Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

The (all too brief) section on this is written in such a way that it might be interpreted as implying that Donitz's conviction was the actual war crime. It's not. The fact that the U.S. chucked the Second London Naval Treaty out the window when the shooting started seems to have been lost in the shuffle. It is completely glossed over.

I would argue that Donitz's conviction was valid in light of international law. Two rights don't make a wrong. This did led to justice being meted out in an unequal manner, but this article should focus on actual war crimes, not cases of hypocrisy shown to one side by another. In that sense, Donitz really shouldn't be the focal point.

Does anybody else thinks this could use some TLC?

Kensuke Aida (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean the article does not say that "Donitz's conviction was not valid in light of international law". Perhaps we should change the last sentence and split it into two with the last sentence becoming "Evidence was presented during the trail that both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy also issued similar orders" --PBS (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that Donitz' conviction is irrelevant as far as the topic of this article is concerned. It was not an Allied war crime to convict Donitz. It was an Allied war crime to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But one can not know that it was a war crime unless one brings up the context in which it was found to be so. I have undid a pointy edit made IP 69.8.247.231 last year and put back the older wording "but the sentence was not assessed (no penalty was issued) because the court discovered" which places it in context. --PBS (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view the section should be removed as it's about the German submarine campaign, not the Allied one, and no reference is provided which states that the Allied campaign was a war crime. The sources given for this section are the judgement of Doenitz's trial, which basically found that he acted within the norms of submarine warfare, and the article by Gary E. Weir has nothing to say on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They did not find that he acted within the lawful norms of submarine warfare, they found him guilty. He was not given any additional time in prison because the court found that the British an and American navies had issued similar orders. The Weir citation is given for the quote "Thus, when Admiral Thomas Hart proclaimed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan on 8 December 1941, it came as no surprise" --PBS (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See the last paragraph on page 40 The Law of naval warfare by Natalino Ronzitti, "'The proclamation of operational zones and the sinking of neutral merchant vessels which enter those zones presents a different question (...). The order of Doenitz to sink neutral ships without warning when found in these zones was, therefor in the opinion of the Tribunal, a violation of the (1936) Protocol' Therefor O'Connell is right in affirming the illegality of these zones." --PBS (talk)

Shocked

I am shocked that Axis war crimes during World War II/German war crimes during World War II/Nazi war crimes during World War II are still red links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have articles like German war crimes, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, The Holocaust though. It's a shame that this article is much longer than the first two - Wikipedia's coverage of German military atrocities is surprisingly poor. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cassino

Currently the article says:

Monte Cassino: Rick Atkinson states in Day of Battle that the Allied bombing and shelling of the abbey during the Battle of Monte Cassino on February 15, 1944 broke international war law concerning the protection of cultural icons. Also, the Allies had no conclusive evidence that the German military was using the monastery for military purposes (they weren't) but did have evidence that the building was still occupied by its ministerial staff and Italian refugees. ...

Clearly the shelling of the building did not break any of the laws of war as the rubble of the monastery was a German redoubt. The book is available under Google books limited review, but unfortunately that page is not available for direct viewing. search does return the sentence "Willy-nilly bombing of priceless cultural icons was discouraged by custom and forbidden by law. Months earlier the Combined Chiefs had reminded Eisenhower ..." (the page returned with this quote is 432 although Goggle Books counts it as page 438). This statement is true, but that is different from "states in Day of Battle that the Allied bombing and shelling of the abbey during the Battle of Monte Cassino on February 15, 1944 broke international war law concerning the protection of cultural icons." Could someone please quote the relevant sentences that this citation is taken from on page 432 as the passage from 432 in the Google books continues "Willy-nilly bombing of priceless cultural icons was discouraged by custom and forbidden by law. Months earlier the Combined Chiefs had reminded Eisenhower that 'consistent with military necessity, the position of the church and of all religious ...'" which does not seem to cover the assertion made in the Wikipedia article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume Atkinson is referring to this [1] law as prohibiting the unnecessary destruction of cultural icons. I don't have Atkinson's book in front of me so I can't, at this moment, check his sources for the "bombing of priceless cultural icons was discouraged by custom and forbidden by law" statement of his. I'll check later when I'm back in my library. But, I remember that Atkinson's book does make clear several factors regarding the bombing and shelling of the building:

• 1. The Germans were not using the building for any military purpose whatsoever until after it was reduced to rubble. In fact, when the local German commander was invited to dinner, prior to the bombing, by the abbey's chief priest, the general refused to look at the view out any of the abbey's windows to ensure he didn't cross the line.
• 2. The Allies had been told that the abbey's staff as well as civilian refugees were still in the building.
• 3. It was only after the New Zealand general (I don't have his name in front of me), started strongly advocating the destruction of the building that the Allies began to produce evidence that the Germans might be occupying it, such as an aerial reconnaisance report by an American general (again, I'll have to produce his name later) in which he claimed to see a machine-gun barrel pointing out of one of the windows.

If the unnecessary destruction of cultural icons and the killing of civilian refugees is against international laws of war in existence at that time, which I believe it was, then the Allies committed a war crime in the destruction of the Monte Cassino Abbey. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hague IV Article 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.

But the defence is that the Allies thought that the building was occupied by Germans and being used for military purposes. So providing that the Allied generals thought that the building was in use then they were within the laws of war, and is in line with the the Combined Chiefs quote from Atkinson's book "consistent with military necessity, the position of the church and of all religious ...". Now it may be that Atkinson does claim on the same page that it was a war crime, but the sentence I have quoted does not say that. It can also be read that wanton destruction of "buildings dedicated to ..." is a breach of Hague IV article 27, but the Allied destruction was not wanton as it was driven by military necessity, although as post war investigations have shown, the intelligence that this decision was based was faulty. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have Atkinson's book in front of me, and he's clearly lobbying for the destruction of the abbey to considered as a crime. The New Zealand general who wanted the abbey destroyed was named Bernard C. Freyberg. The two American generals who took off in a light plane and found evidence to support the bombing were Ira Eaker and Jacob Devers. The Allies were not in agreement over the bombing of the building. Alphonse Pierre Juin pleaded with Mark W. Clark to spare the building and Geoffrey Keyes conducted his own aerial reconaissance and stated that he saw no German activity in the building. II Corps intelligence reports stated that 2,000 Italian refugees were believed to be sheltering in the building (Atkinson, p. 433–434).

On page 434, Atkinson states, "No clear evidence placed Germans in the abbey." Clark, in his diary, indicates that he wasn't convinced that the abbey should be bombed. Atkinson states that after the bombing, Clark's headquarters claim that "two hundred Germans were seen fleeing the building" was a ludicrous claim. If there were any doubt about it, the surviving monks and refugees, carrying injured and dead, descended the mountain into Allied lines. On page 440, Atkison states, "

:::Efforts to justify the bombing began even before the smoke had blown clear of Monte Cassino. Military authorities pressured the OSS, without success, for evidence that German troops had occupied the abbey. In a cable to London, Field Marshal Wilson wrote, 'Suggest that we should confine our statement to the fact that military authorities on the spot have irrefutable evidence that the Cassino abbey was part of the main German defensive line.' Long after the war, the U.S. Army claimed that no civilian bodies had been found in the abbey."

The next morning, German journalists interviewed the head priest of the abbey who stated that, "Until the moment of the destruction of the Monte Cassino abbey there was within the area of the abbey neither a German soldier, nor any German weapon." (Atkinson p. 440) Major General Fred L. Walker stated afterward, "I shall recall with regret the needless destruction of the abbey." (Atkinson, p. 441.)

