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
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#196

Post by Penn44 » 09 Oct 2007, 20:22

We are on page 13 now of a fruitless discussion that should have died at page 1 or 2. Serge, there is a difference between an international treaty recognized war crime and an act of war that you may consider unappealing. The incident you cite is not a technical violation of war as evidenced repeatedly by phylo_roadking and David Thompson. You cannot retroactively apply your 21st century moral and legal sensibilities to an act that occurred some eighty-eight years ago.

Penn44

.

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

#197

Post by Sergey » 14 Oct 2007, 14:26

David Thompson wrote:
(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?

Yes, for conflicts that satified the clausula si omnes provision requiring that all belligerents have ratified the 1907 Hague IV convention.
(2) Do you agree that the convention was in force until 7 November 1917 then Bolshevik government came to Power.

No.
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?
When the Czarist regime was replaced by a new state.
Dear mr.Thompson, let's involve additional historical facts into our considerations.

In March 1917 after the abdication of the last Russian tsar the Provisional government was established. Almost immediately it was recognised by the UK and other allies. Foreign minister in the Provisional government (mr.Milyukov) had made this statement (in March 1917)

https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=6529894

p.247
"In the domain of foreign policy, the Cabinet, in which I am charged with the portfolio of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will remain mindful of the international engagements entered into by the fallen régime, and will honor Russia's word. We shall carefully cultivate relations which unite us with other friendly and allied nations, and we are confident that these relations will become even more intimate, more solid, under the new régime established in Russia, which is resolved to be guided by the democratic principles of respect due to both small and great nations, to the freedom of their
development, and to good understanding among nations.
So, after this statement the Hague 1907 convention signed by Russian imperial government remained in force also for newly created Russian republic. And thus the convention was in force for Russia in 1919.

Using poisonous gases the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention that constituted a war crime.


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

#198

Post by phylo_roadking » 14 Oct 2007, 14:43

Sergey, both your statements in your post above have been shown exhaustively and in detail to be erroneous. The fact that YOU don't like this doesn't make that any less of a fact.

Britain recognised the Provisional government but NOT the Bolshevik government and you are fully aware that this is a recorded historical fact, you are FULLY aware of the position the Bolshevik government took on these agreements and rejected them, you're fully aware that for a LARGE number of reasons the British actions were not a war crime, you're fully aware that on MANY occasions the Bolsheviks/Soviets later acknowledged that they didn't apply by trying to opt back IN to their protection.

Your continuing to push this fallacious point of view says more about you and your opinions than it does about the real events - which remain unchanged by your opinion posts.

But feel free of course to maintain your position in the face of EVERY fact produced in 14 pages. I cannot fault anyone who wants to reduce their own credibility and who plain wishes to look silly. Its very refreshing for me to both win an argument AND for the other person to constructively lose it, its saves SO much of my time and energy when you continue to assist me so well.

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

#199

Post by Sergey » 14 Oct 2007, 16:11

phylo_roadking wrote:Sergey, both your statements in your post above have been shown exhaustively and in detail to be erroneous. The fact that YOU don't like this doesn't make that any less of a fact.

Britain recognised the Provisional government...
...and thus recognised Russian republic. After the statement made by new republican foreign minister there were no objections to regard the Hague 1907 convention as being in force for Russian republic. Yes, later there were other Russian republican governments. But do you suggest that each new government (in any country) must make special statement to affirm its international obligations?

Our dear moderator mr.Thompson thinks that the Hague 1907 convention was in force for Russia only until the abdication of the last Russian tsar. Also he thinks that in 1919 the convention was not in force for Russia.

So I repeat my question. When and why exactly Russia has lost the protection provided by the Hague 1907 convention?

Anyway, as I have shown the convention remained in force for Russian republic even after the change of regime (after the abdication).

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

#200

Post by phylo_roadking » 14 Oct 2007, 16:52

It lost the protection of course when the international community did NOT recognise the Bolsheviks as the legitimate government of Russia, and the Bolsheviks repudiated international agreements and treaties. This has been discussed. And the Bolsheviks confirmed that it WASN'T in place by trying to get it BACK in 1939 and 1941. History and events have done a far better job of proving you wrong than David or I could.

As for
Anyway, as I have shown the convention remained in force for Russian republic even after the change of regime
So? The Bolsheviks repudiated them in November 1917. And November 1917 is a long time in historical terms before 1919.

But even THEN - as David showed they didn't apply in a civil war anyway, even if they HAD been in place!

