Rules for Aerial Warfare (1923 Hague Rules, etc.)

[walterkaschner]

(snip)

Regards, Kaschner

Mr. Kaschner,

thank you for your thought-provoking input. I have to say I disagree with you, because you considered only one of two ways to international law; the voluntary cession of parts of national sovereignty by the ratification of binding international treaties.
The other one, which was pointed out in the other thread by another poster, and which made me want to pursue this issue, is of course the establishment of customs. I did say I do not believe that the Hague Draft Rules became binding international law in this way - but that is my position because there is not a pattern of recognized actual customs supporting those rules. Quite the contrary.

On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that the 1907 Convention IV _already_ was customary; remember its preamble, it states it was intended to organize and set forth what were already the "laws and customs" of war on land. And after 1907, the Convention as a whole was largely respected in most wars. There were violations, but these were regularly decried and denounced as such. War crimes - violations of the existing customs of war, which were basically summed up by the 1907 Conventions (the IV and the others) - were a serious issue in the settlement agreements of WWI.
I need to do more research on this issue, but for the time being I deem that what was argued with regard to the Hague Draft Rules, and proven unapplicable to them, could very well be argued, and proven applicable, with regard to the 1907 Conventions.

Of course the 1907 Convention IV, regardless of the outcome of the above issue, _would_ be applicable, in any case, to aerial bombing missions between countries that had ratified that Convention and never renounced it.

Thanks, Curioso, for the further exposition of your thoughts on this issue. You are certainly not the first one to disagree with me on this Forum, and I'm sure you won't be the last. It's a tough one, but I still can't accept your view that the 1907 Hague (IV) Convention was and is applicable to air bombings.

First, let's take a look at the applicable treaty provisions and their background.

There was a draft International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War dated August 27, 1874 and issued in Brussels. Its provisions concerning bombardment were as follows:

Sieges and bombardments

Art. 15. Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Open towns, agglomerations of dwellings, or villages which are not defended can neither be attacked nor bombarded.

Art. 16. But if a town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings, or village, is defended, the officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 17. In such cases all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand

This draft was adopted only three years after the Franco-Prussian war, which saw the indiscriminate long range bombardment of Paris by the Prussian foces, with heavy (for those days) loss of civilian life. Note that bombing by balloons, although not prevalent, was certainly known at the time, but was not specifically mentioned. And of course bombing by heavier than air aircraft was totally unknown, as no airplane had yet been successfully flown.


The Hague (II) Convention of July 1899 stated in its Preamble:

that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them [the High Contracting Parties], populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;
They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;

The 1899 Convention limited its applicability to cases where all belligerents were parties to the Convention, and provided in its Regulations the following:

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.


Art. 26. The commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.


Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

With very minor differences, the 1899 Convention contained essentially the same language as in the Brussels Declaration, and all the major combatants (I'm not sure who all the minor ones were) in WWI became parties.

On the same date there was promulgated the "Hague Declaration (IV,1), to Prohibit, for the Term of Five Years, the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other Methods of Similar Nature", which provided that

The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.

The present Declaration is only binding on the Contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

[My emphasis.]

But neither the United Kingdom nor Turkey became parties to the Declaration.

Some eight years later, after the above Declaration had expired by its terms, the 1907 Hague (IV) Convention was adopted. Its Preamble contained language similar to the 1899 Convention, it also included an "all belligerents" clause, and further provided in its Regulations that:

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

The sole substantive difference between the two Conventions is the addition of the phrase "by whatever means" in Article 25 of the later, which deals with undefended places.

But neither Greece nor Italy became parties to the 1907 Treaty.

However, in conjunction with the entire group of Conventions adopted at the Hague in October, 1907 there was also promulgated a Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, which renewed the 1899 Declaration and provided that:

The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
The present Declaration is only binding on the Contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them.

Arguably, the 1907 Declaration continued in effect indefinitely, as the Third Peace Conference never took place, but although the United Kingdom was a party to this one, neither Austro-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Russia or Turkey became parties to it.

I can think of two possible arguments, somewhat related, on your side of the issue - neither of which, IMHO, can withstand analysis.

The first is that (putting aside the isssue of whether the Soviet Union denounced all Czarist Treaty obligations, as to which David Thomas has raised some doubts) although technically the "all belligerents" clause in both the 1899 and 1907 Conventions would seem to negate the applicability of either to conduct of the belligerents in either WWI or WWII, all major belligerents in both wars were parties to one or the other of the Conventions, and as the provisions regarding bombardments were essentially identical, the "all belligerents" clause should be deemed to be satisfied and, that being so, Articles 25-27 should be deemed to apply to bombardment by air.