In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence as presented by Atkinson indicates that the Allies perpertrated a war crime in this episode, and knowingly did so. The Allies had no strong evidence that the Germans were using the building, knew that civilians were sheltering there, and tried to concoct evidence to support or cover up their actions afterwards. Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion yes, but not necessarily in the opinion of Atkinson. I think you are reading into what Atkinson writes your own opinion. Yes the Allies knew shortly after the attack that they had made a mistake bombing the monastery, and in the propaganda war that followed they were going to lie (truth is the first casualty in war). But a mistake does not mean a war crime was committed and AFAICT from the Google book text and what you has written here Atkinson does not say "during the Battle of Monte Cassino on February 15, 1944 broke international war law concerning the protection of cultural icons" Further it was then and still is the position that "the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur."(a quote from Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in 2006) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are Wikipedians really so lacking in common sense that they actually believe that, in the midst of a relentless desperate war, some Air Force officers out of the blue decided to divert massive numbers of desperately needed bombers to the arbitrary and pointless destruction of what those officers "knew" to be a "non-military" target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.171.144 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What Atkinson suggests is that certain Allied generals, most notably one from New Zealand, became obsessed with the idea that the Germans were using the monastry to to impede the Allied advance. Those generals then concocted evidence to support their decision to bomb the building into rubble. By the way, the Albert Kesselring article, which just made FA, states that the bombing was a war crime and cites the Hague 1907 convention. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See talk:Albert Kesselring#No source to back up war crime claim --PBS (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A great example of idiocy :) We know for a fact (see battle of Monte Cassino) that Germans were using the monastery as a major fortification. Destroying it, while unfortunate from the cultural perspective, is perfectly understandable in the war (as no cultural item has more value than human life) and if anybody is to blame, it is the Germans who turned it into a military stronghold in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus the issue is not that simple. The Germans were not using the monastry as a fortification. The Allies (understandably) believed that the Germans were doing it and bombed it (under the reasoning: better safe (bomb it) than sorry (not bomb it, and suffer more casualties). The German paratroopers only used the ruins after the bombardment (it is destroyed anyway, so we might as well use the ruins). IMHO this case wasn't any Allied war crime but rather an honest mistake (war is full of mistakes - and yes I would bomb it under the better safe than sorry reasoning). Being quite honest: Rick Atkinson is simply a piteful rules-lawyer. Flamarande (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SS P.O.Ws

It was not technically a war crime to kill Waffen SS-prisoners, as they were illegal combattants. Their technical status would have been that of partisans, thus making it legal, though not moral, to have them shot upon capture.82.176.202.53 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because they were technically paramilitary civilians, right, since they weren't actual members of the German armed forces? If you have a source that confirms that, please add it to the article in any place which mentions the killing of SS prisoners. Cla68 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Waffen-SS (not Allgemeine SS or SS-Totenkopfverbände) were from 1940 onwards official part of the regular german armed forces.--93.192.172.125 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Allied war crimes during World War II → Allegations of war crimes commited by Allied forces — I propose this change due to "Allied war crimes" being a controversial and relatively unusual term. The Allies were not charged with war crimes at the end of World War II, unlike the Axis powers, and allegations of supposed war crime were made much later on in revisionist histories. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Oppose Allegations in the title would only enlarge the scope of the article and would lead to more things being included. Better to have a smaller amount of content here. Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

While the new title would describe the article's content better, in my view it would be better to remove the 'allegations' as many of the current claims are either uncited or one person's opinion. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, opinion and such can be easily removed. Hobartimus (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title works just fine. As Hobartimus said, if "allegations" were included in the title, then anyone could add almost any incident to the article. As it currently stands, only incidents which credible sources state were atrocities or law of war violations can be included. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Using "allegation" in the name of an article is against policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names "the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law." -- PBS (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. for reasons given above. The strength of allegations should be covered by the article itself. There is little doubt that there were war crimes committed. Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed MilHist B-Class

This article is not a comprehensive treatment of its subject, but a list of anecdotes lacking in balance and overall editorial emphasis or historical context. It defines its scope as dealing only with alleged crimes against Axis civilians, but then contains large amounts of material related to POW's and others. It is right that the subject be covered, but it must be done with the utmost care, and every potentially controversial statement needs citation. Incidents need context - were they isolated and exceptional, or are they given as typical examples of alleged wider practice? All armies throughout history engaged in full-scale warfare (at least until the most modern attempts to impose the rule of law on warfare) have committed what we would consider crimes such as looting, rape and killing surrendering enemy combatants; the article is only worthwhile if it identifies either high-level policy or truly exceptional incidents. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion this article does not "defines its scope as dealing only with alleged crimes against Axis civilians" when the very first sentence says "Allied war crimes were violations of the laws of war committed by the Allies of World War II against civilian populations or military personnel of the Axis Powers." my emphasis.

You're right, though you're reading a "not" into my comment that isn't there. I was overlooking the "or military personnel", sorry.

"and every potentially controversial statement needs citation." which "controversial statement" in you opinion does not?

In general the facts given are very well cited (though I have not looked at any references), though the lead lacks citations. It is the overall treatment of the subject that needs more input from verifiable sources. The importance and context of each incident needs to be made clear. For instance, there is one allegation made against the French Resistance. Is it suggested that this was typical behaviour, and the Resistance were major war criminals? Or is this the only allegation ever made, so that the Resistance are otherwise blameless? Without that context, the incident means very little.

"Incidents need context - were they isolated and exceptional" The problem is that often it is not possible to give context without breaching OR. Should incidents be ignored because the context can not be given? The point is that nearly all the incidents listed here are exceptional -- with certain exceptions like area bombing and unrestricted submarine warfare which were policy decisions and are considered by historians or the courts to be war crimes. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, really. The culpability of an army or nation depends on how strongly it prohibits incidents and how it reacts to them if they occur, and that is the interesting thing; the fact that if you give guns to thousands of men, they kill people is not particularly notable. As for OR, the point is that the context and balance also needs to come from verifiable sources. That does make articles on controversial subjects difficult to write. Area bombing and unrestricted submarine warfare are major topics and deserve more coverage. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts, first you say "[a] list of anecdotes ... every potentially controversial statement needs citation" now you are saying "In general the facts given are very well cited".

"The importance and context of each incident needs to be made clear." If the context is not available should an incident not be included in your opinion?

"though the lead lacks citations." leads don't need citations as the sum up the article, what is it in the lead that you think needs a citation?

Your point on the French resistance (Maquis) is a hugely complex one, because of the Martens Clause. This is still an issue that splits the international community. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is is a matter of opinion if area bombing or the Allied use of unrestricted submarine warfare was a breach of the laws of war. It is not at all clear that they were, which is why all one can do is mention some of those who think they were. For example A. C. Grayling wrote a book in which he states that the RAF's area bombing was not a war crime it was a moral crime. There are articles on Area bombing and unrestricted submarine warfare, where these can be expanded upon (see for example Unrestricted_submarine_warfare#Post-WWII_concept where I added text on this specific issue). -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation, certainly of the existing details in the article, is not the issue - though it is no longer the case that the lead does not require citations, and in this article the lead is not a summary of content later in the article, but is in fact the only overview and commentary, since the rest of the article (apart from the last section) is currently a list.

Incidents should only be included if they contribute to the overall learning to be derived from the article. The compilation of a list of incidents is itself OR, in that the selection of what to include or exclude and the balance that gives to the article is an editorial judgement, and the resulting article gives an impression to the reader of the relative importance of the subjects; for example, the short treatment given to rape by the Red Army compares to the details given of murders by Western allies, creating an impression that the Western powers were at least as guilty of war crimes as the Soviet Union. The reader will assume that the article is comprehensive, ie that there is nothing of comparable importance that has not been included. We don't make such judgements ourselves (or at least that's the theory), but instead we use the consensus of the sources to give not only the details, but also the overview and balance. In this case I would expect that to come from authoratitive books on the subject. Given the likelihood of campaigning and POV on individual incidents and causes, acieving a neutral POV is likely to be hard.

