Jump to content

Talk:German war crimes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 502: Line 502:


{{DEFAULTSORT:German War Crimes}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:German War Crimes}}
[[Category:War crimes committed by country]]
[[:Category:War crimes committed by country]]
[[Category:World War I crimes by Imperial Germany]]
[[:Category:World War I crimes by Imperial Germany]]
[[Category:Nazi war crimes]]
[[:Category:Nazi war crimes]]


[[cs:Zločiny Německa za druhé světové války]]
[[cs:Zločiny Německa za druhé světové války]]

Revision as of 16:29, 28 January 2012

f

Czechoslovakia

Hi, did the Czechoslovakia really entered the war in ´42 ? I have though that CS was in war since the beginning, viz. "Germans invasion" in to the CS, after the Munich ? Maybe Im not right, but is there any source for that the CS entered really in ´42 ? (sorry my english, im not native E. speaker) Djuke (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. also in contrast with Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Czechoslovakia , "From 1940, a government-in-exile in London under former Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš was recognized as an Allied power." so, beginning of the war, year´40, or´42? what you think ? Djuke (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Durango and Guernica

Would the bombing of the towns of Durango and Guernica by the Luftwaffe during the spanish civil war be appropriate for this article? Eg1911 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This article really needs information on WWII war crimes and response to WWI war crimes. John Smith's 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article?

What is the scope of this article meant to be? There are several articles (German war crimes, Italian war crimes, Japanese war crimes, the recently-deleted Korean war crimes) that seem problematic to me for the same reason. The subject matter itself is clearly encyclopedic, and each incident should probably have its own article. But these articles are constructed as (ethnic group) + (type of heinous crime), tending to impugn the ethnic group as a whole. I don't think that's the goal, but it shows the need for a clearer focus. It would be fine to have articles about war crimes in a particular war, and perhaps for war crimes committed by a particular state actor (although these might be better as categories or lists). But there's no need to have an article about war crimes committed by members of any particular ethnic group, jumping across time periods and states. I suggest this article be made into a list or category, and renamed. --Amble (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are already very well-developed articles on the war crimes before World War I, during World War I, and during World War II, I think this would be fine as a category, or a pair of lists "War crimes of the German Empire" and "War crimes of Nazi Germany." --Amble (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "I don't think that's the goal..." Of course it's the goal. These articles are extremely juvenile. It would be interesting to know about the legal actions taken by authorities in response to these crimes, but obviously we will not find out anything about that here. Rwflammang (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for war crimes articles

Please comment here Talk:Japanese_war_crimes#Asian_Holocaust.2C_July_2008--Stor stark7 Speak 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All WWII crimes - Wehrmacht?

The WWII section states: Main article: War crimes of the Wehrmacht. Isn't this misleading? I think there were crimes not committed by Wehrmacht (ex. by SS, Luftwaffe - terror bombing, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide

What about the German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide? (see Vahakn N. Dadrians German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide: A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity (Paperback: 1-886434-02-6 / 978-1-886434-02-8 - Hardcover: 1-886434-01-8 / 978-1-886434-01-1))
88.65.251.29 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Huns

What exactly was Wilhelm II’s 'war crime' in 1900? He made intemperate remarks perhaps – but a war crime? Let’s get real here.--Gamahler (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response, will remove Wilhelm II in 1900 from this page.--Gamahler (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove Wilhelm II again. The entry quotes two sentences of a speech. No source is provided that declares Wilhelm’s discourse of 1900 a war crime.--Gamahler (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of English coastal towns

Laws of War: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); October 18, 1907

The Germans did not just head roughly in the direction of the UK and lob few shells at random targets and the run back to port. I read somewhere that the ports chosen had a clear military use, as they were involved in shipping British troops to the Western Front.

