British war crimes

British war crimes are acts by the armed forces of the United Kingdom which have violated the laws and customs of war since the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Such acts have included the summary executions of prisoners of war and unarmed shipwreck survivors, the use of excessive force during the interrogation of POWs and enemy combatants, and the use of violence against civilian non-combatants and their property.‌

Definition

War crimes are defined as acts which violate the laws and customs of war (established by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907), or acts that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II.[1] The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 extends the protection of civilians and prisoners of war during military occupation, even in the case where there is no armed resistance, for the period of one year after the end of hostilities, although the occupying power should be bound to several provisions of the convention as long as "such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory."[2][3]

The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict published by the UK Ministry of Defence[4] uses the 1945 definition from the Nuremberg Charter, which defines a war crime as "Violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."[1] The manual also notes that "violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions not amounting to 'grave breaches' are also war crimes."

The 2004 Laws of Armed Combat Manual says

Serious violations of the law of armed conflict, other than those listed as grave breaches in the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], remain war crimes and punishable as such. A distinction must be drawn between crimes established by treaty or convention and crimes under customary international law. Treaty crimes only bind parties to the treaty in question, whereas customary international law is binding on all states. Many treaty crimes are merely codifications of customary law and to that extent binding on all states, even those that are not parties.

The 2004 publication also notes that "A person is normally only guilty of a war crime if he commits it with intent and knowledge."[5]

The South African War
Further information: Second Boer War

Counterinsurgency

As part of the strategy to defeat the guerrilla warfare of the Boer Commandos, farms were destroyed to prevent the Boers from resupplying from a home base. This included the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock,[6] the burning down of homesteads, poisoning of wells and salting of fields.

Destruction of towns

Ventersburg

On 26 October 1900, the British justice of the peace at Ventersburg (in the former Orange Free State), William Williams, relayed a secret message to Field Marshal Lord Frederick Roberts alleging that Boer Commandos were concentrating in the village. Roberts decreed that "an example should be made of Ventersburg".[7] On 28 October, Roberts issued orders to General Bruce Hamilton that all houses belonging to absent males were to be burned down. After burning down the village and its Dutch Reformed church, Hamilton posted a bulletin stating: "The town of Ventersburg has been cleansed of supplies and partly burnt, and all the farms in the vicinity destroyed, on account of the frequent attacks on the railway lines in the neighborhood. The Boer women and children who are left behind should apply to the Boer Commandants for food, who will supply them unless they wish to see them starve. No supplies will be sent from the railway to the town."[8]

On 1 November 1900, Major Edward Pine-Coffin wrote in his diary that the remaining civilian population of Ventersburg had been transported to concentration camps. He admitted to having families divided, with male and female Afrikaners sent to different locations "so that after the war they will have some difficulty in getting together."[8] The destruction of Ventersburg was denounced in the House of Commons by Liberal MP David Lloyd George, who said Hamilton "is a brute and a disgrace to the uniform he wears."[9]

Louis Trichardt

On 9 May 1901, Cols. Johan William Colenbrander and H.L. Grenfell rode into Louis Trichardt ahead of a mixed force of about 600 men. In addition to Kitchener's Fighting Scouts, the force included elements of the Pietersburg Light Horse, the Wiltshire Regiment, the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC), a large force of Black South African" Irregulars", and six members of the War Office's Intelligence Department commanded by Captain Alfred James Taylor.[10]

Even though Louis Trichardt was "reeling from the annual effects of malaria", British and Commonwealth servicemen sacked the town and arrested an estimated 90 male residents suspected of links to the Zoutpansberg Commando.[11]

On 11 May 1901, the remaining residents of Louis Trichardt, including both the Afrikaner and "Cape Coloured" populations, were ordered to evacuate the town. According to local resident E.R. Smith, British and Commonwealth servicemen helped themselves to whatever "curios" they wanted and allowed the civilian population only a short time to gather their things. The town of Louis Trichardt was then burned down by Native South African "Irregulars" under the supervision of Captain Taylor. The civilian population was force marched between 11 and 18 May to the British concentration camp at Pietersburg.[12]

According to South African historian Charles Leach, Captain Taylor "emphatically told" the local Venda and Sotho communities "to help themselves to the land and whatever else they wanted as the Boers would not be returning after the war."[13]

Concentration camps
Main article: British concentration camps
Lizzie van Zyl, visited by Emily Hobhouse in a British concentration camp.

