Talk:Crime against humanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Rome Statute and Israel

Supporters of Israel should carefully read the Rome Statute defining "war crimes". Several of the clauses SEEM to apply to the Israeli army (IDF) and the actions it has taken to suppress anti-Israel terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank. It makes me wonder if the Rome Statute was created specifically to target Israel.

Is the ICC anti-semitic?

Please read the external link, and comment here. --Ed Poor 07:37 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

Seems a little off-topic? In any case, I can't see anything in Article 8 which particularly egregiously suggests Israeli actions... the ones about targetting civilian areas or destroying property have an "unless really necessary" rider. Anything in particular in mind? Please comment on the Talk:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court page. Ben@liddicott.com 14:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hague (IV) 1907 Convention

The term was first used in the preamble of the Hague Convention of 1907, and subsequently used...

I looked through the Hague Conference of 1907 and could not find the phrase "Crime against humanity" please could someone point out in which of the 13 conventions of that year I-XIII the phrase occures and where? Philip Baird Shearer 03:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A week gone by and no answer so here are some more details:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

it goes on to say in the next paragraph:

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood. Article (1) says "Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention." (2) apply "only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention"

I found this site http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html which says

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

The phrase seems to be "laws of humanity" and civilized peoples ... what are civilized peoples?

Also very importantly is the phrase "belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations" So it would seem that the treatment of a power's own na tionals are not covered by this treaty. So if a Nation were to kill a sub-ethnic or economic group within its own nation then Hague IV has nothing to say about this. Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List headings are contentious, could do with more distinctions.

The list headings are inconsistent and contentious. Grouping the Allied and Axis powers seems to hold US and UK responsible for things the USSR did which were outside the scope of the alliance. Other actions, (Dresden, Hiroshima) on the other hand are within the scope of the alliance.

While the actions of the Germans and Japanese in WWII are more comparable, they weren't planned jointly and grouping them together seems to serve no purpose.

Attributing actions to "The US and it's client states" seems like an excuse to attribute Pinochet's actions to the US. Not sure this grouping serves any NPOV purpose.

There could also usefully be made some more distinctions, based on scale, actors, and intent.

  • Scale: Pinochet's actions are certainly great crimes against the victims, but in terms of scale they are not comparable with most of the items in the list.
  • Actors: It should be made clear whether the actor is a state or a rogue element thereof, for example Mai Lai was covered up by the state, but it seems pretty clear that rogues were to blame. Likewise war crimes in Iraq from 2000 on, unless the war itself is considered a crime against humanity.
  • Intent: For example Germany made war in order to commit some their alleged crimes, i.e. specifically in order to exterminate and enslave the slavic peoples and occupy slavic lands. Similar observations apply to Japan. However most of the the allies' alleged crimes (Dresden, Hiroshima) were done with the purpose of better prosecuting the war (whether justified or not).


There is a lot of use made of the word "alleged". Mostly any controversy is around whether it is a crime (context, intent, think Hiroshima), or whether it amounts to a crime against humanity (scale).


If nobody objects or has a better idea, I am going to replace the existing categories with a straight chronological order.


Ben@liddicott.com 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree. "Allegations" are not particularly encyclopaedic. Would it be better to restrict the article to discussing what constitutes a crime against humanity, and move the list to List of events that have been described as crimes against humanity? That way we avoid the highly POV issue of determining what is and is not a crime against humanity. Anilocra - {hi!) 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absent any more comments I am going to do this real soon now. Ben@liddicott.com 30 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)


I agree with Anilocra. This article should be only on the definition of crimes against humanity. The (contentious) should be moved to a seperate article instead. This will clean up the POV issues. --Hurricane111 21:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Minor Modifications.

I am adding a mention of the treatment of Palestinian civlians by the Israeli government as well as editing the Vietnam entry to place blame on all sides of the conflict. The United States was not the only guilty party. The RSVN, the NLF, and the DRVN were all just as guilty of crimes against humanity.

