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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 16:51

Penn44 wrote:
Sergey wrote:
Penn44 wrote:Other than Sergey, has another Russian complained of this alleged incident?

Penn44
.
First of all, dear Penn, I'm not complaining. This discussion involves my interesting historical facts, theoretical questions. I believe that it would be very helpful for readers.
Sergey, when you call me "dear" it arouses the strangest stirrings in me. I wish you would not tease me so.

Look up in your English dictionary the word, "complain" and you will see that my use of the word is not inappropriate.

Have any other Russians complained that this incident is a "war crime"?

Penn44

.
Dearest Penn, I'm unaware about even one complain (official or unofficial) by Soviet or Russian authorities or private persons.

And I asure you that I'm not complaining in any way being well aware about the meaning of the world.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 17:01

Dear mr.Thompson, previously I asked you and I would like to repeat my questions:

(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?

(2) Do you agree that the convention was in force until 7 November 1917 then Bolshevik government came to Power.

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?

I will comment your last post later after investigation of your sources.

Regards!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2007 17:07

(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.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 18:00

David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- You are not coming to grips with this issue: Why would the USSR ratify the Hague IV convention in 1955 if the convention was effective and had bound the Soviet Union since 1918? See the ratifying dates for the RFSR (1955) and the Byelorussian SSR (1962)[/b][/i] regarding the 1907 Hague IV convention at:

http://www.minbuza.nl/verdrage.....ltaten.xml
Mr.Thompson let's look at your source
The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recognises the Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 as ratified by Russia, to the extent that the said Conventions and Declarations do not conflict...
So according to your source USSR did not ratify but just confirmed previously made ratification with some reservations. I suggest that these reservations were the main cause for the confirmation.

Now let's look at your other sources. Unfortunately you hadn't quoted them. So I could miss something important.

Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, Gerard Pieter van den Berg, William B. Simons, Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, p. 384
http://books.google.com/books?.....VtiBbNKNS8
...Soviet attitudes toward the 1899 ans 1907 Hague conventions were held in abeyance until 1955...
According to the authors of this book there were no comments (both positive or negative)from Soviet government about the Hague conventions until 1955. So as the conventions don't require any further confirmations form High contracting powers after ratification then the conventions were in force for Russia (the Soviet union) without any reservations until 1955. After 1955 the conventions were and are in force with the reservations.

Lauri Hannikainen, Raija Hanski, Allan Rosas, Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland pp. 44-47
http://books.google.com/books?id=xUGYzy ... w#PPA45,M1
In June 1918, in connection with the reorganization of the Soviet Red Cross, the new Soviet government declared to the ICRC that it recognized and would maintain the Geneva Conventions and 'all other Conventions and international agreements relating to the...
I'm unable to read the whole phrase because
pages 45-101 are not part of this book preview
This source don't contain any claims that Soviet government made any declarations about withdrawal from the Hague 1907 convention.

Michael A. Meyer, H. McCoubrey, Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: The Selected Works, pp. 257-260
http://books.google.com/books?id=ETjo7F ... k0ZNlATXL0
pages 112-282 are not part of this book preview
I'm unable to comment.

George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28
http://books.google.com/books?.....Q#PPA27,M1

Invalid link. I'm unable to comment.

Bernd Wegner, From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941. p. 294-297
http://books.google.com/books?.....mDLIVRcem8

Invalid link. I'm unable to comment.

Mr.Thompson, quote your sources please. Thanks in advance.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 18:07

I have fount it


http://books.google.com/books?id=aESBIp ... #PPA309,M1

Bernd Wegner, From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941. p. 294-297

but
Pages 295-308 are not part of this book preview

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2007 18:40

Now let's look at your other sources. Unfortunately you hadn't quoted them. So I could miss something important.
That's right. The format Google uses for reproducing portions of the copyrighted books doesn't allow them to be copied or printed. Apparently they also rotate the reproduced portions, since I had no trouble finding the page numbers when I posted the references.
Invalid link. I'm unable to comment
Try googling the title.
Mr.Thompson, quote your sources please. Thanks in advance.
I don't think I will. I gave you the titles, authors and page numbers. I'm not particularly interested in the time-consuming, manual exercise of looking at a pdf page and typing out the text. The books are generally available by purchase, or through public library systems.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Oct 2007 18:46

Sergey, the VTslk said in June 1918 that it would abide by the Geneva Conventions and the appropriate sections of all other conventions relating to the treatment of POWs and civilians.

This means however several things;

1/ It meant that the Hague Conventions were not in place automatically as you've been insisting - with absolutely no evidence and all the evidence against you....IF they had to TRY and issue that statement in 1918; EXACTLY the same situation as 1939, 1941, and 1955! In other words, a recognition and confirmation that after November 1917 they WEREN'T in place!

