly doubt that Bolshevik government in 1917, 1918 or 1919 made any statement about withdrawal from all previously signed treaties.

I have some question to you mr.thompson.

(1) Do you agree that the Hague 1907 convention was in force for Russian Empire until the abdication of the last Russian tsar in March 1917?

(2) Do you agree that the convention was in force until 7 November 1917 then Bolshevik government came to Power.

As I understand you believe that the convention was not in force for Russia in 1919. So

(3) When did it (the withdrawal from the convention) happen exactly and for what reason?

It would be very kind of you would not use arguments like

You will find the answer to the asked questions in these sources

http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/

[Sergey]

Other than Sergey, has another Russian complained of this alleged incident?

Penn44

.

First of all, dear Penn, I'm not complaining. This discussion involves my interesting historical facts, theoretical questions. I believe that it would be very helpful for readers.

[Penn44]

Other than Sergey, has another Russian complained of this alleged incident?

Penn44
.

First of all, dear Penn, I'm not complaining. This discussion involves my interesting historical facts, theoretical questions. I believe that it would be very helpful for readers.

Sergey, when you call me "dear" it arouses the strangest stirrings in me. I wish you would not tease me so.

Look up in your English dictionary the word, "complain" and you will see that my use of the word is not inappropriate.

Have any other Russians complained that this incident is a "war crime"?

Penn44

.

[Mr Holmes]

Sergey, when you call me "dear" it arouses the strangest stirrings in me. I wish you would not tease me so.

Penn44

.

Damnit, I just sprayed my keyboard with beer.

[David Thompson]

Sergey -- You are not coming to grips with this issue: Why would the USSR ratify the Hague IV convention in 1955 if the convention was effective and had bound the Soviet Union since 1918? See the ratifying dates for the RFSR (1955) and the Byelorussian SSR (1962)[/b][/i] regarding the 1907 Hague IV convention at:

http://www.minbuza.nl/verdrage.....ltaten.xml

You also wrote:

It would be very kind of you would not use arguments like

You will find the answer to the asked questions in these sources

http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/

You apparently aren't reading the posts very carefully. If you look at the references I gave you at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 01#1123801 , you will see that the sources are references by author, title and page number:

The fact is well-established, though the original denunciation of Czarist treaties may not be available on the internet.

See, for example:

Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, Gerard Pieter van den Berg, William B. Simons, Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, p. 384
http://books.google.com/books?.....VtiBbNKNS8

Lauri Hannikainen, Raija Hanski, Allan Rosas, Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland pp. 44-47
http://books.google.com/books?id=xUGYzy ... w#PPA45,M1

Michael A. Meyer, H. McCoubrey, Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: The Selected Works, pp. 257-260
http://books.google.com/books?id=ETjo7F ... k0ZNlATXL0

George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28
http://books.google.com/books?.....Q#PPA27,M1

Bernd Wegner, From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941. p. 294-297
http://books.google.com/books?.....mDLIVRcem8