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
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 11:42

Here.
HAGUE CONVENTIONS
In the 1899 Convention the signatory powers agreed: " before an appeal to arms . . . to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers." A similar clause was inserted in the Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907. In the accompanying Convention Relative to Opening of Hostilities Article I contains this far more specific language:

" The Contracting Powers recognise that hostilities between them must not commence without a previous and explicit warning, in the form of either a declaration of war, giving reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war."
FULL copy of that parallel Hague Convention - known as Hague III - and accepted on ratification of Hague II by a High Contracting Power as automatically part of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare available here http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... 3.htm#art1. Thats why its Conventions, plural. The Hague Rules was a canon of Conventions.

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 19 Oct 2007 13:32

phylo_roadking wrote: FULL copy of that parallel Hague Convention - known as Hague III - and accepted on ratification of Hague II by a High Contracting Power as automatically part of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare available here http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... 3.htm#art1. Thats why its Conventions, plural. The Hague Rules was a canon of Conventions.
The Hague III doesn't require the notification of the state of war to the Dutch Government. Hague III doesn't say the others conventions will not apply unless that is a formal declaration of war.
Besides, each convention is a separate act (as it is written in the final act of the conference). Each convention must be ratified separately. Some countries ratified only some of the 14 conventions and declarations.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 14:21

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.
The Dutch government at the Hague was the respresentative of the Neutral Powers and clearing house for those notifications mentioned above, was the repository for ratifications, and the PCA at the Hague was the monitoring authority for the Hague Rules.

Hague II and the others only applied to High Contracting Powers, and governments who at the start of hostilities specifically SAID they would abide by them, during declared hostilities between them and at no other time; Hague III mandates how those hostilities should begin. They comprised a cohesive canon of law but each separate Convention had to be ratified spearately; HOWEVER the issue of only ratifying certain elements of the Conventions specifically does NOT apply in this case - because both Great Britain and Tsarist Russia ratified ALL of them - and the honouring of all four sections meant accepting the cohesive links between them...

...and of course this meant that Russia's ratification of all Conventions existed to be repudiated by the Soviets in 1917.

Note that in all five Conventions you will find the following passage;
The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between Contracting Powers and then only if all the belligerents are Parties to the Convention.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 19 Oct 2007 15:02, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by Sergey » 19 Oct 2007 14:48

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
List of war crimes

This article lists and summarizes War Crimes committed since the Hague Conventions of 1907.
...
Incidend: Attack on Pearl Harbor,Hawaii, December 7, 1941

type of crime: Surprise attack as part of an undeclared war against the United States.

war crimes were committed including mass murder, destruction of property, crimes against peace, and the killing of civilians.
Undeclared wars, surprise attacks are war crimes themselves. And one war crime can not be an exuse for other war crimes.

Or maybe the Attack on Pearl Harbor was not a war crime?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 14:58

No, Sergey, this is NOT what it says.

Pearl harbour WAS a War Crime by JAPAN on the US because BOTH the Empire of Japan and the United States of America were signatories of the Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities (Hague III) - the provisions of which Japan BROKE by not declaring war before attacking.

Japan making a suprise attack on a NON-signatory of Hague III would NOT be a War Crime as in a breach of Hague III as Hague III would not apply.

It was the fact that BOTH were signatories that made it a crime.

Will you PLEASE read and udnerstand all the ramifications of what you're posting before you do so.

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

Post by Sergey » 19 Oct 2007 15:10

phylo_roadking wrote:No, Sergey, this is NOT what it says.

Pearl harbour WAS a War Crime by JAPAN on the US because BOTH the Empire of Japan and the United States of America were signatories of the Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities (Hague III) - the provisions of which Japan BROKE.

Japan making a suprise attack on a NON-signatory of Hague III would NOT be a War Crime as in a breach of Hague III as Hague III would not apply.

It was the fact that BOTH were signatories that made it a crime.