I don't want to debate the individual incidents or topics; I'm here only because a B-class assessment was requested. If this is to be a list, let's call it that; but if it is an article, and I think it should be, then it needs a lot more work on overview and balance. Cyclopaedic (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment; the article doesn't present a balanced picture and isn't comprehensive, some sections are inadequately cited and the standard of the writing is poor. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with these comments and suggestions because I agree with most of the, but given that it is a highly contentions article (as the talk pages and edit history show) there is not a cat in hells chance that this will ever be a good article. Talk about editorial judgment goes out of the window when contributing editors hold strong and differing opinions as the restrictions that NOR and V place on a controversial article it is next to impossible to write an article of the quality suggested. About all we can do is keep the POV to a minimum by insisting on reliable sources. Cyclopaedic what do you think needs a citation in the lead? Nick-D you say "some sections are inadequately cited" which sections. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone else has said, it is impossible to determine a broad theme from these attacks without breaking either OR or SYN. This is a problem with all "general" history topics on wikipedia such as "history of country from x to x" or "history of conservatism in country x". More specific topics such as historical biographies dont have this problem. BillMasen (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, if the editorial judgements are derived from the consensus of reliable sources, and not from WP editors' own judgements (which are OR). The danger lies in compiling lists of information gleaned from multiple sources without also deriving the context and emphasis from reliable sources. There is nothing much wrong with the information in the article at present, except that it lacks overview and emhasis derived from reliable writers on the subject. I agree with your concern about the difficulty of writing broader articles - I think I have noticed a trend in WP:MILHIST towards more and more articles on detailed subjects of minor importance, while the articles discussing broad themes are neglected. Unsurprising, perhaps, when few of us are professional historians with the time and knowledge to write an article based on reading a wide cross-section of books on the topic. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does need someone to go through and organize it better in narrative form, by changing the bulleted statements into paragraphs and arranging the entire article into a logical flow. More material needs to be added discussing the difference between moral and actual war crimes, and a discussion of how there are differing opinions and interpretations of certain, controversial actions by the Allies such as the bombing of the Monte Cassino monastry or the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan or the firebombing of Japanese and German cities. I'm not volunteering to do this at this time, because I have too much on my plate already, but this is what needs to be done by someone, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have argued against the inclusion of moral crimes in this artilce because it is such a nebulus term and opens up a whole new vista for diverse points of view, after all this is an article on "Allied war crimes during World War II", not "Allied crimes during World War II" and not "controversial actions by the Allies during World War II". -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, there was no code of war crimes in WW2 as we would recognise it today, under which individuals could be prosecuted - those under which the Axis criminals were tried were largely made up at Nuremberg. Individual countries had their own laws, but state immunity was absolute, and extended to individual soldiers acting in war, so they could effectively only be prosecuted under their own military law. Any article on WW2 war crimes requires some moral or political judgement, although it is made easier in judging the Axis powers by the special legal arrangements applicable only to them. "Crimes" in this context are not just those for which someone can be tried and convicted under a particular legal code. At very least it is necessary to extend the Nuremberg principles to those who were not actually subject to them. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes charges were based on the "customs of war" which could be argued to be very subjectively defined and administered by the Allies during the trials. There were laws of war, however, in existence, such as the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), and the Kellogg–Briand Pact. I'm not advocating including moral crimes in the article, I'm saying that an explanation of the difference should be included. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Man. What are the odds that we'll find a substantial number of Allied actions where a reliable source specifically says 'this was a violation of the Kellogg-Briand pact'?

Or are we going to decide ourselves whether Allied action x was a violation of one of these agreements? That would definitely be... ahem, "synful".

I personally think that this article is very valuable, but realistically the only way to do it is to include any Allied action which was labelled a war crime by reliable sources, and of course any rebuttals by reliable sources. Even if the appellation is completely unfounded in terms of these agreements. BillMasen (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese POWs held by Japan

Article currently claims ">99%" death rate among Chinese PoWs held by Japan. While I find it completely believable that death rates among Chinese held by Japan were highest in WW II, ">99%" sounds somewhat unrealistic. It seems to have been concluded from statement that there were "only 56 survivors at the end of the war". While this sounds somewhat dubious on its own, even if we consider it correct, then it most likely doesn't include Chinese POWs that were released by Chinese/Allied action during war, that escaped captivity during war, and those that were recruited into Collaborationist Chinese Army.--Staberinde (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it sounds dubious, but there is already an inline citation - what does the source say? Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation is only for statement that there were "56 survivors" at the end of war, ">99%" seems to be original synthesis by some wikipedia editor. Interestingly in Japanese war crimes exactly same citation(20th) is provided for statement that "56 were released" at the end of war(there is difference in that). Someone who has source at hand should check exact wording. Either way, no matter which wording is used, this 56 obviously applies to those that were kept as prisoners until the end of war, and not those that were released(either by chinese/allied action, or recruited in collaborationist forces), or escaped on their own, during war.--Staberinde (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Katyn

Why is there a picture of the Katyn memorial, but no reference to the event it in the text? If it has been excluded because the Soviets were not 'allies' at the time, then the picture should go. Paul B (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Allied Bombings of German Cities

You failed to mention in this article that Allied bombings of Berlin, Hamburg, and other German cities also constituted war crime. Think about it - Allied war planes flattened many German cities and nobody wonders what happened to the German civilians (women, children, the elderly) who lived in these cities? Think! Bosniak (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously on this talk page. Area bombing of cities was not a violation of existing conduct of war agreements at the time of World War II. Area bombing of civilian population centers may have been a moral crime, but it was not a war crime. Therefore, since this article is about war crimes, not moral crimes, we don't list city bombings here. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile mentioning this distinction in the article itself. The firebombings of Japanese and German cities are abhorrent to many people. So much so that they assume that they are war crimes. When they see no mention in the article, they may think it's missing or revisionist. It should be possible to add a section for this to settle the issue for people coming here in the future. It's critical information for people to have if they are researching or discussing the topic. Agentchuck (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we should add the German bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London and Belgrade as crimes; and the use of V1 and V2 weapons, which were randomly targeted at large conurbations. HLGallon (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...In an article about Allied war crimes? We're not children here. You don't have to append "but the Axis Powers were MUCH worse!!" to the end of every sentence. They have their own articles listing their atrocities. Many articles. Besides, being less evil than very evil people does not make one good. Hence the existence of this article. I agree with Agentchuck: some mention of the routine bombings of civilian targets (in addition to the extreme examples of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden) would be good for the article. Even if there's consensus that these were not war crimes, omitting any reference to them will likely confuse people. Midnight Bliss (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Things which aren't war crimes have no place in an article about war crimes. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Things which aren't but sound like they are might warrant a mention, just to point out that they're not, for the people who were wondering whether or not they are. It's not hugely important, but if it could be concisely squeezed in there somewhere it might be nice. I don't mind much either way, really. Midnight Bliss (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue on Dresden is conterversial; the city was defended and not an open city. Why do we have the one sided view presented in this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reorg the article

I feel that the article being split between the European and Pacific theater is a little awkward, does anyone have any problems if it is reorganised under a national basis and thats it (with the sections of submarine warfare and death rates left as they are)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current division between theatres is OK - conditions in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Pacific were quite different from one another and the literature on war crimes typically deals with them by theatre/region and nationalities rather than by just nationalities. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, although i think we can tidying things up a little and make things a little more clear. I shall make a few changes later on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of dubious content

In these two edits I've removed some dubious claims. Both had been previously added to other articles and removed. The first one was:

Some dead Japanese were desecrated and/or mutilated, for example by urinating on them, shooting corpses, or taking Japanese body parts (such as ears or even skulls) as souvenirs or trophies.