Given that time was not on the Germans side (The Royal Navy was not going to be slow to respond to such a raid), and the targets were the types of installations mentioned in Article 2, I think that it is necessary for the precise wording of the source to be quoted on this page and the wording should be change from the passive narrative voice of the article to name of the author making the claim that it was a war crime. --PBS (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to clear that with User:CJ DUB first; he's under the impression that the Germans were bloodthirsty savages, and their only intent was slaughtering British civilians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft says both ports were naval bases, Hartlepool was defended by shore batteries and in Whitby a signal post was targeted. Clearly Yarmouth and Lowestoft were legitimate targets. I suggest this article is edited accordingly. Markus Becker02 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks German appologists; yes, its completely in keeping with the articles of war (of that time and any time of history) to intentionally kill civilians specifically in order to get at military personnel. CJ DUB (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back up that allegation with say ... facts?Markus Becker02 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CJ DUB, read the wiki article about the Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft and I notice you still have not provided any evidence that the Germany Navy intentionally killed civilians. I suggest you refrain from editing unless you can back up your edits with something other than personal attacks.Markus Becker02 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it out; edit warring will not be tolerated. If you don't stop reverting each other, I'll block you both for disruption. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption? The article on the raid on Yarmouth and Lowestoft has verifiable references and the talk page makes it clear there is no disagreement about the content. Content which contradicts the statements that were amde in this article. So in what way are my actions disruptive? Ok, my edits are opposed one other editor but so far that editor failed to present facts backing up his position. For the time being I will not make more edits but how do you suggest this is resolved? Markus Becker02 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Becker has no reference for Yarmouth and Lowestoft for being "important military bases". Although obviously this still doesn't justify shelling civilian areas in order to draw out the British navy, in keeping with the articles of war of the time. 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)CJ DUB (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion that this incident was a war crime needs a cited source for that proposition. Synthesis is insufficient. 24.197.191.69
None but the relevant wiki article which says: Lowestoft was a base of operations for mine laying and sweeping, while Gt. Yarmouth was a base for the submarines that disrupted German movements in the Heligoland Bight. and The four battlecruisers opened fire upon Lowestoft at 4.10 a.m. for ten minutes, destroying 200 houses and two defensive gun batteries. As we can see both ports were naval bases and Lowestoft had at least two shore batteries. Yarmouth had four 6inch and two 12-pdr batteries in WW2, so its safe to assume the naval base was not unprotected in WW1. Besides you still have not presented any facts to back up the allegation of intentionally killing civilians, so don´t try and change the subject by making yet another allegation.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to whom this comment was directed, but I am new to this article, and have no axe to grind here. But conclusory statements need to be sourced (and another wiki article is not a reliable source). That applies to the view that the raid was a war crime, as well as the view it was not. 24.197.191.69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.191.69 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a wiki article with verifiable sources does not count as a source? Hmm, interesting but does this website count? The article seems to have been copypasted from it. http://www.bobhenneman.info/yar1916.htm Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was pasted from that website (see this old revision at the bottom). And no, Wikipedia cannot cite itself, even if the article itself is sourced. Please see the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THX Parsecboy, but is this website a source that meets wiki standards? Maybe not?!? @CJ DUB, you can call me names as long as you want but I´m still waiting for facts that prove the intentional killing of civilians you alleged. Until than I´ll ignore your meaningless comments. Markus Becker02 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. I had an argument with one of you appologists a month ago about how the Hartlepool etc, incident was not a war crime since the term was not defined yet. In the articles of war of the time, these are all defined as war crimes. See the Hague Conventions, and other similar docs of the time, not just the damn part about undefended towns. The conduct of war did not permit killing civilians specifially to draw out military personnel, no matter what you guys might think. It never has and never will. Your "oh it was defended, so yeah its a not a war crime" or whatever is pure synthesis. Has anybody (other than you guys) argued they were not a war crime on this basis? -cause that's how you're supposed to write/cite in wiki. Conversely these acts have been recognized as war crimes since the end of the war. See the authors i cited last time for the Hartlepool article. CJ DUB (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point of distinction that needs to be made, CJ DUB: a war crime is the deliberate killing of civilians, not accidental. Basically, you need to provide sources that demonstrate the German intention to specifically bombard houses and kill civilians instead of an intention to bombard port facilities/shore guns/whatever else. In fact, your argument, that port towns were bombarded without warning, and using a primary document to back up your assertion is the textbook definition of synthesis; primary sources are essentially only good for sourcing what the primary source says (in effect, you should only use the 1907 Hague treaty to source quotations from the treaty itself). I know we went around with this the last time we talked, but please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's sourcing policy.
As to your comment about the last discussion and the ridiculous straw man about timing pedantry, if you recall, you asserted that according to the 1949 Geneva Convention, the acts were war crimes. Since the Geneva treaty was not retroactive, the application of it here is completely spurious, which I correctly pointed out.
Just to state one more time in order to establish that my point has been made clear: I don't care one way or the other about the quibbling over whether they were war crimes or not. Both sides need to provide reliable (preferably secondary) sources to back up all of your claims. It would also be helpful for the resolution of this problem if the relevant portions of hard-copy sources that are not available online be reproduced here, so they can be verified by other editors. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, in Robert Massie's Castles of Steel, on pages 325–326, there is the following passage: The news that German battle cruisers had bombarded North Sea towns shocked and outraged Britain...The fact that two of the three towns were undefended drew particular fury. "The bombardment...was an infamous crime against humanity and against international law," declared the Daily Chronicle of London.The law in question was the Convention on Bombardments by Naval Forces, signed at The Hague on August 17 1907, by forty-four nations including Great Britain and Germany. Article I of the convention stated: "The attack or bombardment by naval forces of ports, towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." The Chronicle drew a distinction between the different towns attacked: "So far as the Hartlepools are concerned, no complaint can be made of the enemy's actions. The bombardment of completely undefended watering-places like Whitby and Scarborough is another matter."
This is an example of what I'm talking about as far as sources. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as First World War memorials are concerned (and the degree to which they may be considered in one way or another relevant to the issues of both the 1914 East Coast Raid and possibly to this Talk Page in general) please see the recently (October 2010) edited article West Hartlepool War Memorial (including the Discussions (Talk) page). P Judge