Sergey, the history of this thread shows that for every point you raise, there have been not just one - but two, three....sometimes four or five reasons why your point is incorrect or doesn't apply. Have you nothing new only stuff thats been proved wrong before?

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

#201

Post by David Thompson » 15 Oct 2007, 07:41

Sergey -- You wrote:
In March 1917 after the abdication of the last Russian tsar the Provisional government was established. Almost immediately it was recognised by the UK and other allies. Foreign minister in the Provisional government (mr.Milyukov) had made this statement (in March 1917)

https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=6529894

p.247
"In the domain of foreign policy, the Cabinet, in which I am charged with the portfolio of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will remain mindful of the international engagements entered into by the fallen régime, and will honor Russia's word. We shall carefully cultivate relations which unite us with other friendly and allied nations, and we are confident that these relations will become even more intimate, more solid, under the new régime established in Russia, which is resolved to be guided by the democratic principles of respect due to both small and great nations, to the freedom of their
development, and to good understanding among nations.
So, after this statement the Hague 1907 convention signed by Russian imperial government remained in force also for newly created Russian republic. And thus the convention was in force for Russia in 1919.

Using poisonous gases the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention that constituted a war crime.
(1) The provisional government of Russia was overthrown by a revolution. The bolshevik regime wasn't the successor sovereign to the provisional government. It was a new state, and held itself out as such.

(2) The new bolshevik state announced in 1917 (through Lenin, cited above) that it would not be bound by existing treaties entered into by the Czarist or the the provisional regime, and instead would pick and choose which clauses of the Czarist and provisional treaties treaties it would affirm. The RFSR did not affirm the 1907 Hague IV convention until 1955, and when it did so, it had reservations.

(3) By its terms, the 1907 Hague IV convention did not apply to the Russian civil war, because:

(a) It was not a declared war between contracting belligerents; and

(b) not all of the belligerents were states which had signed and ratified that convention, as required by the clausula si omnes (all belligerents must be contracting powers) provision of that convention.

(4) Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the new bolshevik state was the successor sovereign to the provisional government, and that it was somehow bound by the provisional government's affirmation of the 1907 Hague IV convention, the provisional government itself had used poison gas beginning in 1917. Consequently, if the bolshevik government had stepped into the shoes of the provisional government, it was in no position to claim that the use of poison gas by someone else was a war crime.

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

#202

Post by Sergey » 15 Oct 2007, 10:04

David Thompson wrote:(1) The provisional government of Russia was overthrown by a revolution. The bolshevik regime wasn't the successor sovereign to the provisional government. It was a new state, and held itself out as such.
Events that happened in November 1917 were later called as a "revolution". Really one revolutianary rebublican government was substituted by another revolutionary republican government.

Look, only 6 were killed during 7-8 November events. The provisional government was headed by Alexandr Kerensky (party of Socialists Revolutioners). New (also revolutionary) republican government was headed by Vladimir Lenin (Social Democratic Workers party) and included representatives of Socialists Revolutioners party. The Provisional government was approved by Petrograd Soviet and Lenin's government received the same approval.

Hardly it looks as creation of a new state. In March 1917 indeed style of rule changed dramatically from monarchy to republic.

But in November 1917 one republican revolutionary government was replaced by another revolutionary republican government. I don't think that with each new government we can speak about creation of a new state.