This is cited to a book review, not the book itself. The actual book states that Allied troops almost always left Japanese corpses alone (and unburied) yet the review used this page to claim "Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated". Hence the review is not a reliable source about the book, and the material being extracted from the book in the review is being used out of context.

so the book says that in most cases corps were left alone, but not in all ? Blablaaa (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The second passage was:

"There were 4,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture" which was located in the section discussing rapes during the Battle of Okinawa.

Kanagawa prefecture is in Honshū, not Okinawa and its occupation took part after the Japanese surrender. Hence, its both unrelated to events in Okinawa and is outside the scope of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

u removed because it happend after the war? Blablaaa (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article's title is Allied war crimes during World War II (emphasis added). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

other war crimes like soviet "mass rape" are mentioned. the term warcrime implys it happend war related. i think its pretty irrelevant if it happend some days after the war. and i think my view is a common view. thats why this crimes are called war crimes regardless if they happend some days after war.... . but when their is consense of the editors here then ignore my concerns Blablaaa (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, it appears to be a general crime not a war crime; unless of course we have reliable sources that suggest otherwise.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since some people here obviously like to be legalistic, I'll give you something to bite into. Since "War crimes" by definition is legalistic, as long as there is a war there will also be a belligerent occupation, unless the territory has been annexed, and therefore "war crimes" will be committed on that territory.

list of US wars

273. Proclamation 2714: Cessation of Hostilities of World War II

Although a state of war still exists, it is at this time possible to declare, and I find it to be in the public interest to declare, that hostilities have terminated. Now, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the cessation of hostilities of World War II, effective twelve o'clock noon, December 31, 1946.

End of state of war with Germany was granted by the U.S. Congress on 19 October 1951, after a request by president Truman on 9 July 1951. Termination of state of war with Japan was declared on April 28, 1952.

Just because the last bullet was fired in Europe in May 1945, or in Japan some months later, did not mean that the laws changed. If you deserted or committed rape you could still get hung, as long as the war legally was on (although in practice this did not happen, e.g. the U.S. stopped executing hangings as soon as the rape victims were German instead of French/British).

Please be more careful in the future--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you also need to be careful, its a delicate subject; on the article to do with war rape. The act is recognised as a war crime "When part of a widespread and systematic practice". If the sources say that, then fair enough add it to the article. But being picky and citing irrelevent information is not going to get anyone anywhere. What do the sources say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I lifted it back in because I felt the reasoning given for taking it out was seriously flawed. It apears you now wish to take it out using a different reasoning, fine. The sources available state for instance that Gang rapes and other sex attrocities were not infrecuent" (Eiji Takemae, Robert Ricketts, "The allied occupation of Japan") Estimates for rape on Okinawa alone are 10,000 (other source) and the number given for the first 10 days in the Kanagawa prefecture are 1,336 reported rapes. If you compare that with the estimate of 11,040 rapes in Germany by US troops during the early occupation (months) it does sound quite widespread. Especially since the estimate of the real number of rapes must be much higher than the reported number, and thereafter extrapolating that what happened at that single prefecture also happened across all the other prefectures of Japan... (German Estimate is from Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II. J Robert Lilly. ISBN 978-0-230-50647-3)

Where did you find the definition you cite of rape as a war crime, by the way? Was the one you quote in operation during the war? As far as I know there was no attempt to try anyone for rape at Nuremberg as "war crime under customary international law" (would have been a bit blatant perhaps, considering the Allies activities on that front) Only in Tokyo was there a prosecution, with General Yamashita killed for "permitting rape".

Maybe we should merge the War crimes articles per war, e.g. merge War crimes of the Wehrmacht into this one and the equivalent SU and Japanese so we can make sure we treat them all according to the same criteria.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Stor stark 7 , i guess u waste your time here, the lobby is too big. Blablaaa (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Caden ^cool 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So what should we do about including the Soviet mass-rapes? Are we going to construct a whole new article about "crimes committed by allied forces during post-WW2 occupation"? Of course we aren't. We're mentioning the explusion of germans on this page, so we should mention the mass rapes too. Moreover, Stalin deliberately allowed Red Army troops free rein to rape the women of Germany, so this isn't simply a crime committed by a large number of individuals, but one committed by a government. BillMasen (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that no-one has disagreed that, as far as actions by US troops is concerned at least, World War II lasted at least until 12:00, December 31, 1946. Lets add another sweet to the mix then. Are violations of the Geneva convention war crimes?

Judge Robert H. Jackson, Chief US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials in a letter discussing the potential weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told US President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves:

"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of getting the blaablaa bunch together, bringing up everything and its dog; what do the sources say? Do the sources say that American actions were war crimes? Or do the sources say that these crimes comitted by soliders but not war crimes?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to advise all to read the beginning of the section again(espially enigma). Nick explained that he removed war crimes ( like many other war US warcrimes which were removed by him from multiple articles ) because they happend some days after the war, and in his opinion its no warcrime then. I asked for further explanation of this edits. Then enigma joined and said he agrees to nicks opinion ! Stark explained warcrimes are not always during the war.... . The content was simply removed because nick thinks it happend somedays after the war , thus its a common normal crime.......... . So i ask why enigma comes into a discussion without any input and then agrees to a strange opinion and later moans about others who dont bring sources. Blablaaa (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The irony out of you is just unbeliable, am still unclear how you dont manage to notice it. I also think you should take your blinkers off - just once - and you will note two things: 1) i already asked in my initial comments for sources that state these acts were war crimes (still not provided by you or the minions) 2) i have actually contributed to this article unlike you ... sheesh!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

in your intial comment your first comment was u agree without any source u simply agreed to the opinion, and nothing else so stop weasel around now. U came to the discussion with nothing more than your opinion. Look the next section below, there the same, u not even got the point. Please bring some or stop editing the discussion. At the moment your only mission seems to be to troll me. Please stop this, please. Blablaaa (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a rather high opinion of yourself, i also see how you have yet to look up the definition of irony. Considering this; what sources have you brought to this discussion or this aritcle? The fact is, you havent - so stop bringing me into very point you want to make.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again u dont stop trolling. Your logic failed. I dont need always a source to question edits of others or start a discussion. I also dont need a source to make suggestion regarding article names or better layout. But, u should avoid banging into discussion with no other mission than trolling. Your mission here failed. Please stop. Give input or something else but please stop harrassing me. Instead of giving a respond to my suggestions at the bottom u make comments again to my person. Try to avoid Ad hominem which u use on every discussion were iam involved. Regarding the irony: U accused me many times of being a troll now u troll around with your mission. Perfect example of irony. Can we finish this dispute and focus on the topic. Please? I guess its a pretty difficult topic and we should avoid such unhelpful discussion. Both Blablaaa (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A good solution would be a article which is called "war crimes and crimes against Humanity by xxxxxx during WW2" . I guess the reader has problems to understand why some rapes are warcrimes and other not. This rapes were commited by an army and were War related so they should come together to give a simple and compact overview. Blablaaa (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not call these 'war crimes' and the Allied troops were were prosecuted for rape during the occupation of Japan were prosecuted as common military criminals. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisley if the sources do not state these were war crimes, see the article on war rape etc, then everyone elses opinion doesnt matter - it is what the sources say.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again enigma No input u simply trolling around at the moment. Nothing to do ? @ nick many other articles list all these mass rapes in warcrimes articles, and there are many citiations. Now its unclear if the editors there cited that the sources claim that this rapes were war crimes. Further clarification needed.