Lusitania - torpedoed without warning?

"torpedoed without warning in violation of prize rules by a German U-boat in May 1915"

However, the German Embassy made a warning advertisement in many newspapers before the Lusitania left New York. Maybe this should be added. 88.66.15.91 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "without warning" bit refers to the fact that the U-boat commander did not surface and allow the passengers of the ship to enter lifeboats first. That is a requirement of the prize rules. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kampf not outlawed in Germany

The article stated that Germany "outlawed" Mein Kampf. That's technically not true. Possession is legal, but Bavaria owns the copyright and does not allow any reprints. They might indeed outlaw it once it enters the public domain in 2016, but for now I removed mention of the book. Huon (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Jews killed?

In wikipedia's own page on the Holocaust, it states that up to 26 million total were killed and as few as 5.9 million Jews. Is this 43% of 14 million statistic accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddog4z (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: Opposed - Page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


German war crimes → War crimes and Germany — To maintain consistency with other articles, notably War crimes and the United States which proved impossible to maintain at American war crimes due to the perceived POV. I feel it would be decent to extend same courtesy to other nations regardless of their history. Editors are not the judge of that. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to oppose this move. Until today, when you moved, without discussion, Soviet war crimes to War crimes and the Soviet Union, Italian war crimes to War crimes and Italy, and Japanese war crimes to War crimes and Japan, articles which should be restored to their original locations until proper move discussions have taken place, the only article to use the "War crimes and [country]" format was War crimes and the United States.
While I agree with your basic principle that we should treat countries with courtesy, the fact remains that "War crimes and Germany" appears to be a highly euphemistic title, given that both Germany and the international community acknowledge and recognise the German war crimes of the two world wars, including the Holocaust. The same goes for the other axis powers of Italy and Japan, while even Russia's current government has taken steps to recognise the atrocities, such as the Katyn massacre, that were carried out by Soviet forces during WW2. These are not merely allegations of war crimes, but verifiable historical events.
For obvious reasons, the position of the United States is less clear – and arguably more controversial. I would agree that placing War crimes and the United States at American war crimes would be misleading and inaccurate; unlike Germany, the United States has never been convicted of war crimes, so the situation is very different. City of Destruction 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CoD, while you're right in pointing out that the US has never been convicted of war crimes, the same is also true for the Soviet Union. So this is tricky... Clearly, some of the former Soviet Union's military actions were later verbally condemned by Russian officials, unfortunately none of the culprits have ever been convicted. Yet there were of course Soviet war crimes, and there were American war crimes, only that in the latter case no institution, criminal court or international tribunal ever had the chance of indicting or convicting people, simply because of the country's continuing superpower status (the same could be said for the Soviet Union then, or Russia now, given the events in Chechnya).
Generally I think that both German war crimes or War crimes and Germany are viable solutions. But it would be preferable to find an impartial solution valid for all articles related to countries and/or their military forces, and the war crimes committed by those military forces. Catgut (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that what constitutes a war crime is very imprecise, and most countries accused of having carried out war crimes (USA, Russia, China, Sudan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Turkey and so forth) reject these allegations and are not members of the International Criminal Court. While most people would consider the My Lai Massacre to have been a war crime, it has never been officially recognised as such. However, the current governments of Germany, Italy and Japan do recognise that their actions during the two world wars constituted war crimes. Maybe this article, War crimes and the Soviet Union and War crimes and the United States, should remain where they are now, with the articles about Italy and Japan moved back. City of Destruction 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CoD. I agree with Catgut that we should find a solution valid for all articles. Whilst everyone may agree that the events of WWII were undeniably war crimes, the scope of this article is beyond just those - for example, as far as I know, Germany has not yet accepted full liability for the Herero and Namaqua Genocide, putting it in the same category as My Lai Massacre. Muraho (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies - I've checked, and Germany actually has now apologized for the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. However, this only happened in 2004 and the point remains that articles about war crimes by a particular nation are always liable to discuss both those that are unambiguous and those that are not admitted by the country in question. Hence neutral titles are better. Muraho (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree. However, titles on the lines of what is proposed do sound apologistic, and de-emphasise German culpability, which Germany itself accepts. Remember, we have to be sensitive to victims of these war crimes as well as being sensitive to the countries themselves – I don't think a totally neutral solution exists. City of Destruction 17:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just placed a request on the Administrators' noticeboard for the three recently moved articles to be moved to their original locations. If you wish to comment, please do so here. City of Destruction 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible to find a principle we can all agree on. I see several solutions:
  1. That an article can then be called "Nationality war crimes" if the nation has publicly accepted such actions as war crimes. However the content should then be restricted to acknowledged war crimes only, a second article would be needed for alleged war crimes.
  2. That all articles be called "War crimes and nation", if you prefer consistency above the perceived feelings of "victims" (in the case of Germany there are hardly many left by now).
  3. That all articles be called "Nationality war crimes" whether admitted or not.