Will you PLEASE read and udnerstand all the ramifications of what you're posting before you do so.
As I see Phylo_roadking you are an advocate of Japanese militarism. Japanese logic is much like yours.

http://www.aplconference.ca/apwbackgrounder.htm
Militarism
When the Emperor declared war against China in 1894 and against Russia in 1904, he explicitly stated that Japan would respect international law. In the 1930s, when the Japanese government and military commenced their acts of aggression in China, they referred to these as “incidents” rather than acts of war. To them, this meant that they are no longer bound by recognized rules of war, including the Hague and Geneva conventions that offered minimal standards of protection for captured soldiers and civilians. These factors contributed to the poor treatment of both POWs and non-combatant civilians by the Japanese military.
So numerous war crimes committed by Japanese militarists from your point of view are not war crimes at all.

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 19 Oct 2007 15:15

phylo_roadking wrote: The Dutch government at the Hague was the respresentative of the Neutral Powers and clearing house for those notifications mentioned above, was the repository for ratifications, and the PCA at the Hague was the monitoring authority for the Hague Rules.

Hague II and the others only applied to High Contracting Powers, and governments who at the start of hostilities specifically SAID they would abide by them, during declared hostilities between them and at no other time; Hague III and the Annex to the Conventions (Hague IV) mandate how those hostilities should begin. While it was stated that they did not form a cohesive body of laws for the purposes of SEPARATE ratification, the issue of only ratifying certain elements of the Conventions specifically does NOT apply in this case - because both Great Britain and Tsarist Russia ratified ALL of them - and the honouring of all four sections meant accepting the links between them...

...and of course this meant that Russia's ratification of all four existed to be repudiated by the Soviets in 1917.
Can you show me where was Holland declared to be the representative of the neutral powers.
So far you haven't shown the declaration of war had to be notified to the Dutch government.

The contracting powers are not requiered by the Hague conventions to issue a statement at the start of hostilities specifically stating they would abide by them.

Nowhere in the conventions can you find that they will not apply unless a formal declaration of war was issued.

The repudiation you are referring to has no juridical value.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 15:33

The 1929 GENEVA Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners Of War forms no part of a discussion on the use of gas in 1919 under the HAGUE Rules of land warfare....but just for your information...although Japan signed the 1929 Convention - it was subsequently NOT ratified by the Japanese government.
As I see Phylo_roadking you are an advocate of Japanese militarism
How can I be advocating it when I RIGHTLY point out that Pearl Harbour WAS a War Crime???

I am not aware of any open declaration of war being presented by the Empire of Japan to China in 1929 OR by the Chinese nationalist government to Japan. This means that any crimes committed during the subsequent years should have been prosecuted under the appropriate Chinese civil law code as Murder/Theft/Rape etc., but NOT as War Crimes as the Hague Rules on Land Warfare did not apply.
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.
NEITHER side abided by this and thus it was NOT Hostilities as defined by the Hague Rules on Land Warfare. And thus the laws contained therein regarding behaviour during hostilities didn't apply.

Personally I don't happen to like that, but its an unpalatable fact - one that is typical of the loopholes that resulted in the 1949 Geneva Convention.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 15:53

Samuel, red more carefully what I wrote. The rules of English punctuation are that a phrase surrounded by two commas means that the sentence can be read without that phrase and still make sense. Thus

"Hague II and the others only applied to High Contracting Powers, and governments who at the start of hostilities specifically SAID they would abide by them, during declared hostilities between them and at no other time"

means

"Hague II and the others only applied to High Contracting Powers during declared hostilities between them "

AND

"Hague II and the others applied to government who at the start of hostilities speciifically SAID they would able by them."

....as you will find if you read the Conventions.

It's a rule of punctuation by which two completely different subjects to which the same result applies can be included in the one sentence.
The repudiation you are referring to has no juridical value.
You are quite right; it means if course that BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA be brought before the Hague for War Crimes....but the repudiation and how it was viewed in Soviet Russia - see the jurists' works cited - means that Russia couldn't and wouldn't bring any other nation before a court for the same. I think I stated this weakness of their position way back near the start of the thread. It was this weakness that Stalin attempted to cover in 1939 and 1941 by reaching specific agreements on abiding by Hague and Genvea with first Finland and then Germany - unfortunately by a completely DIFFERENT and wrong process to the one laid out in the Conventions ;-) and thus it still wouldn't have given Russia Hague Rules' or Geneva Convention protection.