As a further strategy, General Lord Kitchener ordered the creation of concentration camps – 45 for Afrikaners and 64 for Black Africans.

The National Women's Monument at Bloemfontein, South Africa, memorialises those who died in British concentration camps.

According to historian Thomas Pakenham, "In practice, the farms of Boer collaborators got burnt too – burnt by mistake by Tommies or in reprisal by the commandos. So Kitchener added a new twist to farm-burning. He decided that his soldiers should not only strip the farms of stock, but should take the families, too. Women and children would be concentrated in 'camps of refuge' along the railway line. In fact, these camps consisted of two kinds of civilians: genuine refugees – that is, the families of Boers who were helping the British, or at least keeping their oath of neutrality – and internees, the families of men who were still out on commando. The difference was crucial, for at first there were two different scales of rations: little enough in practice for the refugees, and a recklessly low scale for the internees."[14]

Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boer women and children died[15] as well as more than 14,000 Black Africans.[16]

The Pietersburg War Crimes Trials

The Boer War also saw the first war crimes prosecutions in British military history. They centered around the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC), a British Army irregular regiment of mounted rifles active in the Northern Transvaal. Originally raised in February 1901, the BVC was composed mainly of British and Commonwealth servicemen with a generous admixture of defectors from the Boer Commandos.[17] After more than a century, the ensuing courts martial remain controversial.

The Letter

On 4 October 1901, a letter signed by 15 members of the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC) garrison at Fort Edward was secretly dispatched to Col. F.H. Hall, the British Army Officer Commanding at Pietersburg. Written by BVC Trooper Robert Mitchell Cochrane, a former Justice of the Peace from Western Australia,[18][19] the letter accused members of the Fort Edward garrison of six "disgraceful incidents":

1. The shooting of six surrendered Afrikaner men and boys and the theft of their money and livestock at Valdezia on 2 July 1901. The orders had been given by Captains Alfred Taylor and James Huntley Robertson, and relayed by Sgt. Maj. K.C.B. Morrison to Sgt. D.C. Oldham. The actual killing was alleged to have been carried out by Sgt. Oldham and BVC Troopers Eden, Arnold, Brown, Heath, and Dale.[20]

2. The shooting of BVC Trooper B.J. van Buuren by BVC Lt. Peter Handcock on 4 July 1901. Trooper van Buuren, an Afrikaner, had "disapproved" of the killings at Valdezia, and had informed the victims' wives and children, who were imprisoned at Fort Edward, of what had happened.[21]

3. The revenge killing of Floris Visser, a wounded prisoner of war, near the Koedoes River on 11 August 1901. Visser had been captured by a BVC patrol let by Lieut. Harry Morant two days before his death. After Visser had been exhaustively interrogated and conveyed for 15 miles by the patrol, Lt. Morant had ordered his men to form a firing squad and shoot him. The squad consisted of BVC Troopers A.J. Petrie, J.J. Gill, Wild, and T.J. Botha. A coup de grâce was delivered by BVC Lt. Harry Picton. The slaying of Floris Visser was in retaliation for the combat death of Morant's close friend, BVC Captain Percy Frederik Hunt, at Duivelskloof on 6 August 1901.[22]

4. The shooting, ordered by Capt. Taylor and Lt. Morant, of four surrendered Afrikaners and four Dutch schoolteachers, who had been captured at the Elim Hospital in Valdezia, on the morning of 23 August 1901. The firing squad consisted of BVC Lt. George Witton, Sgt. D.C. Oldham, and Troopers J.T. Arnold, Edward Brown, T. Dale, and A. Heath. Although Trooper Cochrane's letter made no mention of the fact, three Native South African witnesses were also shot dead.[23]

The ambush and fatal shooting of the Reverend Carl August Daniel Heese of the Berlin Missionary Society near Bandolierkop on the afternoon of 23 August 1901. Rev. Heese had spiritually counseled the Dutch and Afrikaner victims that morning and had angrily protested to Lt. Morant at Fort Edward upon learning of their deaths. Trooper Cochrane alleged that the killer of Rev. Heese was BVC Lt. Peter Handcock. Although Cochrane made no mention of the fact, Rev. Heese's driver, a member of the Southern Ndebele people, was also killed.[24]