I dont see #1 as a viable option. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your point at 2., I meant more family of the victims and their memories, rather than living survivors of atrocities like the Holocaust. I could agree to either 1. or 3., but I don't why the content should have to be restricted should we go for 1. anymore than if we go for 3. I think whether a country has accepted it carried out war crimes is a reasonable way of dividing these articles into discrete groups; one containing the USA and USSR, the other Italy, Germany and Japan. City of Destruction 17:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, War crimes and Germany sounds dumb.  Dr. Loosmark  10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so does War crimes and the United States. Flamarande (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree. The moves by Sandman888 were controversial and they need to be undone IMO.  Dr. Loosmark  19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The moves of Sandman888 were certainly controversial and they need to be undone (full agreement here). However if we take a look at Category:War crimes committed by country the only title that fails to follow the schema is the article about the USA. How do we justify this single exception? Flamarande (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USA is really the odd one out as the only country that was never an axis power – Italy and the USSR changed sides during the war, while Germany and Japan eventually surrendered to the allies. Unlike the other countries, although with the possible exception of Russia, which continues to play down war crimes committed by the Soviets although it does accept responsibility for the Katyn massacre and other war crimes, the USA does not accept that it has committed war crimes. Thus the title "American war crimes" is extremely dubious for War crimes and the United States. City of Destruction 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Use "(Country) war crimes" simply because those titles are more accurate. The articles detail war crimes committed by the country's own armed forces etc - the "War crimes and (country)" title could imply an article on crimes the country's armed forces had committed, crimes committed on it by other country's armed forces and war crimes comitted by one third party country on another third party country that the country in the article title took action to stop - far to broad/ambiguous. This is a no brainer. Exxolon (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • German war crimes, Israeli war crimes, British war crimes, Soviet crimes, etc. All these "(Country) war crimes" titles are simply way too vague. War crimes are not done by countries or nations ("nation" as in a people/ethnicity). They are committed by military or para-military forces usually following orders given by officers during a specific war. Said order may derive (or not) from instructions given by the government. Said government may excuse or deny the war crimes later. The people (the nation) is more or less innocent of these crimes. All these articles should be purely a list of the relevant wars (during which war crimes were committed) and provide links to the respective article. In the present form they just a strange "collection of atrocities committed by a country". Flamarande (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes committed by the Red Army and the Wehrmacht are clearly Soviet and German war crimes. Massacres of civilians have in the past and present been the state policy of many countries around the world. City of Destruction 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that that is irrelevant; the state policy is determined by the government, which officially acts in the name of the people, but that doesn't mean that the people is/can be held responsible (most of the time no one asks the people what they want to do). We all know that in dictatorships the people is kept in its place by secret police and brutal repression.Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway we are getting side-tracked here. My main point is that these kind of titles (German war crimes, Israeli war crimes, British war crimes, Soviet crimes, etc) are simply way too vague. IMHO we should turn these articles into "List of nation war crimes", present a simple list of wars and provide links to the crimes (respective articles) in question. This article in particular is just a strange "collection of atrocities committed by Germany" and the other articles are not better. Flamarande (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the above point about the role of the populace in war crime I would disagree; the state isn't some kind of abstract concept completely disconnected from the people being governed – historical evidence shows that the regimes of Germany, Japan, the USSR and so forth had widespread public support, and many war crimes that have been committed were carried out largely or wholly without the stimulus of the state. I don't think the "List of nation war crimes" format would work since what since these articles are not merely lists, and what constitutes a war crime is uncertain in many cases. City of Destruction 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're arguing that for example the people of the Soviet Union was in favour of the war crimes and purges committed by the Soviet government then please provide reasonable evidence. Find me a war crime committed by Japanese civilians (not military or government officials). Provide evidence of war crimes committed by German civilians during WWII ("many war crimes that have been committed were carried out largely or wholly without the stimulus of the state"). Find me any war crime committed by a people (as in civilians) in the last 150 years without the stimulus, backing, and/or instigation of the state. I challenge you to prove your point. Flamarande (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have the time or the energy to prove to you that ordinary people carry out war crimes under exceptional circumstances, that they are not abstract occurance systematically planned by governments but much more chaotic and destructive, I would recomend Dan Stone's resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA Histories of the Holocaust as a text I found extremely interesting in debunking the mythology of an intentionalist Holocaust in which the people of Eastern Europe had no complicity in the crimes carried out, in favour of a more rational interpretation in which no one side was completely responsivle. There are books which make similar arguments with regard to the USSR and Japan. City of Destruction 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article are not merely lists; they are just a pitiful and strange "collection of atrocities committed by whatever country". Flamarande (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a friend, much older than me, whose the father was (socialist) Mayor of Liège and himself met Karl Liebknecht who came in Liège (in September or October) in order to see what had happened during the Rape of Belgium. Liebknecht was feeling himself responsible. I dont't feel me guilty for the massacres of Leopold II of Belgium but responsible. I think it is great that en.Wp is speaking about the crimes of all countries. It is also great Germany recognizes all the crimes of German civilians or soldiers. It is the only solution for Germany and for peace...José Fontaine (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responsible for atrocities (in this case: Congo Free State) committed when you were not even born. You're certainly free to feel that way. The best thing is for the new generations to study these events and to learn something from it ("if the prior generations were able to do that we could also. We must be watchful that it doesn't happen again."). But please, tell me something of all these war crimes committed by German civilians (no military, para-military, and government officials). Give me a couple of examples. Flamarande (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Merge

