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

#91

Post by Sergey » 02 Oct 2007, 19:46

Dear Phylo_roadking, frequently I edit my posts because of poor style and grammar. I'm not a native English speaker, you know.

User avatar
JTG
Member
Posts: 840
Joined: 20 Mar 2006, 22:10
Location: R.N. La Mare, Jersey, British Channel Islands

Editing of posts

#92

Post by JTG » 02 Oct 2007, 22:49

Sergey wrote:Dear Phylo_roadking, frequently I edit my posts because of por style and grammar. I'm not a native English speaker, you know.
Dear Sergey

Perhaps it would be better to let your original post stand and post a correction: no confusion could then arise.

Again, I applaud your use of English.

John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands

To the memory of Feodor Burrij (Bill)


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

Re: Editing of posts

#93

Post by Sergey » 03 Oct 2007, 05:31

JTG wrote:
Sergey wrote:Dear Phylo_roadking, frequently I edit my posts because of por style and grammar. I'm not a native English speaker, you know.
Dear Sergey

Perhaps it would be better to let your original post stand and post a correction: no confusion could then arise.

Again, I applaud your use of English.
It's very kind of you dear John. So you (correcting my phrase) find my style por (porous). In turn I find arguments proposed by our friends on this thread porous (= easily defeatable) as well.

There is a lot of reseachers, experts in international Law here. I still don't see reasons why Russian citizens were not under protection of the Hague 1907 Convention in 1919.

After the abdication of the last Russian tsar Nikolay the 2d (March 1917) and establishment of republican provisional government led by prince Lvov Russia remained under the protection of the Hague 1907 convention. Why not? Later a head of Socialist-Revolutioners party mr.Kerenski became a prime minister in the provisional government. And again Russia remained under the protection of the convention. In November a new Russian republican government emerged. There were representatives of Social-Democratic Wokers party (Bolsheviks) alog with representatives of Socialist-Revolutioners party. And I don't see reasons why Russia could lose protection provided by the Hague 1907 Convention.

So I have a clear question to experts in international Law (and it is a challenge):

If you think that Russia in 1919 hadn't protection provided by the Hague 1907 Convention then

Why the protection had been lost and when it happened?

Warmest regards!

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

#94

Post by David Thompson » 03 Oct 2007, 07:22

Sergey -- You wrote:
After the abdication of the last Russian tsar Nikolay the 2d (March 1917) and establishment of republican provisional government led by prince Lvov Russia remained under the protection of the Hague 1907 convention. Why not?
You don't seem to have grasped the basic fact that none of the nations which ratified the 1907 Hague IV Convention were protected against the use of poison gas during WWI -- not the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians or anybody else. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the fatal flaw of the convention was that every one of the belligerent nations had to have ratified the agreement for it to have any effect. WWI didn't present that situation, and neither did the Russian civil war.

In connection with the problem, you asked:
If you think that Russia in 1919 hadn't protection provided by the Hague 1907 Convention then

Why the protection had been lost and when it happened?
The protection only applied to wars between nations, in which every belligerent had ratified the convention. The protection wasn't lost -- it never accrued.

Think of it like this: if A (conditions exist for the Hague convention to apply), then B (its protections come into effect). In this formulation, if you don't have A, you don't get to B. You can't assume the existence of B, and then use that to imagine the existence of precondition A, which is what your argument is trying to do.

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

#95

Post by Sergey » 03 Oct 2007, 09:42

Dear mr.Thompson, many thanks for you kind message.
David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- You wrote:
After the abdication of the last Russian tsar Nikolay the 2d (March 1917) and establishment of republican provisional government led by prince Lvov Russia remained under the protection of the Hague 1907 convention. Why not?
You don't seem to have grasped the basic fact that none of the nations which ratified the 1907 Hague IV Convention were protected against the use of poison gas during WWI -- not the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians or anybody else. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the fatal flaw of the convention was that every one of the belligerent nations had to have ratified the agreement for it to have any effect. WWI didn't present that situation, and neither did the Russian civil war.
You quite correct in respect to WW1. And I asure you that I understand the reasons why the Hague 1907 convention is not applicable to WW1 pretty well.