I also want to advise again to put this together. War crimes and crimes against humanity by one army/country in one article. This would be much better than the recent solution because the reader is able to see all in on compact overview. At the moment i see, that the warcrime issue is a good possibility for editors to present some armies more clean than others. Blablaaa (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Death rates of POWs held by the Allies

is it possible that the percentages for US and British are done with alle POWS taken after world war II for some weeks? During the war over 77.000 POWs died. Blablaaa (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article its sourced from presents the data as POW death rates during the war (eg, the text in which the table is referred to states, among other things, that "A British prisoner in German hands had a reasonably good chance of surviving the war, as only 1 in every 29 died in captivity, but a Russian prisoner was more likely to die than survive"). Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

british rate is given as 0,03 % , that means 3 in 10000 for more than one year. the mortilaty rate for human mens 20-30 today is 1:1000 per year. so british custody had 3 time lower death rates for age adjusted men than today? where is my mistake? Blablaaa (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the number provided in the source. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

then i think the problem here is that the statistic is not "normed". the table must compare deaths per year or something else. at the moment this is not the case. so there is no value. when the avarage german POV was in custody for 2 weeks ( until war ended ) and the avagere allied for 2 years ( think about battle of france ) , than there are nominal 100x more allied dead in POV, but the treatment is the same. The table now can be removed..... Blablaaa (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

please think a moment about the 0.03 % Blablaaa (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you also need to think about your objection. What does Allied dead have to do with POV issues? You think the table should be removed because the intake of prisoners at the end of the war would slant the figures; prehaps but there was hundreds of thousands taken before the final two weeks of the war: at least 20k during the three battles of Alamien (maybe even more during the retreat) 150k each during Bagration and the end in North Africa, 90k at Stalingrad, 200k during Overlord rising, so ive read, up towards either 500k or a million in the west during 1944, similar numbers in the East...not to mention all the other battles and offensives; were talking in the region of a million (perhaps more) prior to 1945. Its not as the table, as you are attempting to suggest, is completly worthless.

I would actually like to see information on the Italians if anyone has a source on them, its an area that seems to be missing - hundreds of thousands of them ended up in Allied camps.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the table compares dead POWs but he cant compare german POV in english custody with allied POW in german custody. the table trys to compare something without standartesized timeframes. the table gives percentages so the reader can compare how good or bad the treatment was. but the reader cant compare because its not time standartezised. are u sure u understand what i mean? my bad english is no help i guess... Blablaaa (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i repeat my concerns about the 0.03% to make it obvious. the normal mortilaty rate for people today is 0.8% per year. something with this number is wrong. can anyone check again? Blablaaa (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your source for the 0.8% figure? I agree with you though that we need to ensure these figures are 100% accurate from the historians' work. Additionally i would suggest adding further information from his tabels if there is such.

I can see the inkling of a point being made, but what difference does it to show the percentage on a year by year basis (if the source even has that information); that would still be a comparison lacking context, which seems to be the point you are making now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the 0.8% are the normal annual mortilaty. this was only an example to show that these 0.03% are highly dubios. When i see the table i see that the reader gots numbers presented which show him how the treatment of POWs was. he can compare the numbers to see who treated POWs well and who not. Thats the only logic reason for mentioning this percentages. But this percentages dont have standart time frames. so the value of comparing them is 0. Simple extreme example : Germany takes 1 million POW over 1 year 1000 die. Makes 1:1000 POWs dead per year. british take 1 million german POVs for 1,2 months ( ( 10 times less ) and 100 die. than the treatment of POV is the same 1:1000 die per year. but the percentage is 0,1 compared to 0.01. This is only an example to show that these percentages are useless for the reader. Time adjusted numbers would be fine...Blablaaa (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

now i looked again on the article, and the header for this section is comparative -.- Blablaaa (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"the 0.8% are the normal annual mortilaty" - but for where? What was the annual mortaility rate in the 1939-1945 period in the UK, USA, Canada, and Austraila for the regular joe? Considering these are the places POWs ended up and its the time period; its a pretty fundemental point to be addressed if you are attempting to discredit the source and to highlight how dubious it is; of course we still need someone to check it.

Nick, do you own or have access to the source?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to the journal article, and the figures being sourced from it are exactly what's in the article. The table in question in the article combines data from a several sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry my point is not clear to u.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not "resolved". Regardless what sources say about percentages of dead POWs, this numbers should not be compared in a table (like now) when they are not time adjusted. POWs in soviet custody for example where much longer there so the rate is higher, without neccessarly worse treatment. At least, it should be mentioned somewhere near the table. Blablaaa (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if the table is from the article i see no reason to include him in wiki. reasons for that are above. Can somebody of u, nick or enigma, please say something to my argument for the uselessness of not timeadjusted comparisons. Iam aware of wiki policy that everything must be cited but not everything from a journal has a right to exist on wiki. My suggestions: Nr1 removal of table and writing of text. The text uses the numbers but explains the timeissue. Nr 2 adding this note to the tables Blablaaa (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my bad english i maybe have to ask first if u understood what i mean. If not what point need further clarification ? Blablaaa (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The figures are the death rates of all prisoners captured during or immediately after the war, and all nationalities appear to be are treated equally so there aren't any show stopping data issues I can see (and I've done statistics courses at the university level and subsequently worked in data analysis jobs). If you can find some figures which have been adjusted by other factors, then by all means add them as these would provide an interesting and useful comparison. Given that the table is good enough for a peer reviewed journal article, I don't see any problem at all with including the figures here. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick is right, the figures in Overmans are more or less about what you already have on the table. Looking at Overmans data the Soviets held 560,000 German POW @12/31/1944 out of a total 2.5 million they claimed as POW-22%. Most Germans captured on the eastern front in 1941-44 were never listed as POW and did not survive the war, most survivors were from 1945. Overmans believes that up to 1 million more Germans were captured by the Soviets but perished on the battlefield,before reaching POW camps--Woogie10w (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the deaths of POW in Allied hands was not necessarily due to war crimes, many would have died of battle wounds.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

i have no better figures. Anyway i think its not good to compare death rates when they are not time adjusted. If u both/threee think its ok this way then its ok . Blablaaa (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, I believe you can make a positive contribution to English Wikipedia on this topic since you read German. Rüdiger Overmans, who has academic credentials and is a recognized authority on the German military in WW2, he has done extensive research on the POW issue. His research has been supported by the German government Military History Office. I post the following works by Overmans for your consideration.

Rüdiger Overmans: Die Kriegsgefangenenpolitik des Deutschen Reiches 1939 bis 1945. In: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/2. München 2005.

Rüdiger Overmans (Hg.): In der Hand des Feindes: Kriegsgefangenschaft von der Antike bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. Böhlau, Köln 1999. ISBN 3-412-14998-5.

Rüdiger Overmans: Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Ullstein Tb., 336 Seiten, März 2002.

Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

Regards, --Woogie10w (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Woogie Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Using data from Overmans I derived these figures on POW dead:

Prior to 1945

In Soviet custody-627,000–dead 67,000-11%

In Allied custoday-728,000-dead-5,000-1%

After 1/1/45

In Soviet custody-2,433,000–dead 296,000-12%

In Allied custoday-6,952,000-dead-72,000-1%

Other Countries custody-360,000-dead-19,000-5%

In Addition to the above figures, Dr. Rüdiger Overmans believes that “It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the 2 million missing were killed in action, the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody”

Sources

Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg

Rüdiger Overmans: Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs

Also Krivsheev's figures are 450,600 German POW dead including 356,700 in camps and 93,900 in transit. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it the numbers for POW who died in German captivity are here not for encyclopaedia reasons but rather as a form of defense, e.g. the typical "yes we may have erred a bit that doesn't matter because the others were much worse, look here...". Am I right, or is there some other reason for making the comparison in an article on Allied War crimes?

If we are indeed going to make the comparison then a table is not enough, we must make a summary explaining the different situations. For example, I can well imagine that many of the US soldiers that died in German captivity died from friendly fire by bombers and fighters strafing anything that moved. Those deaths should not be hung on the German blame side then. Likewise, the horrendous death rates of Soviet prisoners were partly due to genocidal policies, but also partly due to unfortunate circumstances. As shown in this record from the Nuremberg trials[2] Remember that the Germans also released huge numbers of prisoners during the war, particularly Ukrainians.