For example, the UK has new government with mr.Brown as a prime minister. Does it mean that new government must make a special statement, that it respect all previously signed international treaties? No, of course.
David Thompson wrote:(2) The new bolshevik state announced in 1917 (through Lenin, cited above) that it would not be bound by existing treaties entered into by the Czarist or the the provisional regime, and instead would pick and choose which clauses of the Czarist and provisional treaties treaties it would affirm. The RFSR did not affirm the 1907 Hague IV convention until 1955, and qwhen it did so, it had reservations.
As our friend Samuel has mentioned the Hague 1907 covention includes special procedure to quit from it. Without it the Hague 1907 convention remained in force.
David Thompson wrote:(3) By its terms, the 1907 Hague IV convention did not apply to the Russian civil war, because:
Of course you are right. But the conflict between the Red army and British and British led troops was not a civil war. It was an international conflict, because the UK (by definition) can't be even in theory a side in Russian civil war. I repeat, I mean not the civil war but a separate war between the UK and Russia.
David Thompson wrote:(a) It was not a declared war between contracting belligerents; and
Formal declaration of a war is not a condition of the convention. Any war begins with opening of hostilities and just after the first shot the convention can be applied to belligerents.
David Thompson wrote:(b) not all of the belligerents were states which had signed and ratified that convention, as required by the clausula si omnes (all belligerents must be contracting powers) provision of that convention.
Previously you mentioned Czechoslovak corps. I repeat my argument. The corps was not send by Czechoslovak government, was not authorised by it, but was formed inside Russia (and included also Russian subjects) as a volunteer corps. For example there is a foreign legion in France that includes German, British, Russian citizens. In the case of a war Germany, the UK, Russia would not bear any responsibility for actions of private persons (even their citizens). Also you mentioned Italy. The Italians hardly ever made even one shot. There were no hostilities. Rather they were on peace-keeping mission. They (and also the Greek forces) were sent to Ukraine that was declared independent state that time. Anyway, there were no hostilities, military confrontations with Russian forces that time.
David Thompson wrote:(4) Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the new bolshevik state was the successor sovereign to the provisional government, and that it was somehow bound by the provisional government's affirmation of the 1907 Hague IV convention, the provisional government itself had used poison gas beginning in 1917.
It used it against the Germans I suppose. So it was used in WW1 and thus (as not all participants in WW1 were high contracting powers in the Hague 1907 convention) it was not a violation of the convention.
David Thompson wrote:Consequently, if the bolshevik government had stepped into the shoes of the provisional government, it was in no position to claim that the use of poison gas by someone else was a war crime.
Not at all. The war between Russia and the UK in the Russian North was not a part of WW1. So in its military actions British forces had to follow all regulation contained in the Hague 1907 convention.

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

#203

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2007, 13:32

Events that happened in November 1917 were later called as a "revolution". Really one revolutianary rebublican government was substituted by another revolutionary republican government.

Look, only 6 were killed during 7-8 November events. The provisional government was headed by Alexandr Kerensky (party of Socialists Revolutioners). New (also revolutionary) republican government was headed by Vladimir Lenin (Social Democratic Workers party) and included representatives of Socialists Revolutioners party. The Provisional government was approved by Petrograd Soviet and Lenin's government received the same approval.

Hardly it looks as creation of a new state. In March 1917 indeed style of rule changed dramatically from monarchy to republic.

But in November 1917 one republican revolutionary government was replaced by another revolutionary republican government. I don't think that with each new government we can speak about creation of a new state.

For example, the UK has new government with mr.Brown as a prime minister. Does it mean that new government must make a special statement, that it respect all previously signed international treaties? No, of course.
What has the number of killed in the Revolution got to do with this???

The new regime repudiated "All Tsarist Treaties, especiacally those on plunder and violence" - covers the Hague Rules of War 100%, that definition!

The international community did NOT recognise the new regime as the government of Russia, therefore didn't recognise it as a High Contracting Power. The High Contracting Power was the Tsar and his government, unless a successor specifically said they would abide by Hague...

After all, it was YOU that confirmed THIS process existed when you told us that the PROVISIONAL Government made that statement!!! THAT was them working the Hague process, and making their statement of abiding!!! The Bolsheviks did NOT, and repudiated them as well.

As I said, you can argue with me and David over this, but there's NO arguing with the historical facts

The change was from an internationally-recognised government that DID publically state it would abide by treaties, to an UNrecognised government that DID not state so and stated the exact opposite..

The British Government would not have to state so TODAY, but before that Treaty on International Law i.e. in 1919 - they most definitely WOULD have had to!
Formal declaration of a war is not a condition of the convention. Any war begins with opening of hostilities and just after the first shot the convention can be applied to belligerents.
Entirely wrong. The Conventions' own wording couldn't be more clear on this.
Not at all. The war between Russia and the UK in the Russian North was not a part of WW1
Exactly. It was NOT part of the earlier conflict that was fought under the auspices of the Conventions, it was part of the Russian Civil War which was NOT.

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

#204

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2007, 15:21

You're STILL not producing any actual original evidence that it A/ happened, and B/was a War Crime. All your opinions on the latter have been refuted.

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

#205

Post by Sergey » 15 Oct 2007, 15:47

phylo_roadking wrote:You're STILL not producing any actual original evidence that it A/ happened, and B/was a War Crime. All your opinions on the latter have been refuted.
Dear Phylo_roadking. I would like to repeat my main points.

1. Two countries (Russian and the UK) signed and ratified the Hague 1907 convention.
2. The convention was in force for both countries in 1917, 1918 and 1919.
3. In violation of the Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities the UK began military operations without ultimatum or formal declaration of a war.
4. In violation of the Hague 1907 convention British forces used shells with mustard gases.

