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.
Locked
Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#16

Post by Sergey » 20 Sep 2007, 07:30

phylo_roadking wrote:One nation alone negotiating with a government does NOT make it the de facto national government to the rest of the world
Dear Phylo_roadkin. From my point of view there is a big difference between de facto and de jure

For example, once upon a time Oliver Cromwell became de facto a ruller of the Great Britain. It doesn't matter that no one country (France for example) recognised his status. He was namely de facto ruler. It mean that he and his government controlled armed forces, British territory including capital and big cities. That time de jure and de facto Ireland was independent country. But after Cromwell's invasion Ireland became de facto British colony. Later Irealand became de jure a part of the UK.

So, in 1917, Bolshevik government became de facto Russian government. No matter that it was not internationally recognised. De facto status doesn't require international recognition.

Bolshevik governmet established control over the capital - Petrograd, over Moscow and other big cities and huge populated territories. Bolshevik government has own armed forces and negotiated with strong military power (Germany). Of coure the only fact of the negotiations doen't prove that Bolshevik government was de facto Russian government. But a combination of all mentioned arguments shows that Bolshevik government was (I stress) de facto Russian government. Kochak government existed only few months. It controlled only some remote parts of Russia (mainly in Siberia). By all accounts it can't be regarded as de facto Russian government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Bruce_Lockhart
Lockhart was Acting British Consul-General in Moscow when the first Russian Revolution broke out in early 1917, but left shortly before the Bolshevik Revolution of October that year.

He soon returned to Russia at the behest of Prime Minister Lloyd George and Lord Milner as the United Kingdom's first envoy to the Bolsheviks (Russia) in January of 1918 in an attempt to counteract German influence.

Lockhart was asked in March 1918 to persuade the new Soviet government to allow a Japanese army onto Soviet territory to fight Germany on the Eastern Front. He was unsuccessful in this endeavour.

In 1918, Lockhart and fellow British agent, Sidney Reilly, were dramatically implicated in a plot to assassinate Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin. He was accused of plotting against the Bolshevik regime and, for a time during 1918, was confined in the Kremlin as a prisoner and condemned to death. However, his life was spared in an exchange of "secret agents" for the Russian diplomat Maksim Maksimovich Litvinov.
So British government sent its envoy in January of 1918 namely to Bolshevik government as de facto Russian government.
Last edited by Sergey on 20 Sep 2007, 07:59, edited 2 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#17

Post by David Thompson » 20 Sep 2007, 07:50

Sergey -- You wrote:
So, in 1917, Bolshevik government became de facto Russian government. No matter that it was not internationally recognised. De facto status doesn't require international recognition.
For purposes of this discussion, I think it would be more helpful to know when the Soviet government announced that it would adhere to the various treaties negotiated by the Czar and ratified by him or the Duma or both -- particularly the 1907 Hague IV Convention.


Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#18

Post by Sergey » 20 Sep 2007, 08:11

David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- You wrote:
So, in 1917, Bolshevik government became de facto Russian government. No matter that it was not internationally recognised. De facto status doesn't require international recognition.
For purposes of this discussion, I think it would be more helpful to know when the Soviet government announced that it would adhere to the various treaties negotiated by the Czar and ratified by him or the Duma or both -- particularly the 1907 Hague IV Convention.
I don't think that it is so mportant. For example, if Canada tomorrow would declare itself as Canadian republic then would it mean that all signed treaties must be confirmed by new republican Canadian government?

It is internal business of any country to change its government by elections, by referendums, by revolutions, by military coups. All international treaties are signed by governments. But high contracting parties are nations not governments. Russia as a nation existed for centuries. It continued exist by another name as the Soviet union.

So from my point of view all benefits and obligations of the Hague 1907 convention were valid toward Russia both - before and after the revolution.