As for the number of dead and missing German prisoners, that is an interesting chapter in itself. This summary is very sobering: "Die Schätzungen über die Zahl der in Haft gestorbenen Männer schwanken zwischen 600 000 und einer Million. Nach Angaben des Suchdienstes des Deutschen Roten Kreuzes ist bis heute das Schicksal von 1,3 Millionen Kriegsgefangenen ungeklärt - sie gelten offiziell als vermisst."[3]

Essentially they state that estimates of Germsn who died while in captivity range from 600,000 to 1,000,000. According to the missing persons service of the German Red Cross the fate of 1,300,000 German prisoners of war is still unknown, they are officially listed as missing. In a way the large variation in estimation ranges for those Germans who died in the Soviet Union in interesting. Lower ranges must mean that the remaining missing (dead) died not in the SU but in the West. Numbers do not seem to be clear in the West either.... How many died of the prisoners the US sent to France? 290,000? Hopefully much less, but who knows.[4] How many died of the prisoners the Western Allies sent to the SU? Who knows, but of the 6000 officers mentioned here probably a significant portion.[5] It does get quite messy keeping track of deaths and responsibility when people keep shipping other people around. Who is responsible for the deaths in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp? And of the deaths in France, are the French responsible or is it the Americans who are responsible since they captured them and eventually took the survivors back for eventual release?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue isnt resolved. The recent table which tries to "compare" death rates is still absolutly unscientifically because different parameter. U cant compare something with different parameters because this will always result in an incorrect conclusion. The table now is nothing else than a naive miscalculation. de:Milchmädchenrechnung Blablaaa (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The figures are taken from an academic journal article written by a very prominent historian. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can u address my concerns? Its a absolut naiv miscalculation. Regardless who published this numbers. The numbers are maybe correct but its dumb to compare them without comments . ( sorry for the bad word. but thats it ) . After multiple comments by me i think its clear where the problem is. Blablaaa (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If u are able to read german then please read "milchmädchenrechnung" because this article describes perfectly what is done here Blablaaa (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response to you made at 07:49 on 21 April 2010 above. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i have problems to understand that u dont unterstand the problem. I will edit the article later. Blablaaa (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How much german POW's in british custody? Blablaaa (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I cant believe that somebody is unable to see how obscure the 0.03% is . everyone with a grasp of math laughs when he sees this. Please take a look on woogies comments again, there u have 1% this i 33 times bigger than the article. This contradiction is so massiv. Blablaaa (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Iam shocked how incompetent such important articles are treated by editors. I will start to investigate in older edits by you and collect them. I see your mission . Blablaaa (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate figure? If so, please do add it. I note that so far in this discussion you have not identified an alternative. The figure is indeed low in comparison to the others, but this comparison made it through an academic peer review process so there's no reason to dismiss it. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Woogie presented already a much higher figure of overmann. Also i dont question the figure. I question the value of this numbers regarding a comparison. At the moment i think i repeat myself too often but: When GB caputered 3 million german just before the end of war and released most of them after some weeks than its logical that there are less deaths. BUT this has nothing to do with good treatment. Also its possible that after the war ended these guys were not anylonger counted as POW's. This number maybe correct maybe not is so flawed and pretty useless without comments. The reader has to know that all numbers have other parameters. I dont dispute that allied treatment of german POWs was good/better. I also dont understand this wiki attitude, "u have no better figure ? then the nonsense stays in the article" i think sometimes we should use our brains instead of copying books. Blablaaa (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering you have brought no sources yet you are once again arguing that reliable sources are wrong highlights how you were able to once again dupe a few people into getting you unblocked.

Lets look at your assertion, no where in the article does it say the death toll of German POWs in Western Allied hands is 0.03% - the actual figure presented in the article is 2.76% of German prisoners in Western Allied hands died. Do you have sources that disputes the referenced work or figures?

Now looking at the figures Woogie provides us with:

Pre 1945 a death rate of 0.6866%, post 1945 - 1.03%. If the figure of pre and post 1945 POWs are tallied together and the number of deaths we arrive at a death rate of %1.002.

So where does Woogie (he never claimed such himself) figure disputes the already referenced work? Considering it doesnt break down it cant be swapped in for the current material but it does provide a nice comparison of between 1-2.76% Germans died in Western Allied custody. Just to highlight Woogies figures are lower than the ones already used.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, assuming the same sort of breakdown the current source uses is applied to the largest percentage we have from Woogies work and assuming it includes the French we can further break down that %1.03 like so: French - %93.47 of %1.03 or 67,298, American - %5.43 or 3909 men, and UK - %1.08 or 777 men. This latter set of stats are not %100 accurate, since am on limited time atm, but you get the idea.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Iam not sure why u always come with such nonsense. nicks sources give overall 0,5 % deaths this much lower than 1% . why u dont do math before u edit. why? Blablaaa (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AND AGAIN different parameters are the problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! guys please take a minute and understand the issue please, stop throwing around with the numbers. Please look enigmas edit its the master example for missing the point. Please think about what i wrote before, different parameters must be mentioned in the article Blablaaa (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• France: 937.000 24.178 2,6%
• GB: 3.635.000 1.254 0,03%
• USA: 3.097.000 5.802 0,2%

please do your math again and compare with Overmann( woogie presented him ). Btw thats not even the point. Anyway u are wrong with both... Blablaaa (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you bother to read the article - the death rates are presented as the Western Allies - British 0.03, American 0.15, and French 2.58 or 2.76% in total - unless the French are no longer part of the Western Allies according to you.

One notes you havent even used in your "Master example", the correct sourced percentages from the article you are inflating losses by rounding upwards. Your source for the prisoner breakdown? Using the supported figures in the article you will find that its actually 24,174 in French hands, 4,645 in American hands, and 1,090 in British hands - if your POW figures are even correct. You do the math again comrade.

Sure the figures are just a mess about but i stand by the fact that Woogies figures note a death rate among German prisoners in allied hands as being 0.6866% pre end of the war and 1.03% post 1945 and something in between if we play around and add together etc

How am i missing the point if you are once again claiming that the figures in the article are wrong and woogies present a much higher overall precentage, something that the sources dont support? That is the only point i have so far engaged.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^^ enigma are u adding percentages ? :D Blablaaa (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear enigma u cant add percentages together to get an overall percentages. :D!! . u have to add POW's together and then deaths together and than u get the overall percentages. Incredible.... Blablaaa (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering you have presented no source for the figures for allied prisoners each country was holding nor a timeframe - something you have banged on about for some time - your own figures are as pointless as anything.

Considering Woogie provides a source of the numbers of prisoners held by the western allies and the numbers that died in western allied hands before the end of the war and after the end of the war we know from that source that these figures are 0.6866% and 1.03% respectfully.

Anything else is us playing around with stats but the fact is you asserted these figures were higher than the ones in the article and the simple fact is they are not.

The POW figures you have presented are higher than the one Woogie provided, assuming they are correct as are the various percentages in the article we come to a death rate of 0.3899986960490286 out of 7.6 million. We can carry on playing with stats all day but the fact of the matter is the two sets of information as they are incompatable nor does one provide the smoking gun you were attempting to unleash

Now without asserting one set of information is more correct than the other, or that it provides a lower or higher set of information - what is your point in clear language so us stupid English can understand?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I will help u abit the numbers from the recent table give an overall death rate of .36 % which is 2.7 times lower that what was written above. And again i want to highlight that this is not even the point ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How does one arrive at .36% exactly?