I've removed that inflammatory and one-sided item on "treatment of Palestinian civlians by the Israeli government". For now, I will stay away from political commentaries here. Please don't turn this page into another Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is inflammatory and one-sided. Regardless of political attitudes, the Israeli governments treatment of the Palestinian is cruel and has been decried by the united nations and many world governments.
as back up to the above I present the following: On 19 October 2000 a Special Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution set forth in U.N. Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, "Condemning the provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians." The U.N. Human Rights Commission then said it was "[g]ravely concerned" about several different types of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian People, which it denominated "war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity."
In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then: "Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians...including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity..." And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission:"Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;..." Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council to "set up" this Commission "for the promotion of human rights."
- Taken from http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine50.html
I see, those bloodthirsty Joos again. Please read the articles concerning the conflict, esp. Israel and the United Nations, describing serious problems with the UNHRC and its need to reform. I invite you to register if you are planning to contribute. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have, I know this, and I also know that the Israeli state has blood on its hands just like everyone else. Now, please stop trying to make it look like the jews have only suffered and never caused suffering themselves. You are the one being one sided here so please stop.
Exactly, "like everyone else": so why you insisting on including only Israel here but forgetting "everyone else"? Comparably to real crimes against humanity (mentioned and unmentioned), this small conflict is too politicized and propagandized. We have more than plenty articles describing intricate and sensitive details of the conflict (and you're welcome to improve them) but instead you simplistically include the side that defends itself and don't include "everyone else", and after that you have the nerve to say that I am "the one being one sided here"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I'm only including Israel here is because I was looking over the article, saw a very clear pro-Israeli bias, and mentioned it. Now, I am putting my entry back. It is 100% accurate. It is an alleged crime agaisnt humanity put forth by the United Nations. According to the context of the artical it fits. Please do not delete it again!

The problem here is the declared purpose of the list: "List of alleged crimes against humanity". This sets an extremely low bar.

It may not be clear that Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians is a crime against humanity, this question is hotly disputed. However it is clear that it is widely alleged to be a crime against humanity. As such it belongs in this list.

We may want to consider whether a list of allegations belongs in an encyclopedia.

Ben@liddicott.com 09:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Now why I may not agree with the sucide bombing being a crime agaisnt humanity (I personally see it as terroist action and a crime against peace), I am not going to remove it because I have a personal agenda. Thank you for being reasonable Ben. PsyckoSama


[edit] Hague convention of 1907

I don't think this is accurate, I don't remember having read that term in the Hague convention of 1907, even though, that was what it meant. The first official and general usage of the term, is the allied joined declaration of May, 28, 1915: “crimes against humanity and civilization for which all the members of the Turkish Government would be held responsible together with its agents implicated in the massacres.” in “Crimes Against Humanity”, 23 British Yearbook of International Law (1946) p. 181

William A. Schabas, writes in Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 16-17

The wartime atrocities committed against the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire had been met with a joint declaration from the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia, dated 24 May 1915, asserting that '[i]n the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the allied Governments publicly inform the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for the said crimes all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of its agents who are found to be involved in such massacres'. It has been suggested that this constitutes the first use, at least within an international law context, of the term 'crimes against humanity'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The listings of "alleged" crimes against humanity are inherently POV and original research, as well, unless citations are provided. Anyone can allege anything is a crime against humanity; if my neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, I can yell "crime against humanity," which makes it an allegation, even though no objective source would say it's a valid one. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree I am going to remove it. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:verifiability both of which are policies, and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. If a new list is to be constructed then each entry should have Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe, per an ethics and human rights class, a crime against humanity is objectively defined as an act so harmful/heinous/evil/etc. that's by it's commission, all of humanity is harmed, as a result of it's scope. I'll have to dredge up an old notebook to find a citation, so that's forthcoming. But comments are helpful in the mean time. -wren

[edit] Allied crimes against humanity

As is well known to Philip Baird Shearer, there are sources provided at the talk page of Dresden bombing and there is discussion at other related articles about possible allied crimes against humanity. Thus, it should be noted in this article. Get-back-world-respect 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the statment you added that: "There has never been a trial determining whether the term applied to acts of allied forces." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you ask me for a source that there has never been a trial determining whether Philip Baird Shearer is a vandal who ignores talk? If there was no trial there are no sources. Please do not tell me that you suspect that there might have been a trial. I cannot think of any reason why you might be asking your question other than trying to remove any statement about the fact that some people regard area bombing as a crime against humanity and no trial has ever decided upon the question. Get-back-world-respect 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The policy also says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You need to provide a source for the statement "There has never been a trial determining whether the term applied to acts of allied forces". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I already replied to this, it is completely ridiculous. And your continuous practice to simply erase information for pretexts like this one is offensive. Get-back-world-respect 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 3rd opinion

Hello. A request for a 3rd opinion has been made on this topic, regarding whether GBWR's statement should be deleted. Third opinion is as thus:

I believe that the statement should be deleted. The obligation to provide a source lies upon GBWR...if a source cannot be found, then the statement should be deleted. Furthermore, I'd suggest that attacking PBS in defense to being called out on not having a source is rather low and bad etiquette. If you need help finding a source, I'd suggest WestLaw or LexisNexus, both of which have a list of trials. A search result from such reputable databases is generally considered to be a source of itself. For next time, it should be mentioned that a third opinion was already provided above by user RussBlau. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I regard it an offense of etiquette that someone shows up as a third opinion, which should be neutral, who repeatedly insulted me and even listed me as a "vandal", claiming administrators shared your view athough they expressly did not. You obviously did not even try to understand this discussion as you ask for sources for something that does not exist. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to attack me, or are you going to continue to defy what is now a 3 to 1 opinion.? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just note that you are not a neutral party after calling me a vandal. Plus, as PBS knows very well, other users disagreed with him about the same question e.g. here and here. Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh what? Both of those links are to an article called "Arthur Travers Harris". That's not this article. The only question the 3rd opinion was on, was whether or not a trial ever happened, and the lack of a cited source to the claim that it did not. I'm not talking about the issue of what constitutes a war crime or any of that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the matter of my neutrality, I fail to see how one incident makes me a non-neutral editor. Or is there some consipracy out to get you? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As Philip Baird Shearer knows very well, sources were already provided for the claim that area bombing is seen by many as a crime against humanity: google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [1], [2] [3] This comment was made by 84.59.76.132 at 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) at the discussion page of Dresden bombing.
Even a blind man would see that someone is not neutral who accuses one side of a conflict to be a vandal. And the Harris conflict is to exactly the same question: Is area bombing seen as a war crime or crime against humanity by many or not. The fact that there never was a trial about the question is not even disputed by PBS, he just tries to get it out of the article by claiming that there is no source that there was no trial which is as ridiculous as claiming there is no source for him not being accused of vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point.....the statement is about whether there was ever at trial about it. I don't care whether area bombing is seen as a war crime or crime against humanity. That wasn't what the questions was at WP:3O. The question was whether there's ever been a trial for it. Go back and reread my original comment. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to gramatically incorrect versions just for the sake of reverting is obscene. Get-back-world-respect 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Was an error, meant to revert only the trial statment.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's why I thought you opposed mentioning area bombing at all. As to the trial, I am sorry but I really do not understand this, no one says there ever was a trial. So why argue about it? The statement is just to show that the question remains controversial as there never was an official decision about it. Get-back-world-respect 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


So cite it then. Like I said earlier, WestLaw and LexisNexus search results are considered viable sources in themselves. If the search results show that there has never been a trial, then there you go, you've now got a source. By the way, I removed the 3O entry, as since there are now more than 2 parties involved, it wouldn't qualify for relisting. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you read? No one says there was a trial. How do you want to find a source for something that never happened? It is not even controversial that there was no trial, it was only controversial whether it should be noted. And as you are not a neutral third party, the request for the 3rd opinion is to be kept Get-back-world-respect 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


I can read just fine. Can you? Let me cite two instances for you:

  1. "WestLaw and LexisNexus search results are considered viable sources in themselves. If the search results show that there has never been a trial, then there you go, you've now got a source." You can't just say "no one" says there was a trial unless you attribute that to a source, otherwise your comments are not verifiable. Please read WP:V for further information.
  1. According to the WP:3O page: "This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people" This disagreement involves three people. You, PBS, and myself. Actually, 4, that guy I cited earlier.

So, stop accusing me of not knowing how to read. I've made it as plain as day for you to see. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, we're going to have problems. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for a source on something that does not exist. Very rarely do people write journal articles about things that do not exist. The only reason why PBS argued the way he did was to get area bombing out of the article. As you refuse to see this and the fact that you are prejudiced against me I cannot help you any more. Furthermore, you did not cite any fourth person. There has not been anyone editing the article or the talk page except the three of us since PBS asked for a third opinion. Get-back-world-respect 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


And you question whether I can read. Please see my original comment : "For next time, it should be mentioned that a third opinion was already provided above by user RussBlau."

Russ's statement: "The listings of "alleged" crimes against humanity are inherently POV and original research, as well, unless citations are provided. Anyone can allege anything is a crime against humanity; if my neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, I can yell "crime against humanity," which makes it an allegation, even though no objective source would say it's a valid one. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)"


As for the source: Stop saying it doesn't exist. I showed you exactly where to do the search. Either do the search and prove your point, don't do it and your comments do not meet WP:V. You can't have it both ways, and you do not WP:OWN this article. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First you say the question is whether a trial existed, than you refer to a user's comment from five months ago when the ridiculous question had not yet been brought up? Get-back-world-respect 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I reviewd this dispute per WP:3o. It no longer qualifies for a 3rd opinion. Please instead file an RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4th opinion