2/ And why do I say...."IF"? Because they did NOT accept the Hague Conventions as a High Contracting Power as Tsarist Russia had; they ONLY attempted to accept those portions relating as said to POWs and civilians and the Geneva Conventions, NOT the Hague Rules on Land Warfare as the Hague Conventions were known;

(Note for future reference - the Geneva Conventions prior to 1949 were NOT the laws of war or the internationally-accepted Rules on Land Warfare. Those land warfare rules are the HAGUE Conventions. Have you not even gathered yet that there was a difference? Geneva in 1949 was where the TWO streams came together. Prior to that the Hague Rules on Land Warfare - the 1866 and 1907 Conventions - were a separate body of international laws - on the conduct of war. The GENEVA Convention Rules were the Humanitarian Laws on the treatment oF CIVILIANS, only later in 1929 extended to cover POWs because the Hague Rules didn't do enough for POWs. But Geneva in 1929 did not REPLACE Hague, nor did it count as an alternative to the Hague Conventions; it only supplemented them.)

3/ They made EXACTLY the same c0ck-up as Stalin later did TWICE! And what was that? The ICRC are NOT the regulatory body for the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907, but ONLY for the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law!!!

***IF they were agreeing to abide by the Hague Conventions and HRLW, they wouldn't have been saying this to the ICRC, they'd have been lodging it with the regulatory body in the Hague, the DUTCH GOVERNMENT! Exactly as it says IN the Hague Conventions.***

Your latest position is ANOTHER house of straw and has just blown away.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 18:59

George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28

http://books.google.com/books?id=Boj8rv ... g#PPA27,M1
Soviet lawyers and politicians constantly emphasized, both before and after World War II, that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 had merely served to codify some of the already universally recognized laws and customs of war and that, as a consequence, both the traditional rules of warfare and the conventionalized regulations continued to be equally binding on all nations, irrespective of whether they ever signed or deposited an instrument of accession to the documents themselves.
Does it mean that Soviet government withdrew from the Hague conventions? No of course.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 19:08

David Thompson wrote:
Now let's look at your other sources. Unfortunately you hadn't quoted them. So I could miss something important.
That's right. The format Google uses for reproducing portions of the copyrighted books doesn't allow them to be copied or printed. Apparently they also rotate the reproduced portions, since I had no trouble finding the page numbers when I posted the references.
Invalid link. I'm unable to comment
Try googling the title.
Mr.Thompson, quote your sources please. Thanks in advance.
I don't think I will. I gave you the titles, authors and page numbers. I'm not particularly interested in the time-consuming, manual exercise of looking at a pdf page and typing out the text. The books are generally available by purchase, or through public library systems.
But the books rather confirm my point - that in 1919 the Hague covnentions were in force for Russia.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Oct 2007 19:17

Ah! THESE would perhaps be the SAME Soviet lawyers you were so dismissive of YESTERDAY? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The fact is, however - they were legally wrongthey may have emphasized, but that was BECAUSE the international community didn't accept them as being covered by them any onger! AND they International community had watched them make their erroneous attempts at signalling their LIMITED abiding by them!

Sergey, remember about English not neing your first language, as you claim when YOU want to - "irrespective of whether they ever signed or deposited an instrument of accession to the documents themselves" is confirmation that they DIDN'T ever sign or deposit and instrument on accession in Holland.
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.

[/b]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[/b], 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.
The simple fact is - Russia refused to re-ratify the Conventions, and EACH time that they were caught out by a pressing NEED to - Finland, Barbarossa etc., - they tried to claim it wasn't necessary. But it WAS necessary, and the process - which they failed on MANY occasions to adhere to - was VERY clearly set out and was VERY simple and easy to do.

Sergey - face it; the USSR didn't WANT to ratify the Hague Conventions If it DID, then it was a VERY simple thing to do, and could have benefitted them so much. INSTEAD they tried in June 1918, in 1939, and in July 1941 to arrange a partial abiding to only the bits THEY wanted to use. The Hague Conventions couldn't be "parted-out" like that they had to be all or nothing. They knew where they had to send any agreements to - and instead they tried to sneak it in via the ICRC. ALL your sources are confirming this!

That's even MORE straw blowing on the wind.

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

Post by Sergey » 06 Oct 2007 19:27

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.
Thank you mr.Thompson.

So as I understand you believe that after serious changes in the type of rule any country automatically withdraws from all international agreements and a new government should make special statement, adhere to the signed treaties.