(~31000/7669000)*100=~0,4% Blablaaa (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Applogies for the haphazard maths before but one didnt have enough time being in work and all. Crunching the numbers - assuming that source B (your POW figure, have we had the source for it yet?) and source A (the percentages in the table on the article) are both correct we actually comes to 29909 prisoners. Following the correct maths, per the bove, we come to actually 0.39 when rounded so near enough matching your own figure.

So applogies yes, you are correct Woogies figures present a higher percentage and causalty rate. However we have had to mix and match two sources of information - that we are not sure is compatable - to arrive at the above point; in essence OR and still us playing around with stats. The figure Woogie presented is from a lower number of POWs than the figures you have presented plus it hasnt broken down so we currently do not know how it truley compares to the current information. So to be honest this has been a royal waste of both our time.

Although an inkling of a point does emerge - what POW figure does the current source use? That way the various information could be presented in the article to show the range between various historical studies.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not the point. The problem is the unscientific way of there use. We cant give the numbers without further explanation

• i will try do give an example again.
• Regarding the figure for British. German death rate in british custody, is given as 0.03% (3 times lower than normal mortality rate for a western mid 20 guy[[6]], today per year, this shows us very simple and undisputable that the german POW's in british custody was maximal 3/2 months in custody ( high likly far far less ))

  Regardless though, this what the source has arrived at following investigation. To note it would seem your conern would make the assumption that the German population was all held in British camps; considering they only held a fraction (various portions over various time lengths), coupled with other nations holding fractions and the remaining population being in Europe - it doesnt seem logical that the death rate of the entire population should be applied to a small group of POWs. I.e. it seems logical that the POWs in British hands could be under the German population death rate because they dont represent the whole country. Just a late night thought for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No my assumption is a simple trick to get a maximum average custody time. Because its not possible that the mortilaty rate in POW camps was lower than today in our society for the same age group. thats not possible. And based on this assumption i gave a maximum ( which is far to high ). Its only for the example.... Blablaaa (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

British POW death rate = 0,03% normal.Annual Mortilaty rate for same age group today 0,1% . Assumption: its impossible that this POW'S had lower death rate. This brings us to at least 3 times lower time frame ( 4 months ). I want to point out that i dont do orignal research i only want to show that the article has to mention the time issue.

But that is making assumptions, am finding it hard to see how the death rate for an entire population group can be used on only an element of that population to poo poo some stats from an acedemic study.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Then i dont know.Blablaaa (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Allied POW's in german custody were "very" long in custody. Starting in 1940 german made the most POW's at the beginning of the war. This prolonged the average time in german custody ( that german came in british custody in africa doenst madder because there number was relativ low compared with the millions of soldiers surrendering at the end of the war)
• Now we make a very simple example with extreme numbers to show the point. We assume a german average POW was 3 months in custody and a avarage allied for 3 years ( 12 times longer ).
• Now we have assume 12 time higher death rate of british POW's. The "noob" will think : "Heh the treatment was very bad in german stalags" . An academic will think: " same death rate per years, similar treatment" Blablaaa (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• German deaths would be much more when they were for similiar time in allied custody. Thats a major fact which has to be mentioned. Not even considering the fact that there are multiple other parameter like prison breaks ( which were not done by germans because war was over) bad food supply in german, bad infrastructur and many many more. The article simply give percentages.... which are far away from truth.

While we know the various conditions and factors at the end of the war, it seems to be assumption that German losses would be the same as Allied due to your position of a natural death rate. Do we have a source that supports that position otherwise it doesnt have to be mentioned - because its OR.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

who said the would be the same? its not even relevant how high they would be, the point is that the treatment cant be compared with absolut death numbers. look explanation above. The article needs a good text which explains that the number are not time adjusted and many other factors than the treatment influenced this numbers.Blablaaa (talk)

the numbers of me are nicks numbers( the numbers from the table) + the POW figure and deaths.Blablaaa (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[[7]] .Blablaaa (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. You suck at numbers. A perecent is a percent, thats per 100 people. Understand that TIME has no bearing in a perecent like this. The effect of time on the stat is removed when you use this percent. Or per 100,000 if you prefer. Doesn't matter. More British died for every POW taken, than Germans died for every German taken. Period. CJ DUB (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Iam not even sure why i answer but another example. After the first two months of diagnosis of Lung cancer, 9% of the patients died. Ten years after the diagnosis of prostata cancer, 11 % of the patients died. Conclusion: prostate cancer is more dangerous? No... . I guess i make myself looking like a fool when i explain it over and over again Blablaaa (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the worst example to explain percents I have ever heard. BAAAHAHA. So you made up some numbers there. With your made up numbers you just showed that the mortality rate of protate cancer is higher. Your numbers. Your examples above are borderline hilarious. So the mortality rate of British POWS was lower because they spent more cumulative time in prison? HAHAHA. Try that on a POW dying per day of war basis or POW dying per day of captivity, if you're so good with numbers and tell me what you get comparing the two countries. CJ DUB (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"With your made up numbers you just showed that the mortality rate of protate cancer is higher" Oh my god, unbelievable Blablaaa (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cant understand that people bang into discussion without reading the previous posts. Thee article tries to compare "treatment" and the article uses no time adjusted numbers. But for treatment a number like death per time would be much more logic. thats all... . Time adjusted numbers are not available , so the article has to explain this issue. Blablaaa (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for time adjusted numbers. Lets go back to your mortality example, where you helped me prove my point. If 11% is higher than 9%, then the cumulative mortality of the 11% is higher. So prostate cancer cumualtive mortality is higher in the example. Now, if you wanted to adress other questions as far as time dependent mortality w/respect to different types of cancer, then fine, develop other stats. However, time adjusting POW deaths is completely meaningless, because you aren't really comparing different things, while for the cancer, you are: prostate v lungs can have completely different casuality, due to target tissue, route of entry, etc. In the POW case, they are not different because the causes of death are the same in each country, usually privation, and basically nothing else. Time adjusting moreover simply transforms the data, so it looks different. Conclusion: time adjusting doesn't add anything when you are comparing similar endpoints. CJ DUB (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i dont will respond to "arguments" of u. I think u are not able to understand. Blablaaa (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Omg i dont know why but i will explain it again. I will explain it so simple that u cant miss the point again. U have 2 countries both have 1000 POW. Country A has the POW's for on month. Country B for 10 years. In both custody 100 POW's die. Country A has 100 dead POW's in one month !!! and Country B 100 dead POW's in 10 years!!! Both have POW mortilaty rate of 10%. Both have the same qualaty of treatment? No they have not. If u didnt got it now then please dont respond. Blablaaa (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Slim - Allied vs Japanese forces in Burma

"Lieutenant General William Slim wrote laconically: 'quarter was neither asked nor given.'"[48]"

While Slim may be "setting himself up here" he also provides first hand accounts in how own book of his men going out of their way to stop their troops from killing the wounded (first hand account from the battle of Imphal iirc) and makes a big deal about his men capturing Japanese troops.

Again we have a one sided view of the article without an attempt to balance it up, i dont have the book in front of me nor the time but Slim does balance the account on the issue.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've own Forgotten Armies, and that passage doesn't state that these events were a 'war crime'. The passage describes how "The 14th Army had become a cold, efficient killing machine", which includes ruthlessly hunting down Japanese troops. This also seems to be an example of the WP:SYNTH problems which infest this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the author provide a page number to Defeat into Victory where one could find the quote in mention. Scanned the book, google searched it and no hope. Although there are several pages in here about taking prisoners and a good antedote about not killing them etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Page 188 of the 1955 edition, though I couldn't spot it there in my 1956 edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that Nick, its right cheesing me off lol I spent ages without success last night flicking through the book for it ... i have the latest edition (i think) so it might not even be there!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The key thing missing from this section is the fact that the Allied leadership undertook a large-scale effort to encourage their troops to take prisoners and that those Japanese who did surrender were treated very well once they were away from the front line (which has historically been the place of greatest danger for surrendering troops of all nationalities and all wars, and particularly those surrendering by themselves or in tiny groups as the Japanese tended to). Curiously enough, this is explained in Ulrich Straus' book and most of the other key works on the topic of Japanese POWs, but only selected sections have been cherry picked out of the book and incorporated in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That may well be so Nick, that the Japanese were well treated once they were in camps in the U.S. and it certainly is true that the Allied leadership late in the war undertook a campaign to get more Japanese prisoners for questioning.