The basic problems with that argument are that (a) in 1899, the Parties could surely not have envisioned the nature of air warfare as it developed in the course of WWI and surely could not have thought that "bombardment" dealt with in Articles 25-27 covered anything other than bombardment by land; (b) the prohibition in Article 25 could, in terms of air warfare, apply only to "open cities" declared as such, for virtually any city within a given territory could be defended by fighter aircraft based many miles away, (c) Article 26 could not apply, as an attack by air was clearly an assault, and Article 27 could not have been intended to apply to high altitude bombing, where the required distinguishing signs would have been indistinguishable, (d) if those Articles were meant to cover the matter of arial bombardment, why the two Declarations? and finally (e) if the addition of the phrase "by whatever means" was intended to insert the concept of bombardment by air into the 1907 Convention, then the argument for the inapplicability of the "all belligerents" proviso due to the substantial identity of the two Conventions must surely collapse.

Second: It could be argued that as both Conventions recognize that their provisions are not exclusive, that general principles of customary international law still apply, that the provisions of the Conventions reflect certain, but not all of such principles, and accordingly the effect of the "all belligerents" proviso simply does not apply in the case of air warfare.

The problems with that argument are (a) an "all belligerents"" clause appeared in all of the relavent treaties and must itself have been element of customary international law inso far as the laws and practices of war were concerned. One could scarcely expect any nation to agree to be contractually inhibited in its conduct of warfare when one of its enemy combatants was free of any such inhibition - even though the nation might, under appropriate circumstances, deem it in its own self interest to unilaterally impose such restrictions upon itself -, (b) even if the "all belligerents" clause were written out of both Conventions, the same difficuties of interpreting their provisions as relating to air warfare apply - they just don't fit!, and (c) the fact that specific and intentionally temporary Declarations relating to bombardment by balloon or "by any other methods of a similar nature" were entered into contemporaneously with the two Conventions indicates that the Conventions themselves were not intended to cover air warfare, which lay outside their scope and required treatment by other means.

Well, then, do the Declarations themselves prohibit bombings by air? Clearly not. The first specifically expired by its terms in 1904; the 1907 Declaration may be argued to have an indefinite life, but most of the major combatants in WWI and WWII were never parties to it.

And I think we are both in agreement that not by 1907, and certainly not by 1899, had there been sufficient time or experience for any general pattern of customary international law to become established as to the conduct of air warfare, at least by heavier than air aircraft. The first flight by the Wright brothers took place in 1903, and although others vie for the honor of being first they all took place roughly about the same time. If no such customs had been established by the time of the draft Hague Rules of 1923, how could they have been established in 1907, only a few years after the first heavier than air flight?

Sorry to be so lengthy with this, but I obviously got carried away.

Regards, Kaschner

[Curioso]

Mr. Kaschner,

thank you for your insightful and detailed argument. I can only provide you with a few scattered remarks.

1. First thing, a factual issue. I'm not sure you are right when you say that Italy and Greece did not sign the 1907 Conventions. Sure they weren't "parties", i.e. they did not take part ot its drafting. However the ICRC website lists them among the signatories. Also, Mr. Thompson quotes that fact in the thread titled "The Laws of War: to whom do they apply?". Please, could you check your sources?

2. As a general remark, it seems to me you invest too little importance in the customary part of the laws and _customs_ of war, that is, the actual patterns of behavior. Take, for instance, the issue of the Declaration concerning balloons etc. Sure, one _could_ argue it remained in force, since the Third Peace Conference was not held. But look at the behaviors. Would a draft of Rules for aerial warfare really be put in the works after WWI, if somebody believed that the Declaration was still applicable? Why hasn't anybody ever filed a claim for a violation of the Declaration (at least AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong)? By 1923, decision makers worldwide were aware that a) the Declaration was obsolete and b) that a Third Peace Conference was not in the cards. The Declaration was left to slip out of the customs.

3. It is true that the drafters in 1907 could not foresee what would happen of aerial warfare. However, that is irrelevant. By 1939, the Convention IV was the best set of rules that had been agreed to, by signing and ratification and/or by established custom, that could apply to bombardments - _"by whatever means"_. The only other alternative is the absence of any regulation. Is this what you are arguing for? But that would create a paradoxical situation where you couldn't use a howitzer to destroy an undefended building or a clearly marked cultural monument, but you could use an aircraft to do that.