However British invasion in Russia in 1919 was not a part of WW1 because WW1 was over that time. Also we should exclude from our conciderations Russian civil war because the UK as an external force can not be regarded as a participant in Russian civil war. Any civil war is a war between internal forces.

During Spanish civil war 1936-39 Germany and Italy were not participants in the civil war but invading forces that was at war with de facto Spanish republican government. So Germany and Italy were ar war with Spain and we can speak about war crimes committed by the Germans and the italians on Spanish soil.

Returning to our theme we should speak about separate war that British and British led forces (btw, American troops were under British command) waged against

- regular troops (from point of view of Bolshevik government).
- militia, the Red army (from point of view of British government).

It was a war de facto. There were the invasion, military operations, big enough number of killed. There were POWs.
David Thompson wrote:In connection with the problem, you asked:
If you think that Russia in 1919 hadn't protection provided by the Hague 1907 Convention then

Why the protection had been lost and when it happened?
The protection only applied to wars between nations, in which every belligerent had ratified the convention. The protection wasn't lost -- it never accrued.
I prefer to use terms countries, states instead of 'nations'. There are English, Scotish, Welsh nations but British nation doesn't exist.

So we have two countries: Great Britain and Russia. both countries signed and ratified the Hague 1907 convention.
David Thompson wrote:Think of it like this: if A (conditions exist for the Hague convention to apply), then B (its protections come into effect). In this formulation, if you don't have A, you don't get to B. You can't assume the existence of B, and then use that to imagine the existence of precondition A, which is what your argument is trying to do.
How to determine what body is in fact a government of a given country? From my point of view we should look at such features as

- control over a capital, big cities, large populated areas.
- own armed forces.
- ability to withstand foreign invasion.

So as I have state before, Bolshevik government was de facto Russian government. Btw, nobody here objected this fact, that indeed Bolshevik government was de facto Russian government and other Russian governments were no more than separatist or ingurgent governments.

As for recognition by foreign countries then it is irrelevant. For example USA Recognized Soviet government only in 1933. Does it mean Soviet government was unlawfull before it? No of course.

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

#96

Post by David Thompson » 03 Oct 2007, 15:27

Well, at this point I think our readers have enough information to make up their own minds on the subject.

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

#97

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Oct 2007, 16:18

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

1/ The Hague Conventions do NOT apply to civil wars within the body of a High Contracting Power, but BETWEEN High Contracting Powers.

2/ It was NOT a "war" de jure and the Hague Convention is VERY specific about the wars it applies to.

3/ The Hague Conventions didn't protect anyone against gas warfare in wartime at that point in history - "wartime" as it applied to the Conventions - so it CERTAINLY didn't apply to a civil war.

4/ The Italian and German forces were NOT at war with the Spanish Republic, no war had been declared, they were assisting the Nationalist Government. For THIS reason AND the fact that it was a civil war the Conventions did not apply against them in Spain.

5/ There is no question at all of a difference between the forces the British were facing - "regular" or "militia" - when as said NEITHER had the protectiojn of the Conventions as they didn't apply - non-starter.

6/ The Hague Conventions don't apply to wars de facto. They only apply to a VERY specific set of wars between High Contracting Powers that are MADE de jure by carrying out the steps and circumstances set out in the Conventions themselves, and those have been quoted often enough here, they couldn't be clearer.

7/ I'm sorry, but the fact that YOU prefer the term "country" doesn't make it applicable in ANY way to the Hague Conventions. The reasons for this have been gone into MANY times, and you don't like the answer.

8/ Neither "nation" or "country" depend on ANY of the factors you mention for their existence. Cities, armies and the ability to protect from invasion do NOT make a country or a nation. A "nation" is a political entity, a "country" is a geographic/political/racial entity. I could list right now dozens of nations and countries that couldn't withstand invasion - but it didn't make them NOT a nation or country!!! I know of several even MODERN nations that don't have regular armed forces!

9/ Actually it WAS objected to that the VTslK was the de facto National government. The Kolchak regime was recognised as the NATIONAL Government by those nationas that just happened to ALSO be High Contracting Powers....

10/ It meant that in relation to the USA, the Bolshevik regime could not in any way carry out any of its diplomatic/economic functions at government level. It did NOT mean that it was UNlawful....it meant that the USA didn't acknowledge it existed. Which is very different.