But,.... and this is very important.... "the key thing" is that those things are not war crimes so they have no place here in an article about war crimes. Write a separate article about the campaign to encourage US troops not to kill surrendering Japanese if you wish. Be sure that you include the part about promises of ice-cream and three days leave though. I can see a point in writing a paragraph about the size of the surrendering groups of Japanese having something to do with their odds for survival, but take care that it doesn't get a synthesis tag. And I think I recall reading about some siceable groups of surrendering Germans getting machine-gunned, but perhaps those were exceptions.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then that leads to POV pushing; one cant simpley explain that it happened. Context needs to be added - the reasons why events happened and the efforts to stop them to provide a balanced picture.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I too would be inclined not to use Bayly's and Harper's quote as anything like an authoritative view of what did and did not constitute a war crime. The phrase "cold, efficient killing machine" should be taken only in the context of the previous year's campaign in the Arakan, where the British and Indian armies had been an inefficient and ill-trained machine. The choice of phase was unfortunate. HLGallon (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I scanned around the page in Defeat Into Victory, assuming that the above page number was for this book, and cant find the quote to give some additional context!!! Annoying the crap out of me because it looks familia like i have read it before.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As there appears to be agreement here that this material doesn't belong in the article as its source doesn't label the fighting a 'war crime' or anything comparable I've removed it. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________
I am belatedly registering my disappointment at and disagreement with the direction of the discussion above. I added the Slim quote; I don't own the book, so I can't check it right now. But I would make two points:

1. The article now contains absolutely nothing (not even a stub section) about atrocities committed against Japanese personnel in the Burmese/Indian campaigns. I once read a post by T. F. Mills (University Of Denver/regiments.org) on a long-dead web forum, stating that that the rate of prisoner taking by Allied forces in Burma and India was actually lower than in the Pacific. Unfortunately usable sources that deal with the issue are hard to come by.

2. History shows that generals are very reluctant to consider the matter of their subordinates have committed prima facie war crimes. It is remarkable then that Slim even suggested such a thing, whether or not he uses the actual term "war crimes". It is also unlikely, to the point of virtual impossibility, that not even one Japanese soldier requested "quarter"! Slim is clearly making a thinly-veiled allusion to war crimes by any other name. That quote in is not

(As an aside, I admit that, as an Australian who has met victims of Japanese war crimes and many WW2 veterans and read a lot about that war, I am biased. But ... I do find it interesting that an outspokenly conservative/nationalist British historian, Niall Ferguson, chose to write about the sins of US and Australian personnel, while ignoring the "800 lb gorilla" in his own country.) Grant | Talk 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial section

was not blanked, but rather moved in its full to the Holocaust denial article, where it is welcome and appropriate. Anyone can check it. For satisfaction, I'll add a link to Holocaust denial. 140.109.226.67 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the text on the fact that a singular focus on alleged Allied war crimes has been a strategy of the Holocaust deniers and the far right in countries where it is illegal for them to engage in outright Holocaust denial to the Holocaust denial article and replacing it with a "See Also" link to Holocaust denial is not the proper way to do it. In fact, including a "See Also" to Holocaust denial can imply that there are some people that deny the existence of Allied war crimes in the same way that some people deny the existence of the Holocaust. Clearly, that's not what the text that is being removed says.

The same text can exist in both articles, btw, since it is relevant to both. I am also planning on expanding this section and adding similar info to other articles that deal with alleged Allied war crimes a little too obsessively.radek (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Holocaust denial paragraph should be present here in this article. It is relevant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To Radek: I don't see how "See also" link to Holocaust denial should suggest any accusations.

To Binksterne: Marginally relevant. The text should stay with facts about the main topic and not to retell what fringe theorists think or do about it. But if you think that promoting Holocaust denial is the right thing to do here, let me suggest giving more emphasis to the Jap war crimes instead, they were worse than anyone else. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Promote? You and I must not be getting the same thing from that paragraph. My reading of it is that people who deny the Holocaust often emphasize war crimes by the Allies, enough to merit comment by noted observers. Nothing to do with "promoting Holocaust denial." Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... yeah, Kokot, you are completely missing the point.radek (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to pile on, the material seems relevant to me. You couldn't write a truly satisfactory article about German or Japanese war crimes without discussion of how they've influenced post-war historiography and attitudes and the same applies to Allied war crimes. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How these atrocities are used and abused in the discipline of history is very important indeed. BillMasen (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

American crimes in Pacific

I suppose while nothing in this section may be untrue, there are a few elephants in the room that need to be addressed. Nowhere does it mention in the whole section that surrender was seen as dishonorable to the Japanese. The 1:100 prisoner to dead ratio makes it seem like American Einsatzgruppen were operating in the Pacific. When your enemy fights to the death, to the point of launching banzai charges with swords against machine guns, there aren't many left alive to surrender. This section was clearly written by someone with an anti American sentiment who wanted to use just the right citations to present a one sided story. Americans killing prisoners "contributed" to a 100:1 dead/live ratio? Sure, the last time I farted probably contributed to global warming as well, but I hardly see e-mails about my flatulence being discussed on the internet. Americans didn't take a lot of prisoners because they weren't there to be taken, only in 1945 did you BEGIN to start seeing people surrendering. And when you have soldiers refusing to surrender 10, 20, 30 years after the fact, that kinda shows their commitment to their cause. 66.214.185.231 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be unaware of the "take no prisoners"-policy the US soldiers had at that point. The ratio first changed from 1:100 ratio to a 1:7 ratio after several efforts were made to encourage the US soldiers to take prisoners, rather than shooting surrendering Japanese soldiers on sight. Anyways, this does not have much to do with war crimes, other than the US violating the Hague's laws on POWs.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather simplistic explanation. The sources on this topic state, in summary, that a) few Japanese troops attempted to surrender until the last year or so of the war as they were strongly indoctrinated against doing so and surrender was legally prohibited for officers b) many Allied troops didn't take prisoners due to a combination of racism and a desire to seek revenge against Japanese war crimes (and particularly well-publicised murders of Allied POWs) c) the number of prisoners taken increased from 1944 as many more Japanese attempted to surrender as they perceived that the war was lost (something encouraged by a large-scale Allied propaganda effort which sought to encourage surrender) and Allied troops were strongly encouraged to take prisoners and d) Japanese POWs were generally treated well once they were away from the front line and conditions in Allied POW camps met the Geneva Convention requirements (albeit with some minor infractions). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite a simplistic explanation; I didn't really feel like going too much into detail when I wrote it. But it covered the issue in a basic way. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

is this considered a war crime?

Cornelius Ryan notes that an Irish Guards intel officer during, at least, Operation Market Garden threatened POWs during integration with a pistol to speed things up so to speak. There is only a sentence or so on the subject and no reference to the primary/secondary source or further reading on the subject etcEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sure sounds like a violation of the Geneva Conventions to me. I'd rather include text on the overall incidence of this kind of behavior rather than single incidents though as it's hardly very significant in isolation (though I imagine that it was a terrifying experience for the German POWs). Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if there was more information a solid paragraph could be wrote; Ryan hints it happened more than once but thats it, as it stands now it would be a single line. It would be intresting to see if others have any similar info so that we can roll it all into something.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)