5. The orders, given by BVC Lt. Charles H.G. Hannam, to open fire on a wagon train containing Afrikaner women and children who were coming in to surrender at Fort Edward, on 5 September 1901. The ensuing gunfire led to the deaths of two boys, aged 5- and 13-years, and the wounding of a 9-year-old girl.[25]

6. The shooting of Roelf van Staden and his sons Roelf and Christiaan, near Fort Edward on 7 September 1901. All were coming in to surrender in the hope of gaining medical treatment for teenaged Christiaan, who was suffering from recurring bouts of fever. Instead, they were met at the Sweetwaters Farm near Fort Edward by a party consisting of Lts. Morant and Handcock, joined by BVC Sgt. Maj. Hammet, Corp. MacMahon, and Troopers Hodds, Botha, and Thompson. Roelf van Staden and both his sons were then shot, allegedly after being forced to dig their own graves.[26]

The letter then accused the Field Commander of the BVC, Major Robert William Lenehan, of being "privy the these misdeamenours. It is for this reason that we have taken the liberty of addressing this communication direct to you." After listing numerous civilian witnesses who could confirm their allegations, Trooper Cochrane concluded, "Sir, many of us are Australians who have fought throughout nearly the whole war while others are Africaners who have fought from Colenso till now. We cannot return home with the stigma of these crimes attached to our names. Therefore we humbly pray that a full and exhaustive inquiry be made by Imperial officers in order that the truth be elicited and justice done. Also we beg that all witnesses may be kept in camp at Pietersburg till the inquiry is finished. So deeply do we deplore the opprobrium which must be inseparably attached to these crimes that scarcely a man once his time is up can be prevailed to re-enlist in this corps. Trusting for the credit of thinking you will grant the inquiry we seek."[27]

Arrests

In response to the letter written by Trooper Cochrane, Col. Hall summoned all Fort Edward officers and non-commissioned officers to Pietersburg on 21 October 1901. All were met by a party of mounted infantry five miles outside Pietersburg on the morning of 23 October 1901 and "brought into town like criminals". Lt. Morant was arrested after returning from leave in Pretoria, where he had gone to settle the affairs of his deceased friend Captain Hunt.[28]

Indictments

Although the trial transcripts, like almost all others dating from between 1850 and 1914, were later destroyed by the British civil service,[29] it is known that a Court of Inquiry, the British military's equivalent to a grand jury, was convened on 16 October 1901. The President of the Court was Col. H.M. Carter, who was assisted by Captain E. Evans and Major Wilfred N. Bolton, the Provost Marshal of Pietersburg. The first session of the Court took place on 6 November 1901 and continued for four weeks. Deliberations continued for a further two weeks,[30] at which time it became clear that the indictments would be as follows:

1. In what became known as "The Six Boers Case", Captains Robertson and Taylor, as well as Sgt. Maj. Morrison, were charged with committing the offense of murder while on active service.[31]

2. In relation to what was dubbed "The Van Buuren Incident", Maj. Lenahan was charged with, "When on active service by culpable neglect failing to make a report which it was his duty to make."[32]

3. In relation to "The Visser Incident", Lts. Morant, Handcock, Witton, and Picton were charged with "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[33]

4. In relation to what was incorrectly dubbed "The Eight Boers Case", Lieuts. Morant, Handcock, and Witton were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[34]

In relation to the slaying of Rev Heese, Lts. Morant and Handcock were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".

5. No charges were filed for the three children who had been shot by the Bushveldt Carbineers near Fort Edward.[35]

6. In relation to what became known as "The Three Boers Case", Lts. Morant and Handcock were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[34]

Courts Martial

Following the indictments, Maj. R. Whigham and Col. James St. Clair ordered Bolton to appear for the prosecution, as he was considered less expensive than hiring a barrister.[36] Bolton vainly requested to be excused, writing, "My knowledge of law is insufficient for so intricate a matter."[37]