Is it internationally recognised practice (maybe even codified) or your personal private opinion?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2007 20:44

Sergey -- You asked:
So as I understand you believe that after serious changes in the type of rule any country automatically withdraws from all international agreements and a new government should make special statement, adhere to the signed treaties.
Yes.
Is it internationally recognised practice (maybe even codified) or your personal private opinion?
In 1907, I believe it was a generally recognized practice. It also has the feature of common sense. When the power to make treaties is transferred by revolution from a autocratic monarch to the people of the country he used to rule, there is every reason to assume a treaty signed by the monarch would not be binding on the new sovereigns without their approval. Contrast this theory of national sovereignty:
Chapter I. The Essence of the Supreme Autocratic Power

4. The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience, but God himself, commands obedience to his authority.

5. The person of the Sovereign Emperor is sacred and inviolable.

6. The same supreme autocratic power belongs to the Sovereign Empress, should the order of succession to the throne pass to a female line; her husband, however, is not considered a sovereign; except for the title, he enjoys the same honours and privileges reserved for the spouses of all other sovereigns.

7. The sovereign emperor exercises power in conjunction with the State Council and the State Duma.

8. The sovereign emperor possesses the initiative in all legislative matters. The Fundamental Laws may be subject to revision in the State Council and State Duma only on His initiative. The sovereign emperor ratifies the laws. No law can come into force without his approval. . . .

9. The Sovereign Emperor approves laws; and without his approval no legislative measure can become law.

10. The Sovereign Emperor possesses the administrative power in its totality throughout the entire Russian state. On the highest level of administration his authority is direct; on subordinate levels of administration, in conformity with the law, he determines the degree of authority of subordinate branches and officials who act in his name and in accordance with his orders.

11. As supreme administrator, the Sovereign Emperor, in conformity with the existing laws, issues decrees for the organization and functioning of diverse branches of state administration as well as directives essential for the execution of the laws.

12. The sovereign emperor takes charge of all the external relations of the Russian State. He determines the direction of Russia's foreign policy . . . .
Russian fundamental laws of 1906
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRus ... a/rfl.html

with the provisions of the 1918 Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R.:
CHAPTER SIX
THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS OF SOVIETS
OF WORKERS', PEASANTS', COSSACKS', AND RED ARMY DEPUTIES


24. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is the supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

25. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants).

* * * * *

CHAPTER NINE
AFFAIRS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS
AND THE ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE


49. The All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee deal with the questions of state, such as:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(b) General direction of the entire interior and foreign policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(c) Establishing and changing boundaries, also ceding territory belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(d) Establishing boundaries for regional soviet unions belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, also settling disputes among them;
(e) Admission of new members to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and recognition of the secession of any parts of it;
(f) The general administrative division of the territory of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic and the approval of regional unions;
(g) Establishing and changing weights, measures, and money denominations in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(h) Foreign relations, declaration of war, and ratification of peace treaties;
(i) Making loans, signing commercial treaties and financial agreements;
(j) Working out a basis and a general plan for the national economy and for its various branches in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(k) Approval of the budget of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(l) Levying taxes and establishing the duties of citizens to the state;
(m) Establishing the bases for the organization of armed forces;
(n) State legislation, judicial organization and procedure, civil and criminal legislation, etc.;
(o) Appointment and dismissal of the individual People's Commissars or the entire council, also approval of the president of the Council of People's Commissars;
(p) Granting and cancelling Russian citizenship and fixing rights of foreigners;
(q) The right to declare individual and general amnesty.

50. Besides the above-mentioned questions, the All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee have charge of all other affairs which, according to their decision, require their attention.

51. The following questions are solely under the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the fundamental principles of the Soviet Constitution;
(b) Ratification of peace treaties.

52. The decision of questions indicated in paragraphs (c) and (h) of Section
49 may be made by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee only in cases it is impossible to convoke the Congress.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... tml#chap06

You also wrote:
George Ginsburgs , Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial, pp. 26-28

http://books.google.com/books?.....g#PPA27,M1
Soviet lawyers and politicians constantly emphasized, both before and after World War II, that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 had merely served to codify some of the already universally recognized laws and customs of war and that, as a consequence, both the traditional rules of warfare and the conventionalized regulations continued to be equally binding on all nations, irrespective of whether they ever signed or deposited an instrument of accession to the documents themselves.
Does it mean that Soviet government withdrew from the Hague conventions? No of course.
You seem to have have missed the passage on p. 27, which begins:
In effect, at the time of the German invasion of the USSR the Soviet government had not acceded to the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the rules of warfare.
and you also don't take into account the fact that poison gas had not been used in combat when the Hague IV convention went into effect, and that in WWI all sides used it.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Oct 2007 21:35

that in WWI all sides used it.
...which means, by the customary laws of warfare, the only POSSIBLE fallback as the Hague Conventions were not in place...it was DEFINITELY not a crime! :lol:

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2007 21:44

A humorous post from Penn44, which added nothing of informational value to the discussion in this thread, was deleted by the moderator -- DT.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 06 Oct 2007 21:47

David, you abuse your moderating position to have him all to yourself!!!

You "delete-blocked" me.

Penn44

.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”