4. It is true that in most cases, the application of Articles 25-28 to air warfare means that most attacks will be legitimate. That is not grounds for saying that the Convention doesn't apply. After all, most ground assaults, for instance, would be legitimate according to the clauses of Hague IV. Yes, in the case of aerial bombardment, the clauses might eventually be read as to make an illegitimate target only out of a declared open city. So what? Precedents are important in this field, and we do have that precedent at the end of WWII...

5. As to the "all belligerents" clause, again we have the force of customs. Given enough time, any convention that has been accepted by a majority of states and has become part of consistent patterns of behavior becomes customary. Additionally, Hague IV was already meant to be a way of organizing and structuring what already were the customs of war. It is true that a signatory might find itself in the unconvenient position of fighting against a non-signatory of any given international convention. But the overall historical trend is that the non-signatory will eventually be bound to comply with a convention that has become custom, not the other way around (that is, that the signatory gets exempted from applying it because fighting a non-signatory). Examples abound, including, for instance, the committment by Japan to respect the Geneva Convention of 1929, which it had not ratified (of course then Japan violated the convention by system - that's why Japanese war criminals got their trial).

[David Thompson]

The Laws of War: To whom do they apply?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69194

[walterkaschner]

The following are comments addressed to Curioso's next preceeding post, and follow his numbering.

1. Both Greece and Italy were invited to attend the 1907 Peace Conference in The Hague and sent delegates there, who signed the 1907 Hague (IV) Convention, and thus the respective States which they represented became "signatories" to that Convention. I believe I never indicated otherwise. But there seems to be substantial confusion between a "signatory" and a "party" to an multilateral treaty. There is a very substantial difference, for although a nation's delegate to a conference such as those held at The Hague and Geneva may sign the resulting Convention, in most cases that does not make his nation a "party" to the Convention and thereby bound by its terms. Many, if not most, nations have established internal procedures either written or by tradition for the "ratification" or formal adoption of the terms of an international treaty before the nation can be bound by them.

For example, as our energetic and knowledgeable moderator David Thompson pointed out in another thread, Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as evidenced by a 2/3 favorable vote, for ratification. Although President Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, and the US thereby became a "signatory", the US Senate refused to give its advise and consent, and therefore the US failed to ratify and never became a party to or bound by that Treaty. It was compelled to make separate treaties with its belligerent opponents in that war.

I haven't been able to readily come up with an English definition of the term "Ratification" but here is one in French which appears in the Lexique du droit internationale humanitaire ["Dictionary of International Humanitarian Law"]:

RATIFICATION

Approbation d’un traité, d’une convention par les organes compétents pour engager l’État. C’est un acte postérieur à la signature par lequel l’État exprime son engagement. Il devient alors obligatoire pour l’État de se conformer à ses dispositions. En France, la ratification est de la compétence du président de la République après habilitation votée par le Parlement.

My Translation:

RATIFICATION

Approval of a treaty or convention by the institutions with competence to bind the State. It is an act taken after the signing by which the State expresses its commitment. It then becomes obligatory for the State to conform itself to its provisions. In France, ratification is within the authority of the President of the Rebublic after being so enabled by a vote of its Legislative Assembly.

The use of the term "Plenipotentiary" in the Hague series and in the 1929 Geneva Convention to describe the individual national delegates attending the meetings and signing the resulting treaty texts may have caused the confusion, but the term is misleading in that it implies that they had full power (L. plenus-potentia) to bind their respective States to its terms. The usage may be a hangover from the Congress of Vienna, where the Emperors of Austria and Russia were both personally present, as was the King of Prussia, and Castelreagh had in effect been granted full powers by the British Cabinet. But many, if not most, of the delegates to the Hague and Geneva conventions lacked the plenary power to bind their principals, and their signatures to the resulting Conventions only represented their acknowledgement of the text of the provisions adopted and a tacit undertaking to submit the treaties to the ratification procedures required by their respective States.

This was recognized, for example, in the text of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) itself:

Art. 4. The present Convention, duly ratified, shall as between the Contracting Powers, be substituted for the Convention of 29 July 1899, respecting the laws and customs of war on land.
The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it, and which do not also ratify the present Convention.