Also the Hague 1907 convention doesn't require a confirmation from each new national government.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#19

Post by Sergey » 20 Sep 2007, 09:00

At last I have found something

http://www.argo.net.au/andre/NREFENFIN.htm
AUSTRALIANS IN THE RANKS OF THE BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN THE RUSSIAN NORTH
...
With the situation now well in hand on the railway, General Ironside turned his attention to the forces along the Dvina. The Bolsheviks in amount of 6,000 men set up defensive positions on the both sides of the river. the positions were well fortified, equipped with machine-gun block posts and barbed wire. The General Sadlier-Jackson's brigade - two battalions of Royal Fusiliers, two machine-gun companies, an company of engineers and a White army brigade were detached to advance. The artillery support was to be provided by 22 guns.

On the 10th of August after an artillery barrage, in which smoke shells and mustard gas shells were used, the Allies quickly captured villages of Chudinovka, Kochimaka and Sludka. An Australian, private Brooke distinguished himself in the battle and later was awarded with a DSM.


Image
The Bolshevik POWs captured in a battle for Emtsa
As you may see the soldiers wear uniforms.
The Allied expedition didn't help much the White cause. It only delayed the fall of Archangelsk for several months and didn't influenced significantly the course of the Civil War. Moreover, the association of the Whites with foreign invaders only helped the Bolsheviks in their patriotic propaganda. It cost Great Britain 15M pounds (prices of 1919), and brought about another black mark on the reputation of its initiator - an unsuccessful military strategist Winston Churchill.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Sep 2007, 13:55

I don't think that it is so mportant. For example, if Canada tomorrow would declare itself as Canadian republic then would it mean that all signed treaties must be confirmed by new republican Canadian government?
Yes. Actually it does. Thats exactly what happens. See for example the recent legal ramifications over the seizure of British sailers by the Iranian Republican Guard in the Shaat-al-arab. The majority of international agreements need to be specifically novated to any new government or wholly renegotiated. Mostly its a case of just a simple pro forma and five minutes' work y the Third UnderSecretary somewhere, but it still needs to be done.
Dear Phylo_roadkin. From my point of view there is a big difference between de facto and de jure
But not in the view of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and as confirmed in their subsequent usage.
So British government sent its envoy in January of 1918 namely to Bolshevik government as de facto Russian government
Bruce Lockhart was very specifically NOT a government-level negotiator, he was a representative of the War Ministry to provide cover for Reilly's funding of Boris Savinkov's planned rising and the rebellion of the latvian mercenary regiments. One of the major problems he encountered when attempting to deal with the Bolsheviks was that he HADN'T been provided any written confirmation of his "role" as a negotiator representing the British government! (Bruce Lockhart, "Memoirs Of A Secret Agent")
Also the Hague 1907 convention doesn't require a confirmation from each new national government
Except there wasn't a de jure government in St. Petersburg. As far as the rest of the International Community was concerned. As stated before, Germany and Britain were the first to recognise the new regime - but not until 1922 and 1924 respectively. International agreements do NOT work on the basis of de facto and wishful thinking does not make it so.

And of course the VTslK wasn't the successor government to the Dumas that had ratified the agreement in 1907, was it? ;-)
For example, once upon a time Oliver Cromwell became de facto a ruller of the Great Britain. It doesn't matter that no one country (France for example) recognised his status. He was namely de facto ruler. It mean that he and his government controlled armed forces, British territory including capital and big cities. That time de jure and de facto Ireland was independent country. But after Cromwell's invasion Ireland became de facto British colony. Later Irealand became de jure a part of the UK.
A good example to use - but ENTIRELY wrong

Cromwell was at various points in his political life both de facto AND de jure head of state.

"That time de jure and de facto Ireland was independent country" Entirely wrong. It was neither. The Irish Confederacy still held its allegience to Charles I and then Charles II, while Ireland was for a time self-governing by default, in that Parlimentarian England paid it no attention, but it was mostly definitely NOT in any way de jure independent. England did not regard it do in law, and the irish Parliament in Dublin did not pass any act to that effect.
Later Irealand became de jure a part of the UK.
No, it became fully a part of the UK in that the 1801 Act of Union dissolved its parliament. ireland had been de jure a part of the Kingdom of England for 700 years before that. The fact that various parts of the population at various times disagreed with that to a greater or lesser degree doesn't alter de jure.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#21

Post by Sergey » 20 Sep 2007, 18:20

phylo_roadking wrote:
Sergey wrote:Later Ireland became de jure a part of the UK.
No, it became fully a part of the UK in that the 1801 Act of Union dissolved its parliament. ireland had been de jure a part of the Kingdom of England for 700 years before that. The fact that various parts of the population at various times disagreed with that to a greater or lesser degree doesn't alter de jure.
...from point of view of English kings.