Merge War crimes of the Wehrmacht here as unnecessary content fork-no other nation has pages forked like that.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to complicate things - I would favor a merger but I think this article should be moved into the Wehrmacht article. The Wehrmacht article is much better sourced, better written, more concise and, I think, less ambiguously titled. - Schrandit (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it's not an issue of any of those things. If the Wehrmacht article is much better sourced, better written, and more concise, then it will bring those strong points here. If the Wehrmacht article is less ambiguously titled, that's easily fixed per the discussion above. All war crimes of the Wehrmacht fall under German war crimes, but not all German war crimes fall under war crimes of the Wehrmacht. B is a subset of A.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it should. War crimes and the Soviet Union could fit into an article called Russian war crimes but I don't think that would make much sense. The same applies here. - Schrandit (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Schrandit (therefore I strongly oppose the merge proposal). It is simply better to have specific articles, each dealing with a particular war crime. An article which deals with the war crimes committed during a specific war or campaign is also useful (ideally such an article deals with more general issues and provides links to the specialized articles). An article about every single war crimes committed during all the wars of a nation is simply way too much. IMHO this article should be turned into a list. Flamarande (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-German war crimes is a broad subject-crimes in World War One(destruction of Kalisz, rape of Belgium and so on), World War 2 crimes, possible crimes post-1945 in operations abroad(Somalia, Afganistan), the War Crimes of Wehrmacht cover a specific type of crimes in WW2 by Wehrmacht--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So lets make article about those things? - 16:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Such articles exist already. Look in List of war crimes. Flamarande (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Definition of 'crime' in domestic and international law