Art. 5. The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.
The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherlands Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.
A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relative to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherlands Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have adhered to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph the said Government shall at the same time inform them of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 6. Non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Convention.
The Power which desires to adhere notifies in writing its intention to the Netherlands Government, forwarding to it the act of adhesion, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.
This Government shall at once transmit to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of adhesion, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 7. The present Convention shall come into force, in the case of the Powers which were a party to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal of this deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which ratify subsequently or which adhere, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their adhesion has been received by the Netherlands Government.

It would appear from the list of signatories and parties to 1907 Hague (IV) to which David Thompson kindly provided this link on another thread:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?Ope ... =15.1#15.1

that (i) the first deposit, containing a number of ratifications, took place on November 27, 1909, (ii) that several of the signatories did not ratify until much later, (iii) that several non-signatory nations subsequently adhered to the Convention (customarily non-signatories do not become bound by "ratification" but rather by "adhesion", although I'm not clear that the effect is any different), and (iv) that several signatories (including Greece and Italy, each a belligerent in both World Wars) have never ratified the Convention and thus have never become bound by it.

This is confirmed by the list maintained on the web site of the Us Department of State of parties to the various treaties to which the US is a party, to be found at:

http://www.state.gov/s/l/38294.htm

2. I apparently did not make my belief sufficiently clear that I thought the absolute prohibition of bombardment by air set forth in the 1907 Hague Declaration (XIV) was not a binding legal inhibition to the belligerents in either WWI or WWII. But this was not because "The Declaration was left to slip out of the customs." It had not yet become imbedded in the practices and customs of war. When its predecessor Declaration was adopted in 1899 bombardment by balloon was only slightly known (the first and only occasion that I'm aware of was the ineffective bombing of Venice by Austria in 1849), and by heavier that air warplanes of course not at all. And while the latter might have appeared a dim possibility by 1907 there had certainly been insufficient experience with it to establish a custom. Moreover, both Declarations were by their very terms to be in effect for a limited time only, and most of the major combattants either in WWI or WWII refused to become parties; the UK and Turkey to the 1899 Declaration and by 1907 Austro-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Russia and Turkey refused to accept an obligation to be bound by the prohibition.

So even if one accepts the argument that the 1907 Declaration technically remained in effect because the event it specified for its own termination never took place, I am convinced its absolute prohibition against air bombardment did not apply to the belligerents of either World War - not because the prohibition dropped out of custom; it had never had a chance to become part of custom - but because of the operation of the "all-belligerents" clause in the Declaration itself.

3. It must be kept in mind that Article 25 of both Hague Conventions applied to the bombardment of undefended buildings, dwellings, villages and cities. I believe that by the end of the 19th Century, that prohibition reflected the generally accepted practices and customs of war among civilized nations prevailing at the time, and completely apart from those Conventions its breach would have been considered a violation of international law. But the issue unresolved by the Conventions or by custom was (and continued to be),, when is a building, dwelling, village or city to be deemed "undefended" for purposes of the prohibition, given the evolving techniques of attack and defense. In 1871 the Prussians had developed (for that time) extremely long range artillery, which it used to shell Paris from miles away and which indiscriminately destroyed buildings and killed civilians, which of course the gunners could not even see. The Parisian buildings and dwellings were not individually defended and, indeed, no defense of individual buildings was then possible against that sort of bombardment. Yet the City of Paris was itself strongly defended by a surrounding ring of fortifications which were besieged by the Prussian army. Although world opinion was probably horrified, I am aware of no serious assertion that the bombardment was a violation of the international laws of war. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that Germany would agree to become a party to a treaty in 1899 which criminalized its behavior less than 30 years earlier.

So whether or not the specific prohibitions of 1907 Hague (IV) remained applicable as such to the parties who became belligerents in the two World Wars, despite its inclusion of an "all-belligerents" clause which in my opinion nullified its applicability, I think the prohibition against bombardment as reflected in Article 25 could not have been intended to outlaw the bombarment of a defended complex even though it damaged or destroyed buildings or dwellings units within the complex which were individually undefended. Less than a decade after 1907 the Germans were again bombarding Paris by air and by artillery from afar as well as bombarding London by air, and the British and French were indiscriminately bombarding a number of German cities as well. Defense by fighter aircraft was employed on both sides, and although initially relatively ineffectual fighter defense became increasingly effective throughout the war and toward the end bomber losses became increasingly heavy. So although the combatants refrained from bombarding an "open city", declared as such like Brussels and (if I recall correctly) Belgrade, they obviously felt that a city with fighter aircraft within range was not undefended, and accordingly was fair game for bomber attack.