The first court martial opened on 16 January 1901, with Lieut.-Col. H.C. Denny presiding over a panel of six judges. Maj. J.F. Thomas, a Solicitor from Tenterfield, New South Wales, had been retained to defend Maj. Lenahan. The night before, however, he agreed to represent all six defendants.[30]

The "Visser Incident" was the first case to go to trial. Lt. Morant's former orderly and interpreter, BVC Trooper Theunis J. Botha, testified that Visser, who had been promised that his life would be spared, was cooperative during two days of interrogation and that all his information was later found to have been true. Despite this, Lt. Morant ordered him shot.[38]

In response, Lt. Morant testified that he only followed orders to take no prisoners as relayed to the late Captain Hunt by Col. Hubert Hamilton. He also alleged that Floris Visser had been captured wearing a British Army jacket and that Captain Hunt's body had been mutilated.[39] In response, the court moved to Pretoria, where Col. Hamilton testified that he had "never spoken to Captain Hunt with reference to his duties in the Northern Transvaal". Though stunned, Maj. Thomas argued that his clients were not guilty because they believed that they "acted under orders". In response, Maj. Bolton argued that they were "illegal orders" and said, "The right of killing an armed man exists only so long as he resists; as soon as he submits he is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war." The Court ruled in Maj. Bolton's favor.[40] Lt. Morant was found guilty of murder. Lts. Handcock, Witton, and Picton were convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.[41]

Execution

On 27 February 1902, two British Army Lieutenants  — Anglo-Australian Harry Morant and Australian born Peter Handcock of the Bushveldt Carbineers — were executed by firing squad after being convicted of murdering eight Afrikaner POWs. This court-martial for war crimes was one of the first such prosecutions in British military history.

Although Morant left a written confession in his cell, he went on to become a folk hero in modern Australia. Believed by many Australians to be the victim of a kangaroo court, public appeals have been made for Morant to be retried or pardoned. His court-martial and death have been the subject of books, a stage play, and an award-winning Australian New Wave film adaptation by director Bruce Beresford.

Witton was sentenced to penal servitude, and Picton was cashiered.[42][43]

Reaction in Britain

On 1 March 1901,[14] Lloyd George quoted a Reuters report about the lower rations given to the interned families of Boer Commandos. "It means," declared Lloyd George, "that unless the fathers come in their children would be half-starved. It means that the remnant of the Boer army who are sacrificing everything for their idea of independence are to be tortured by the spectacle of their starving children into betraying their cause."[44] During the same month, Liberal MPs C.P. Scott and John Ellis dubbed them "concentration camps", after the reconcentrado camps set up by the Spanish during the Cuban War of Independence.[44]

World War I

According to American historian Alfred de Zayas, both sides during the Great War "established, for judicial and political reasons, special commissions to investigate reported instances of war crimes by enemy forces."[45] In contrast to their Allied counterparts, German investigators rarely publicised their findings for propaganda purposes.[46] Furthermore, all except 11 volumes of the German Bureau's World War I archives were destroyed during the 1945 Allied bombing raids on Berlin and Potsdam.[47]

Chemical weapons usage
A World War I-era British gas bomb
See also: Chemical weapons in World War I

The production and use of chemical weapons was strictly prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which explicitly forbade the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare.[48][49]

Even so, the United Kingdom used a range of poison gases, originally chlorine and later phosgene, diphosgene and mustard gas. They also used relatively small amounts of the irritant gases chloromethyl chloroformate, chloropicrin, bromacetone and ethyl iodoacetate. Gases were frequently mixed, for example white star was the name given to a mixture of equal volumes of chlorine and phosgene, the chlorine helping to spread the denser but more toxic phosgene. Despite the technical developments, chemical weapons suffered from diminishing effectiveness as the war progressed because of the protective equipment and training which the use engendered on both sides. By 1918, a quarter of British artillery shells were filled with gas and the United Kingdom had produced around 25,400 tons of toxic chemicals.

The British Expeditionary Force first used chemical weapons along the Western Front at the Battle of Loos on 25 September 1915 and continued their usage for the remainder of the war. This was done in retaliation for the use of chlorine by Imperial German Army the preceding April.