Sorry, I cannot myself here in this article find any useful definitions (explicit or implied) of international law and its character, both present and historical, and as related to the fundamental historical concept of a 'just war', and consequently directly related to 'war crimes', the expression here used; that may be considered irrelevant or unnecessary but myself I would put it in the form of a question - 'Are lawyers and the rulers they represent in historical terms out of date?' (I do not happen to be either ruler or lawyer myself!). If anyone has time to spare, the necessary knowledge (preferably complete with references) and wishes to become involved (considering it to be of sufficient importance) then do please consider whether you wish to discuss these issues further here (the existence of and reference to some at least of the issues in question by Parsecboy in Bombardment of English coastal towns is acknowledged; to this section I myself now wish to take the liberty of adding an internal link which I consider to be relevant in part at least, in terms of contemporary post-war memorials, to these complicated issues, involving in particular, in this particular context, the history of international law on the high sea and the history of Europe in general in relation to that aspect of international law from the Napoleonic Wars onwards). P Judge

German acknowledgement of war crimes

I would certainly like to see a source cited for the following: "Germany's treatment of war criminals and war crimes has also met with approval[by whom?]. Germany helped track down war criminals for the Nuremberg Trials and opened its wartime archives to researchers and investigators." That sounds like the editor's personal opinion, which is obviously problematic, and in fact I have seen the opposite opinion expressed in print elsewhere. Rodney420 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair warning: source the statements or else...

Hy there, I wish to remember regular contributors of this article that one of the basics of Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. This very important article has whole sections lacking any sources whatsoever. The majority of entries in the section List of murders of children by Nazi Germany are unsourced. We are supposed to delete unsourced and therefore unverified statements, that's one of the major policies. Therefore I will remove the unsourced section and seriously trim dubious and unverifiable statements and entries in a couple of weeks unless they get their proper sources. They should never have persisted for so long at all. Flamarande (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we are supposed to delete unsourced (...)) statements". No, 'we' are not. Just place a 'citation needed' tag, because other editors might know a source for these statements. This would be a much constructive approach.Wikiweek (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are. And the tags you're referring to are already there, and have been there for way too long. Flamarande (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notorious massacres & war crimes of WWII (sorted by location)

Austria

Belarus

1941

1942

1943

1944

Belgium

Estonia

1941

1942

France

1944

Germany

1945

Greece

1943

1944

Italy

1944

Latvia

1941

Lithuania

1941

Netherlands

1944

Norway

Poland

Main articles: World War II crimes in Poland and Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles

1942

1943

1944

Russia

Serbia

1941

Ukraine

1941

1943

1944

Sources

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Child Holocaust victims.

Notes

This article incorporates text from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has been released under the GFDL.

See also

References

  1. ^ Complete tabulation of executions carried out in the Einsatzkommando 3 zone up to 1 December 1941
  2. ^ Gesamtaufstellung der im Bereich des EK. 3 bis zum 1. Dez. 1941 durchgeführten Exekutionen
  3. ^ Muzeum Powstania otwarte, BBC Polish edition, 2 October 2004, Children accessed on 13 April 2007
  4. ^ O Powstaniu Warszawskim opowiada prof. Jerzy Kłoczowski, Gazeta Wyborcza – local Warsaw edition, 1998-08-01. Children accessed on 13 April 2007

Further reading


Category:War crimes committed by country Category:World War I crimes by Imperial Germany Category:Nazi war crimes

cs:Zločiny Německa za druhé světové války et:Saksa sõjakuriteod Teise maailmasõja ajal eo:Germanaj militkrimoj dum la dua mondmilito ko:독일의 전쟁 범죄 it:Crimini di guerra tedeschi sk:Vojnové zločiny nacistického Nemecka počas druhej svetovej vojny zh:德国战争罪行

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_war_crimes&oldid=473706003"