And perhaps THIS anomalous legal position that Boshevik Russia rendered herself into is the reason WHY Sergey cannot find any CONTEMPORARY account of these events in Russian NOR any Russian accusation that these were War Crimes...? ;-)

To make such claims under Hague Rules would be to say that "profit-making treaties on violence and plunder" applied to the Socialist Revolution ;-) A position that they couldn't take.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 16:12

(personally, I think it was a REALLY silly position to take - particularly given how quickly it became obvious that world-wide - or at least Europe-wide - Revolution wasn't going to happen domino-fashion. And how quickly foreign governments became involved in the Civil War. But the warm glow of partly-successful ideology sometimes blinds people to the necessities for continuing that sucess)

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

Post by Sergey » 19 Oct 2007 20:13

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/CRS ... plications
Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress
...
Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions; for that the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance.
...
...the United States last declared war in 1942 against Romania and has since adopted only authorizations for the use of force.

Thus, declarations of war may have become anachronistic in contemporary international law.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 20:54

Well if you WANT to use a briefing document on the necessity or not of declaring war on Iraq four years ago as legal justification of ANYTHING LMAO LMAO....

I would of course draw your attention to the line above....
Thus, declarations of war may have become anachronistic in contemporary international law.
I notice you didn't cut and paste any OTHER part of the document, like ..the title....
Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress


David M. Ackerman
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Updated January 14, 2003
Does that REALLY say...2003?

Which, you have to admit...is not contemporary with 1919! There's only EIGHTY-FOUR years difference.

And reading through it it's QUITE clear that this is true....
Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions; for that the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance
ONLY SINCE THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTION AND ONLY SINCE THEN.

I would hate to think you're trying to win argument by selective quotation ;-)...because for example *I* could draw the readers' attention to THIS snippet therein....
...but it is clear that under international law a declaration of war has been viewed as "creating the legal status of war ... [and giving] evidence that peace has been transmuted into war, and that the law of war has replaced the law of peace...
Thank you for that document! ;-)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Oct 2007 21:00

Well if you WANT to use a briefing document on the necessity or not of declaring war on Iraq four years ago as legal justification of ANYTHING LMAO LMAO....

I would of course draw your attention to the line above....
Thus, declarations of war may have become anachronistic in contemporary international law.
I notice you didn't cut and paste any OTHER part of the document, like ..the title....
Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress


David M. Ackerman
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Updated January 14, 2003
Does that REALLY say...2003?

Which, you have to admit...is not contemporary with 1919! There's only EIGHTY-FOUR years difference.

And reading through it it's QUITE clear that this is true....
Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions; for that the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance
ONLY SINCE THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTION AND ONLY SINCE THEN.

I would hate to think you're trying to win argument by selective quotation ;-)...because for example *I* could draw the readers' attention to THIS snippet therein....
...but it is clear that under international law a declaration of war has been viewed as "creating the legal status of war ... [and giving] evidence that peace has been transmuted into war, and that the law of war has replaced the law of peace...
Thank you for that document! ;-)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23702
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 19 Oct 2007 21:45

I will repeat my observation from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 84#1129084 :
I am starting to think that the most useful purpose of this thread is for the exposure of logical fallacies, since there hasn't been any shortage of them here. The all-too-obvious cultural gap may be more the result of an educational shortfall than anything else.
and also add this passage from the forum and section rules:
The research sections of the forum are meant for persons who are fairly well-informed on the topics being discussed, and our discussions are not directed at the lowest common denominator of readership. Rural customs of discourse, such as feigned ignorance, pettifogging, or "stonewalling" denials of facts well-known to most informed persons, are strongly disfavored here. The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games.
H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

I think that this thread has long since outworn any utility it once may have had for our readers, and that closing it would be merciful, so I'm shutting it down. It has been a very long time since I have seen such a collection of tiresome, disingenuous and inconsistent rubbish as has been posted here in support of this supposed British war crime.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”