1. I hope you agree with p.1

2. I know that you disagree with p.2. But here we deal with very interesting theoretical question. How is it possible to determine that this or that international treaty is or is not in force for a given country? Propose your universal rule (without any mention of Russia) and let's try to apply it to the discussed situation. I repeat, I expect that you propose a rule.

3. It is a well known fact that British forces invaded Russia, that hostilities were opened without any ultimatum or formal declaration of war.

4. I hope you agree that the British indeed used poisonous gases during the war in the Russian North.

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

#206

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2007, 16:35

1. Two countries (Russian and the UK) signed and ratified the Hague 1907 convention.
Correct.
2. The convention was in force for both countries in 1917, 1918 and 1919.
Incorrect.
The Hague Convention only applied in time of war between High Contracting Powers.
Great Britain was NOT at war with Kolchak's legitimate Russian government.
The Bolsheviks had repudiated the Hague and Geneva Conventions and a whole raft of other treaties in 1917.
3. In violation of the Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities the UK began military operations without ultimatum or formal declaration of a war.


It wasn't a war between High Contracting Powers and thus didn't need a Declaration registered with the Dutch Government, Britain was assisting the legitimate government in an on-going internal civil war.
4. In violation of the Hague 1907 convention British forces used shells with mustard gases.
Incorrect.
It couldn't be in violation of a set of rules that didn't apply.

2. I know that you disagree with p.2. But here we deal with very interesting theoretical question. How is it possible to determine that this or that international treaty is or is not in force for a given country? Propose your universal rule (without any mention of Russia) and let's try to apply it to the discussed situation. I repeat, I expect that you propose a rule.
Sergey - you demonstrate a refusal to understand what you've been told. And I use the word "refusal" because it has been set down in simple terms AND in full detail so it has to be intentional, which is disappointing. There was NO "universal rule" UNTIL the 1949 Geneva Convention and the later Treaty on International Law.

***AFTER 1949 there was the universal rule of the Geneva Convention of that year, later backed up by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. BEFORE that there was none.***

Do not be so stupid as to try to force the discussion into a totally unrealistic path. This is NOT a "What-if" thread.

You have lost the argument many times over. Continue if you like, but I wish you realised how many people are laughing at your position.

But I WILL assist your study of history and comment on ONE thing you said...
How is it possible to determine that this or that international treaty is or is not in force for a given country?
The answer is very simple; actually READ and UNDERSTAND what the treaties SAY, understand what they did and did NOT apply to, and read and UNDERSTAND your own country's history - AND the history of the countries it interfaced with. You've shown a lamentable lack of understanding so far - that things/people/events change and evolve, that people, governments and even whole nations actually DO stupid things like repudiate treaties IF they think they're right in doing so.

The Bolshevik and Soviet regimes made some very big mistakes - don't worry, ALL governments and regimes do that from time to time. The problem is - the Bolsheviks' mistake in 1917 is glaringly obvious...if only in that they tried to UNdo it in 1939, 1941 etc.,

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

#207

Post by Sergey » 15 Oct 2007, 17:43

Phylo_roadking, as I see you agree that the Hague 1907 convention was in force for Russian republic at least until 7 November 1917.

Well 7 November 1917 new Russian republican government emerged. Does it mean that Russian republic automatically lost the protection provided by the Hague 1907 convention? No of course. There is no even one word about it in the convention. There is no requirement in the text that each new government must made special declaration - to adhere to the convention.

New state was not created. Russia remined Rassia, Russian republic remained Russian republic.

In 1922 indeed a new state was created - the Soviet union. It was a new state and it would be logical to expect some official declarations from leaders of the new state. But until 1922 the Hague 1907 convention was in force for Russian republic.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 8383609EDE
A curious coincidence comes to light in connection with the arrival of the British at Baku. The garrison of the place consisted largely of Bolsheviki, who, with Armenians, were opposing the Turks. Thus the British, while fighting the Bolsheviki in the north, are cooperating with them in the south.
...
Published 17 August 1918
So the British by the fact of military cooperation with Bolsheviki recognised their power and in fact control over bigger part of Russia.

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

#208

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2007, 18:55

Well 7 November 1917 new Russian republican government emerged. Does it mean that Russian republic automatically lost the protection provided by the Hague 1907 convention? No of course.
Except for one tiny little problem - the repudiation of International treaties by the Bolshevik regime. And the other little problem that the "new government" that emerged in Moscow and St Petersburg in November 1917 was NOT regarded as the Russian government by other High Contracting Powers.