Following the Imperial German Army's use of poison gas at Ypres, the commander of II Corps, Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, had said of poison gas:

It is a cowardly form of warfare which does not commend itself to me or other English soldiers ... We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so.[50]

Mustard gas was first used effectively in World War I by the German army against British and Canadian soldiers near Ypres, Belgium, in 1917 and later also against the French Second Army. The name Yperite comes from its usage by the German army near the town of Ypres. The Allies did not use mustard gas until November 1917 at Cambrai, France, after the armies had captured a stockpile of German mustard-gas shells. It took the British more than a year to develop their own mustard gas weapon, with production of the chemicals centred on Avonmouth Docks.[51][52] (The only option available to the British was the Despretz–Niemann–Guthrie process). This was used first in September 1918 during the breaking of the Hindenburg Line with the Hundred Days' Offensive.

SM U-27
Main article: Baralong incidents
HMS Baralong

According to the Hague Convention of 1907, it is defined as a war crime to kill unarmed enemy sailors after their ship has been sunk. Even so, after the sinking of RMS Lusitania by the German submarine SM U-20 in May 1915, Lieutenant-Commander Godfrey Herbert, commanding officer of the Q-ship HMS Baralong, was visited by two officers of the Admiralty's Secret Service branch at the Royal Navy's base at Queenstown, Ireland. He was told, "This Lusitania business is shocking. Unofficially, we are telling you ... take no prisoners from U-boats."[53] Since April 1915, Herbert had ordered his subordinates cease calling him "Sir", and to address him only by the pseudonym "Captain William McBride."[54]

On 19 August 1915, the German submarine U-27 sighted the British freighter Nicosian, 70 nautical miles off the coast of Queenstown. Unlike the German submarine commanders who had recently sunk the Lusitania and the S.S. Arabic, the U-27's commanding officer, Kapitänleutnant Bernhard Wegener, decided to obey international law as codified in the Prize Rules. U-27 surfaced, stopped and boarded the Nicosian, and checked her cargo manifest.

After finding the Nicosian loaded with war materiel and mules bound for the British Expeditionary Force in France, Wegener realized that the Nicosian was a legitimate target of war and allowed the Nicosian's Captain and crew to take to the lifeboats.

As Wegener and his boarding party remained aboard the otherwise empty Nicosian, the Baralong arrived, flying the neutral American flag as a ruse of war. After steaming into firing range, lowering the American flag, and raising the British White Ensign in its place, Baralong's crew opened fire and sank the U-27.

Twelve German sailors survived the U-27's sinking: the crews of her two deck guns and the sailors who had been on the conning tower. They swam to Nicosian and attempted to join the six-man boarding party by climbing up her hanging lifeboat falls[note 1] and pilot ladder. In response, Herbert ordered his men to open fire with small arms on the men in the water.[55][56][57][58]

Meanwhile, Nicosian's crew were cheering wildly from the lifeboats. Captain Manning was heard to yell, "If any of those bastard Huns come up, lads, hit 'em with an oar!"[59]

After a few German survivors managed to climb aboard the Nicosian, Herbert sent Baralong's 12 Royal Marines, under the command of a Corporal Collins, to board the sinking vessel. As they departed, Herbert ordered Collins, "Take no prisoners."[60] The German sailors were discovered in the engine room and shot on sight. According to Sub-Lieutenant Gordon Steele: "Wegener ran to a cabin on the upper deck – I later found out it was Manning's bathroom. The marines broke down the door with the butts of their rifles, but Wegener squeezed through a scuttle and dropped into the sea. He still had his life-jacket on and put up his arms in surrender. Corporal Collins, however, took aim and shot him through the head."[61] Collins later recalled that, after Wegener's murder, Herbert threw a revolver in the German captain's face and screamed, "What about the Lusitania, you bastard!"[61]

In Herbert's report to the Admiralty, he alleged the German survivors were trying to board and scuttle the Nicosian, so he ordered the Royal Marines on his ship to kill the survivors. The Admiralty, upon receiving the report, vainly ordered that the incident be kept secret.