Having by now exhausted myself and probably anyone patient enough to read this far, I will adjourn to another day.

Regards, Kaschner

[walterkaschner]

Curioso wrote:

4. It is true that in most cases, the application of Articles 25-28 to air warfare means that most attacks will be legitimate. That is not grounds for saying that the Convention doesn't apply. After all, most ground assaults, for instance, would be legitimate according to the clauses of Hague IV. Yes, in the case of aerial bombardment, the clauses might eventually be read as to make an illegitimate target only out of a declared open city. So what? Precedents are important in this field, and we do have that precedent at the end of WWII...

5. As to the "all belligerents" clause, again we have the force of customs. Given enough time, any convention that has been accepted by a majority of states and has become part of consistent patterns of behavior becomes customary. Additionally, Hague IV was already meant to be a way of organizing and structuring what already were the customs of war. It is true that a signatory might find itself in the unconvenient position of fighting against a non-signatory of any given international convention. But the overall historical trend is that the non-signatory will eventually be bound to comply with a convention that has become custom, not the other way around (that is, that the signatory gets exempted from applying it because fighting a non-signatory). Examples abound, including, for instance, the committment by Japan to respect the Geneva Convention of 1929, which it had not ratified (of course then Japan violated the convention by system - that's why Japanese war criminals got their trial).

Ad 4. Although I believe that the Regulation of 1907 Hague (IV) did not in itself apply in either WWI or WWII, due to the application of the "all-belligerents" clause, as far as I know the substance of Article 25 was generally recognized as an accepted element of the practices and customs of war totally apart from any Treaty obligation, although reflecting the concept that if a city was itself defended, the prohibition did not apply to buildings and dwellings within it, which conformed to the practice in WWI. Although the intent of the Luftwaffe's bombing of Warsaw on September 1, 1939 and thereafter may have been simply to instill terror in its population, nonetheless the city was actively (and on the first day rather successfully) defended both by Polish fighter aircraft and by anti-aircraft artillery. As far as I am aware, no city that made a public and timely declaration that it was defenseless and demilitarized was bombarded by any of the combattants during WWII. (Rotterdam was no exception; its offer of surrender came after the German air attack was launched and the German command did its best to call off the bombers, but with only partial success. And although Manilla declared itself an open city on December 26, 1941 and was nonetheless attacked by the Japanese during the next few days, the fact is that it held a substantial number of US troops and was functioning as an active military supply base until January 1.) But the declarations of defencelessness covering Belgrade, Batavia, Manila (after 1/1/42), Rome, Paris, Lyon and then all French cities with over 20,000 inhabitants were all respected during WWII. So it seems to me that the custom was not established by WWII, but existed prior to it.

Ad 5. I generally agree that adherence over a protracted period of time by the society of civilized nations to a substantive norm of conduct reflected in a treaty may indicate that the norm has become a practice and custom binding upon all civilized nations. But unfortunately it seems to me to be a chicken and egg issue: which came first, the general acceptance of the norm which led to its acceptance in a multi-lateral treaty, or its inclusion in the treaty, the general adherence to which in time established it as a custom and practice? In the case of Article 25 of the 1907 Hague(IV) Regulations, as it relates to the bombardment of undefended cities, the former was probably the case. But nonetheless, it seems to me that the specific "all-belligerents" clause in the Convention itself also reflected an established custom and practice which in the context of warfare made a great deal of sense: in a life and death struggle, you are not going to be bound by rules which your opponent is free to violate, and so whatever the Treaty may provide, you are not going to agree to be bound by it as such unless your opponents are likewise bound. The practical effect of the "all-belligerents" clause, which appears in most (if not all) the Hague Conventions, Protocols and Declarations is to tend to induce all nations to become parties or formally or informally indicate their adherence. And so I would also agree that the tendency is for non-signatories to comply, but not necessarily because a provision has became embedded in the practices and customs of war, but because they fear that their opponents may feel free of the Treaty inhibitions if the non-signatory fails to announce its own committment to comply. In any event in the end result is the same.

One last point - a confession of error on my part. I previously indicated that I thought that shortly after the Russian Revolution the Soviets had renounced all treaties entered into by Czarist Russia. But I can find no support for that thought. The Bolsheviks did publish and repudiate Russia's secret treaties, and that may have been what lodged in my fading memory. But the US Department of State lists the Soviet Union as a party to both the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, so I obviously was wrong. Apologies all around.

Regards, Kaschner