A few things to note:

  1. You can't say something you can't verify, even if it's negative. If a newspaper article says there has never been a trial, or there is some other way to determine such a thing, then it can be said and referenced. Otherwise the statement should be deleted. It is up to the person making the statment to cite a source, not the person deleting it.
  2. It's not "citing a source for something that does not exist." What you would be citing the source for is the statement that there has never been a trial, which would reference a person who has researched this and shown it in some way. This is sufficient to make it verifiable. Fagstein 01:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But there is no one who even doubts that there never was a trial. Get-back-world-respect 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Where's your source that nobody doubts this? Fagstein 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for the fact that there never was a decision about area bombings or Allied crimes against humanity in general

All encyclopedias I have at home as well as this one I know from the internet [4] [5] write the same about war crimes: There were trials against the Axis powers after WWII, there were trials against the US after Vietnam, there were other trials, but not a single one is mentioned about area bombing or crimes against humanity of the Allies in WWII at all. As lists are provided and what we are talking about is missing although the few cases can be listed without problems with space and no one really has doubts about it anyway, the statement that there were no trials about area bombing or crimes against humanity by the Allies in general can be included again. I regard it as really silly to ask for a source for something no one honestly doubts. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal or political decision

GBWR, if one believes there is such a thing as "terror bombing" then all side in WWII carried out such attacks. If it had been a crime against humanity then Axis forces could have been tried for terror bombing as part of an aggressive war. As they were not it may not have been a political decision but a legal one. You need to provide a source which says that excluding prosecutions of "terror bombing" as crime against humanity was a political decision and not a legal one. Here is a legal one which says that aerial bombardment was not a war crime:

In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.[6]

Here is the wording from the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals that says crimes against humanity could be linked to a war of aggression:

"from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity"[7]

This wording would have allowed a prosecution of members of the Axis powers for terror bombing as a crime against humanity if it had been seen as such without having to prosecute members of the Allied forces.--Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to provide a source which says that excluding prosecutions of "terror bombing" as crime against humanity was a political decision and not a legal one because I never asked to have this information in the article. It is my personal opinion that there were political reasons but I do not ask to have this article reflect my personal opinion. All I want to be covered is that the widely held opinion that area bombing by both parties of WWII was a crime against humanity - and could easily be interpreted as such by the Nuremberg Trial definion as you agree yourself - was never decided about in a trial and therefore remains controversial. Get-back-world-respect 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit at 01:51, 12 February 2006 was mine. The paragraph starts The term has been criticized for being extremely vague and for being politically defined. For example... you addition is to the for example sentence so it is an example of "politically defined". --Philip Baird Shearer 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

People say that it is vague and politically defined. People also argue that this is shown by the fact that Soviet persecutions were not treated as such crimes. People also argue that area bombing was a crime against humanity. If you want to avoid the extremely farfetched assumption that this also indicates vagueness or political reasons go ahead but do not remove the statement that there are people who see it as a crime against humanity and that there was no trial that decided about it. Get-back-world-respect 02:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What people? Who? Give a source, and then you can add it to the article. Fagstein 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a Curtis LeMay quote something like 'if we had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal', speaking about the fire-bombing of Japanese cities. Should be easy enough to find. HTH. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sources for terror bombing being called a crime against humanity were already provided above: google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [8], [9] [10]. Here is an additional one: [11]. Due to the nonsensical discussion about sources for a trial that never happened and that no one honestly dounbts to never have happened this page has become a real mess. Get-back-world-respect 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Source for claim that terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons: [12]. Get-back-world-respect 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article and I do not see which part says that "terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons". Please quote the relevent sentence here. --Philip Baird Shearer

Title is Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes, goes on So far, the U.S. has always ended up on the winning side and therefore hasn't had to accept responsibility for more than two centuries of its own atrocities...many of them against civilians. Should people who refuse to understand sources edit an encyclopedia? Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that "terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons". Bombing was carried out by both sides. So it is not relevant that "Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes". The loosing side could have been tried for aerial bombing if it had been a political and not a legal decision. You need to find a reference that says that Axis personnel were not tried for aerial bombing for political (and not for legal) reasons. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terror Bombing - not a neutral term

I would like to suggest that the term 'Terror Bombing' is not neutral, since it is straight from the Nazi propaganda, or the way the Nazi leadership referred to their own use of this military tool See extract from Goebbels Diary halfway down. I suggest to use the term 'Area Bombardment', as used here. Andreas 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Fagstein 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECrime_against_humanity_46f2.html"