In the above post, Sergey, you have committed THREE of the major flaws of modern debate. 1/ You have ignored what facts have already been given to you, 2/ you have tried to widen the discussion entirely inappropriately, and 3/ you've appealed to the floor when you've HAD expert advice, David's is more expert than you choose to accept.

Sergey, let me give you the perfect example of what happened in 19191. Someone punches you in the street, and you punch back, okay? IS that fight officially recognised and cinducted under the internationally-recognised Marquess of Queensbury Rules on Boxing? NO. If the OTHER person just happened to be a professional boxer, does that mean the brawl is conducted and the participants protected by under the Marquess of Queensbury Rules? NO. If you BOTH happened to be professional boxers (!!!) would the brawl be conducted under and you both be protected by the Marquess of Queensbury rules? NO

...because its a street brawl, NOT held in a regluation-sized ring, with a referee, a panel of three judges, seconds.....

The Hague Conventions ONLY applied to a VERY specific set of circumstances, as both I and David have (frequently) pointed out. ANY OTHER war/belligerence/police action/emergency/armed intevention was at THAT point in history OUTSIDE ITS AUSPICES. If two nations went to war in 1919 that were NOT signatories or High Contracting powers - the Hague Conventions didn't apply. If two nations went to war and only ONE was a signatory or High Contracting Power - the OTHER nation didn't have its protection NOR did it owe any protection to the signatory/High Contracting Power nation! Unless and VERY CLEARLY both nations declared that they WOULD operate under the conditions of the Convention. And as David said some time ago, BOTH have to say it.

The 1907 Hague Convention wasn't like the 1949 Genvea Agreement, which is all-encompassing, and its reserve position is that it applies to everyone. The position was in 1919 that it applied to the people mentioned in it...and everyone else and in ALL other circumstances you had to opt in to acceptance. As David said, in Russia in 1919 to enjoy its protection, all parties would have had to say they were opting-in to applying it to a civil war. This they DID NOT DO. So it didn't apply.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 03 Oct 2007, 16:58, edited 1 time in total.

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

#98

Post by Penn44 » 03 Oct 2007, 16:46

Thanks to phylo_roadking and David Thompson for their well-informed and well-reasoned input to this thread.

Penn44

.

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

#99

Post by Sergey » 03 Oct 2007, 18:05

David Thompson wrote:Well, at this point I think our readers have enough information to make up their own minds on the subject.
Dear mr.Thopmson. Thank you for interesting discussion. I have an impression that you have understood my point (at last).

Warmest regards!

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

#100

Post by Penn44 » 03 Oct 2007, 18:11

Sergey wrote:
David Thompson wrote:Well, at this point I think our readers have enough information to make up their own minds on the subject.
Dear mr.Thopmson. Thank you for interesting discussion. I have an impression that you have understood my point (at last).
I glad someone has understood your "point" as it escapes the Hell out of me. You are as clear as old Uncle Bob.

Hats off the David for "understanding" Serge here. I don't know whether to offer David congratuations or my sympathies.

Penn44

.

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

#101

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Oct 2007, 18:11

I think our readers have enough information to make up their own minds on the subject
oh, I think they will...;-)
There are some allegations that British forces used chemical weapons against Bolshevik troops in 1919...

I'm surprised that I'm unable to find even one mention about the usage of chemical weapons by the British in Russia in literarure on Russian language.

User avatar
Troy Tempest
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: 14 Nov 2006, 11:17
Location: Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia

#102

Post by Troy Tempest » 04 Oct 2007, 00:27

I'm afraid to say Sergey, after reading all seven pages here, I don't understand your point at all! Thanks David and phylo for your explanation of the technical points of the Hague Convention, I didn't know any of that, and found your postings quite informing! :D

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

#103

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Oct 2007, 01:38

Sergey - does the date 7th March 1955 mean anything to you?

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

#104

Post by Sergey » 04 Oct 2007, 06:42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's look at historical facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the combination of theoretical (1-5) statements and historical facts (H1-H5) we can conclude that the UK violated the Hague 1907 convention in Russia using chemical weapons.

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

#105

Post by Sergey » 04 Oct 2007, 06:45

phylo_roadking wrote:Sergey - does the date 7th March 1955 mean anything to you?
At this day my Father marked his 22d birthday.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”