After the Nicosian's crew arrived at Liverpool, however, the American members of the crew gave sworn testimony to the United States Consul about the massacre of U-27's crew. After their return to the United States, they repeated their testimony to American newspapers and before a notary public at the Imperial German Consulate in New Orleans. As a result, the US State Department forwarded a formal protest by the German Empire to the British Foreign Office.[62]

The memorandum demanded that "Captain William McBride" and the crew of HMS Baralong be court-martialed and threatened to "take the serious decision of retribution" if the massacre of U-27's crew went unprosecuted.[63]

SMS U-27 with members of her crew

Rather than admit that Lt.-Comm. Herbert only followed orders, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, replied through the U.S. State Department in a textbook example of diplomatic effrontery. He wrote, "His Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to make any reply to the suggestion that the British navy has been guilty of inhumanity, according to the latest figures available, the number of German sailors rescued from drowning, often in circumstances of great difficulty and peril, amounts to 1,150. The German navy can show no such record – perhaps through want of opportunity."[64]

Sir Edward further argued that the alleged massacre of U-27's unarmed sailors could be grouped with the Imperial German Navy's sinking of SS Arabic, their attack on a stranded British submarine in neutral Dutch territorial waters, and their attack on the steamship Ruel. In conclusion, Grey suggested that all four incidents be placed before a tribunal chaired by the United States Navy.[65]

The U.S. State Department also vainly protested that the American flag had been used as a false flag, as this placed American ships in danger. Walter Hines Page, the U.S. Ambassador in London, was telegraphed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing and ordered to not ask Sir Edward Grey any questions about whether the American flag had been used in the case. "The fact," he was told, "is established.[64]

The massacre of U-27's unarmed survivors and the Royal Navy's refusal to court-martial the perpetrators led the Imperial German Navy to cease adhering to the Prize Rules and to adopt unrestricted submarine warfare. During the Second World War, it was cited by Admiral Karl Dönitz as a reason for the Kriegsmarine to do the same. A German medal was issued commemorating the victims of the masacre.[66]

Lieutenant Commander Herbert and the crew of HMS Baralong  were awarded a bounty of £185 for sinking U-27.[67]

SM U-41

On 24 September 1915 HMS Baralong also sank U-41, which was in the process of sinking the cargo ship Urbino. According to the two German survivors, Baralong continued to fly the American flag after opening fire on U-41 and then rammed the lifeboat carrying the German survivors, causing it to sink.[68] The only witnesses to the second attack were the German and British sailors present. Oberleutnant zur See Iwan Crompton, after returning to Germany from a prisoner-of-war camp, reported that Baralong had run down the lifeboat he was in; he leapt clear and was shortly after taken prisoner. The British crew denied that they had rammed the lifeboat.[69] Crompton later published an account of U-41's exploits in 1917, U-41: der zweite Baralong-Fall (Eng: "The second Baralong case").[70]

Baralong's new commanding officer, Lieutenant-Commander A. Wilmot-Smith, and his crew were awarded a £170 bounty for sinking U-41.[71]

German Investigation of British War Crimes

According to historian Alfred de Zayas, the Prussian Ministry of War established the "Military Bureau for the Investigation of Violations of the Laws of War", (German: Militäruntersuchungstelle für Verletzungen des Kriegsrechts) on 19 October 1914. The Bureau's stated purpose was "to determine violations of the laws and customs of war which enemy military and civilian persons have committed against the Prussian troops and to investigate whatever accusations of this nature are made against by the enemy against members of the Prussian Army."[72]

The Military Bureau "had wide competence to establish facts in a judicial manner and to secure the evidence necessary for legal analysis of each case. Witnesses were interrogated and their sworn depositions taken by military judges; lists of suspected war criminals were compiled, which would probably have led to criminal proceedings if Germany had won the war. The material remained largely secret, though some excerpts from witness depositions were used in German white books."[72]

By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had documented 355 separate incidents of violations of the laws and customs of war by British servicemen along the Western Front.[73]

The Military Bureau also compiled a thirteen-page "Black List of Englishmen who are guilty of violations of the laws of war vis a vis members of the German Armed Forces" (German: Schwarze Liste derjenigen Engländer, die sie während des Krieges gegenüber deutschen Heeresangehörigen völkerechtwidringen Verhaltens schuldig gemacht haben). The list, which survived the Allied firebombing of Berlin and Potsdam during the Second World War, contains a total of 39 names, including "Captain McBride" of HMS Baralong. In contrast, however, nine similar lists survive of alleged French war criminals and consist of 400 names.[74]