By the end of the 15th century, central English authority in Ireland had all but disappeared. England's attentions were diverted by its Wars of the Roses (civil war). The Lordship of Ireland lay in the hands of the powerful Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare.

So, Fitzgerald was de facto ruler of Ireland and also he regarded himself as a ruler de jure. And what was a position of international community? Does it matter from your point of view what the French or the Spaniards thought about this situation?

As for Cromwell then at first he was de facto a ruler of Great Britian. But who had decided was he a ruler de jure? International community or English parliament? In this matters an opinion of international community is irrelevant.

Now, please, try to understand my point. Bolshevik government was anyway a de facto Russian government. As for de jure status then it is an internal business of Russian people. International recognition is absolutely irrelevant.

The UK and Russia were high contracting parties in the Hague 1907 conventions. So all its subjects (no matter what government they have) enjoyed protection of the convention. The fact that British govenment didn't recognise Russian government in Moscow is absolutely irrelevant becaus the convention was an agreement between nations, countries, not between governments. Before the usage of poisonous weapons British govenment had to withdraw from the convention.

Also I repeat that international recognition of national government is not required by the Hague 1907 convention.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#22

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Sep 2007, 19:51

By the end of the 15th century, central English authority in Ireland had all but disappeared. England's attentions were diverted by its Wars of the Roses (civil war). The Lordship of Ireland lay in the hands of the powerful Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare.

So, Fitzgerald was de facto ruler of Ireland and also he regarded himself as a ruler de jure. And what was a position of international community? Does it matter from your point of view what the French or the Spaniards thought about this situation?
You're getting your historical timeline muddled in your argument; France and Spain had very little opinion on it before Henry VIII and the English Reformation LOL...but as far as France was concerned, Ireland was pat of the feudal holdings of the King of England. Kildare was a feudal baron, with palatinate authroity - which was often granted to Irish nobles of Anglo-Norman descent afrom the original Norman arrival in ireland up until the end of the Middle Ages, because trying to rule a part of the kingdom that was 700 medieval miles and a sea joureny - or TWO if the King was off fighting in France! - was impractical. Kildare's authority still devolved ultimately from the King of England. The Earl of Kildare was a ruler de jure but onlypro tem - he was given that authority from above.
Bolshevik government was anyway a de facto Russian government. As for de jure status then it is an internal business of Russian people. International recognition is absolutely irrelevant.
International recognition is entirely relevant for the status of any and all international agreements between Russia and any other. And in turn for the de jure status of any agreement or treaty with legal obligations upon Russia.
The UK and Russia were high contracting parties in the Hague 1907 conventions. So all its subjects (no matter what government they have) enjoyed protection of the convention. The fact that British govenment didn't recognise Russian government in Moscow is absolutely irrelevant becaus the convention was an agreement between nations, countries, not between governments.
Exactly. And Great Britain was NOT at war with anyone in 1919, so it was NOT bound by the Hague Convention. IF it had been at war as in decaklred between the two nations the Convention WOULD have applied - but they were NOT, nor has the VTslK declared war on Britain. The Convention was NOT biding on either party in realtion to each other. The fact that the Bolsheviks declared they would abide by it as David says is entirely their decision and ONLY affects how the Soviets should have behaved agaiunst the British in time of war. - that acceptance does NOT apply on britain if Britain did not accept the VTslK as the legal government - which in its recognition of the Kolchak regime it clearly did not.
Also I repeat that international recognition of national government is not required by the Hague 1907 convention
Wrong, in that it requires a national government to be recognised as such internationally to be entitled to the rights of protection etc. it provided to belligerent nations. The VTslK may have controlled major parts of the the former Empire of All the Russias but was NOT recognised internationally as the national government, and thus had not protection in the Hgaue Convention. The Bolsheviks were being overly-generous in saying that they would abide by it and other agreements....because noone else was obliged to give them the protection of it until they were recognised as the national government! :lol:

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#23

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Sep 2007, 19:57

Like it or not - there was no war between Great Britain and the Russia controlled by the VTslK; the British recognised the Kolchak regime as the national govenrment of Russia, followed by no recognition at all until 1924. So my four points above still hold - this was NOT a War Crime, "Soviet Russia" was not accorded the status of a national government and thus a nation....so EVEN if there had been a declared war it could not have claimed the protection of the Hague convention as a belligerent nation.