As thoroughly discussed.
There is no even one word about it in the convention. There is no requirement in the text that each new government must made special declaration - to adhere to the convention.
Of course there are words about it. Its quite clear in the Convention the tasks a nation has to carry out to signal it would abide by the Conventions. From new. Which was the position the Bolshevik government was in in 1917 after repudiating foreign treaties.

As thoroughly discussed.
New state was not created. Russia remined Rassia, Russian republic remained Russian republic.


The Provisional government voted itself out of existance. A group of revolutionaries controlling a small percentage of the country replaced it in certain areas. The legitimate succcessor to the Provisional Government was Kolchak's regime.

As thoroughly discussed.

In 1922 indeed a new state was created - the Soviet union. It was a new state and it would be logical to expect some official declarations from leaders of the new state.


Why would people expect that? ESPECIALLY Russians - given the view of Soviet lawyers and jurists on the position of International Law in the class struggle.
A curious coincidence comes to light in connection with the arrival of the British at Baku. The garrison of the place consisted largely of Bolsheviki, who, with Armenians, were opposing the Turks. Thus the British, while fighting the Bolsheviki in the north, are cooperating with them in the south.
...
Published 17 August 1918


So the British by the fact of military cooperation with Bolsheviki recognised their power and in fact control over bigger part of Russia.
??? Er...no. That's not how it works. The ONLY thing it shows is that local circumstances in Baku required cooperation with the Bolsheviks.

And, of course, it DOES reveal ONE other thing....can you work out what is was???

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

#209

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2007, 20:24

Still thinking?

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

#210

Post by Sergey » 15 Oct 2007, 21:09

phylo_roadking wrote:
Well 7 November 1917 new Russian republican government emerged. Does it mean that Russian republic automatically lost the protection provided by the Hague 1907 convention? No of course.
Except for one tiny little problem - the repudiation of International treaties by the Bolshevik regime. And the other little problem that the "new government" that emerged in Moscow and St Petersburg in November 1917 was NOT regarded as the Russian government by other High Contracting Powers.
It is irrelevent because the convention hasn't contain a requirement that a government of a country that signed and ratified the convention should be internationally recognised. Anyway in 1918 Bolshevik government was recognised by Finland, Bulgaria, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman empire (and later Turkey).
phylo_roadking wrote:As thoroughly discussed.
And as you failed to present a quote from the convention with requirement to High contracting power to have "internationally recognised government" then I have won our intellectual competition.
phylo_roadking wrote:
There is no even one word about it in the convention. There is no requirement in the text that each new government must made special declaration - to adhere to the convention.
Of course there are words about it.
Dear Phylo_roadking, present exact quote, please.
phylo_roadking wrote:Its quite clear in the Convention the tasks a nation has to carry out to signal it would abide by the Conventions. From new. Which was the position the Bolshevik government was in in 1917 after repudiating foreign treaties.

As thoroughly discussed.
And as you failed to present respective quote then you rather lost our intellectual competition.
phylo_roadking wrote:
New state was not created. Russia remined Russia, Russian republic remained Russian republic.


The Provisional government voted itself out of existance. A group of revolutionaries controlling a small percentage of the country replaced it in certain areas. The legitimate succcessor to the Provisional Government was Kolchak's regime.
You are right, it was not national government but namely 'regime' that existed only few months and controlled a small area along Siberian railroad. It was a puppet government backed by foreign invadors.
phylo_roadking wrote:As thoroughly discussed.
As a Russian I have more rights to say what government was MY national government that time. We the Russians hadn't delegated you the British a right to determine what body is our national Russian government. So again I have won our intellectual competition.
phylo_roadking wrote:
In 1922 indeed a new state was created - the Soviet union. It was a new state and it would be logical to expect some official declarations from leaders of the new state.


Why would people expect that? ESPECIALLY Russians - given the view of Soviet lawyers and jurists on the position of International Law in the class struggle.
A curious coincidence comes to light in connection with the arrival of the British at Baku. The garrison of the place consisted largely of Bolsheviki, who, with Armenians, were opposing the Turks. Thus the British, while fighting the Bolsheviki in the north, are cooperating with them in the south.
...
Published 17 August 1918


So the British by the fact of military cooperation with Bolsheviki recognised their power and in fact control over bigger part of Russia.
??? Er...no. That's not how it works. The ONLY thing it shows is that local circumstances in Baku required cooperation with the Bolsheviks.

And, of course, it DOES reveal ONE other thing....can you work out what is was???
It reveal that the British regarded the Bolsheviks as real and the most powerful force in Russia.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”