The fact that the VTslK said it would abide by the Convention was very generous, but an ultimately pointless gesture; for it could THEN be argued that THAT left open the VTslK to the punitive parts of the Convention if IT had broken any of them.....but it would still have not applied to the ALLIES! Noone said these guys were smart in agreeing to honour it...

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#24

Post by Sergey » 21 Sep 2007, 06:49

Phylo_roadkin, as I see we have agree to disagree. So maybe our friends would be so kind to comment. It would be great to hear an opinion of mr.Thompson.
phylo_roadking wrote:Like it or not - there was no war between Great Britain and the Russia controlled by the VTslK
I agree with you. There was no officially declared state of war between the UK and Russia. However, there was a belligerence, there were acts of war, there was the invasion. So British and Bolshevik forces were belligerents in that conflict. And note that the Hague 1907 convention refers namely to belligerence, not only to officially decalred wars.

So, absence of officially declared state of war is irrelevant.
phylo_roadking wrote:... the British recognised the Kolchak regime as the national govenrment of Russia
It is also irrelevant. The British could recognise even the Martians as lawfull Russian government. In the case of invasion any Russian forces - regular, irregular, governmental, not governmental, rebels, resistance forces that wear uniforms and/or bear arms openly are belligerents.
phylo_roadking wrote:... followed by no recognition at all until 1924. So my four points...
Please formulate your 4 points clearly, in abstract manner without any connection to discussed case. Do you really think that

1. Laws and customs of War are being applicable only in the case then a formal state of war is declared?
2. If in a given country there is no any government (or internationally recognised government) then can other countries violate Laws and Customs of War invading such a country?
3. Do you really think that a country that hasn't government is not a nation?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#25

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Sep 2007, 18:36

I agree with you. There was no officially declared state of war between the UK and Russia. However, there was a belligerence, there were acts of war, there was the invasion. So British and Bolshevik forces were belligerents in that conflict. And note that the Hague 1907 convention refers namely to belligerence, not only to officially decalred wars.

So, absence of officially declared state of war is irrelevant.
Wrong. it means the 1907 Hague Conventions did specifically NOT apply.
It is also irrelevant. The British could recognise even the Martians as lawfull Russian government. In the case of invasion any Russian forces - regular, irregular, governmental, not governmental, rebels, resistance forces that wear uniforms and/or bear arms openly are belligerents.
Not irrelevant. it means they were assiting the lawfully- and internationally-recognised government against internal rebels, and the Bolsheviks were NOT a "belligerent nation" as per the Hague Convention.
1. Laws and customs of War are being applicable only in the case then a formal state of war is declared?
David will confirm this, becasue it arose in a discussionrecently on war crimes in Norway in 1940. The Hague Convention and the "Laws of War" contained therein DO only apply to time of war. Its a VERY simple clear-cut case. That's why we have little phrses such as "Civil Emergency" or "Police Actions" to cover NON-wars. And CIVIL law applies at THOSE times, not the Laws of War.....
2. If in a given country there is no any government (or internationally recognised government) then can other countries violate Laws and Customs of War invading such a country?
Actually, by the terms of the Hague Convention - yes. It is ONLY about the conduct of wars between nations.
3. Do you really think that a country that hasn't government is not a nation?
No - what I'm saying is...it isn't covered or protected by the Hague Convention. The Hague Convetion proved to be SO limited in its application, that WHY we have the all-embracing and DETAILED Genvea Convetion of 1949.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#26

Post by Sergey » 24 Sep 2007, 21:41

phylo_roadking wrote:
I agree with you. There was no officially declared state of war between the UK and Russia. However, there was a belligerence, there were acts of war, there was the invasion. So British and Bolshevik forces were belligerents in that conflict. And note that the Hague 1907 convention refers namely to belligerence, not only to officially decalred wars.

So, absence of officially declared state of war is irrelevant.
Wrong. it means the 1907 Hague Conventions did specifically NOT apply.
It is also irrelevant. The British could recognise even the Martians as lawfull Russian government. In the case of invasion any Russian forces - regular, irregular, governmental, not governmental, rebels, resistance forces that wear uniforms and/or bear arms openly are belligerents.
Not irrelevant. it means they were assiting the lawfully- and internationally-recognised government against internal rebels, and the Bolsheviks were NOT a "belligerent nation" as per the Hague Convention.
1. Laws and customs of War are being applicable only in the case then a formal state of war is declared?
David will confirm this, becasue it arose in a discussionrecently on war crimes in Norway in 1940. The Hague Convention and the "Laws of War" contained therein DO only apply to time of war. Its a VERY simple clear-cut case. That's why we have little phrses such as "Civil Emergency" or "Police Actions" to cover NON-wars. And CIVIL law applies at THOSE times, not the Laws of War.....
2. If in a given country there is no any government (or internationally recognised government) then can other countries violate Laws and Customs of War invading such a country?
Actually, by the terms of the Hague Convention - yes. It is ONLY about the conduct of wars between nations.
3. Do you really think that a country that hasn't government is not a nation?
No - what I'm saying is...it isn't covered or protected by the Hague Convention. The Hague Convetion proved to be SO limited in its application, that WHY we have the all-embracing and DETAILED Genvea Convetion of 1949.
As I understand you asked our dear mr.Thopmson to confirm your statements. OK, let's wait. However mr.Thompson is a very busy person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in an aggressive or hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.
...
An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.
...
Belligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. A state of belligerency may also exist between one or more sovereign states on one side, and insurgent forces on the other side, if such insurgent forces are treated as if they are a sovereign power.
...
In the modern context, a number of regulations relating to belligerency were annexed to the Hague Convention of 29th July 1899, pertaining to the laws and customs of war. The Convention contained a specific section named Belligerents which was divided into three chapters, dealing respectively with the following:

The Qualifications of Belligerents...
Let's look at this definition

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm
Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Article 2
The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 3
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Bolshevik forces have own chain of command. Bolshevik commanders were responsible for their subordinates;

Bolshevik forces wore uniforms, used a fixed distinctive emblem (the red star).

Bolshevik troops carried arms openly.

There were no reports that Bolshevik troops violated laws and customs of war.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#27

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Sep 2007, 23:00

Interesting definition....

But why are you quoting from the earlier Convention of 1899? ;-) We're dealing with the 1907 Convention......

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#28

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Sep 2007, 23:03

You know, this Convention....
Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

Article 2
The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.
:-) Did this happen? I don't believe so - as I've said now several times. So this was NOT a "War Crime" as there was NO WAR.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#29

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Sep 2007, 23:12

By the way, just for clarification, seeing as I wouldn't want to leave any loose ends....

Robert Bruce Lockhart was sent to St Petersburg as part of a "Foreign Office Mission", a very specific term in diplomacy; it refers to a person or persons empowered to negotiate but specifically NOT recognise the legitimacy of any authority or organisation he/they would be negotiating with. At the time he was sent he was fully employed by the British SIS, later - as a result of his case and other incidents - taken control of by the Foriegn Office....as the Ministry of War wasn't doing anything with them LOL

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#30

Post by David Thompson » 24 Sep 2007, 23:29

My personal opinion is that the various agreements prohibiting chemical warfare did not apply to the civil war in Russia for the following reasons, stated in previous posts in this thread:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 15#1115415 (not a war between contracting powers, but a civil war between several factions claiming to represent the former Russian empire)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 73#1115573 (nonsignatory participants were involved in the civil war, even assuming that it was a war between contracting powers); and
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1115650 (no evidence of an independent collateral agreement between the combatant forces to respect the prohibitions).

The very unsatisfactory language of the Hague Conventions, with their multiple avoidance clauses, has of course since been replaced by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and more modern treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”