Following the Armistice, investigation continued, particularly into crimes against German POWs, and culminated in a five volume report entitled International Law during the World War (German: Völkerrecht im Weltkrieg). The report was never translated, however, and had minimal effect outside of Germany.[75]

Also following the Armistice, the victorious Allies pooled their reports, compiled a joint list of alleged German war crimes, and demanded the extradition of 900 alleged war criminals for trial in France and the United Kingdom. As this proved unacceptable to the German electorate, the Government of the Weimar Republic agreed to try them domestically in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials.[76]

According to de Zayas, however, "Generally speaking, the German population took exception to these trials, especially because the Allies were not similarly bringing their own soldiers to justice."[72]

World War II

Attack on neutral power
Main article: Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

Crimes against enemy combatants and civilians

Looting

In violation of the Hague Conventions, British troops conducted small scale looting in Normandy following their liberation.[77] On 21 April 1945, British soldiers randomly selected and burned two cottages in Seedorf, Germany, in reprisal against local civilians who had hidden German soldiers in their cellars.[78] Historian Sean Longden claims that violence against German prisoners and civilians who refused to cooperate with the British army "could be ignored or made light of".[79]

Torture of POWs

An MI19 prisoner of war facility, known as the "London Cage", was utilised during and immediately after the war. This facility has been the subject of allegations of torture.[80] The Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, in occupied Germany, managed by the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre, was the subject of an official inquiry in 1947. It found that there was "mental and physical torture during the interrogations".[81]

Rapes
Further information: Rape during the occupation of Germany, Rape during the occupation of Japan, and War rape

Rape took place during the British advance towards Germany.[82] During late 1944, with the army based across Belgium and the Netherlands, soldiers were billeted with local families or befriended them. In December 1944, it came to the attention of the authorities that there was a "rise of indecency with children" where abusers had exploited the "atmosphere of trust" that had been created with local families. While the army "attempted to investigate allegations, and some men were convicted, it was an issue that received little publicity."[79] Rape also occurred once British forces had entered Germany.[82] Many rapes involved alcohol or post-traumatic stress, but there were also instances of premeditated attacks.[79] For example, on a single day in April 1945, three women in Neustadt am Rübenberge were raped.[82] In the village of Oyle, near Nienburg, two soldiers attempted to coerce two girls into a nearby wood. When they refused, one was grabbed and dragged into the woods. When she began to scream, in according to Longden, "one of the soldiers pulled a gun to silence her. Whether intentionally or in error the gun went off hitting her in the throat and killing her."[79]

Sean Longden highlights that "Some officers failed to treat reports of rape with gravity." He provides the example of a medic, who had a rape reported to him. In cooperation with the Royal Military Police, they were able to track down and apprehend the perpetrators who were then identified by the victim. When the two culprits "were taken before their CO. His response was alarming. He insisted since the men were going on leave no action could be taken and that his word was final."[79]

Bombing of Dresden
Main article: Bombing of Dresden in World War II
The city centre of Dresden after the bombing

The British, with other allied nations (mainly the U.S.) carried out air raids against enemy cities during World War II, including the bombing of the German city of Dresden, which killed around 25,000 people. While "no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property" from aerial attack was adopted before the war,[83] the Hague Conventions did prohibit the bombardment of undefended towns. The city, largely untouched by the war had functioning rail communications to the Eastern front and was an industrial centre. Allied forces inquiry concluded that an air attack on Dresden was militarily justified on the grounds the city was defended.[84]

When asked whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, British historian Frederick Taylor replied: "I really don't know. From a practical point of view, rules of war are something of a grey area. It was pretty borderline stuff in terms of the extent of the raid and the amount of force used."[85] Historian Donald Bloxham claims that "the bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues that there was a strong prima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case that he could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."[86]

The bombing of Dresden has been politicised by Holocaust deniers and pro-Nazi polemicists—most notably by the British writer David Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden—in an attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the war crimes committed by the Nazi government and the killing of German civilians by Allied bombing raids.[87]

War crimes at sea

Unrestricted submarine warfare

On 4 May 1940, in response to Germany's intensive unrestricted submarine warfare, during the Battle of the Atlantic and its invasion of Denmark and Norway, the Royal Navy conducted its own unrestricted submarine campaign. The Admiralty announced that all vessels in the Skagerrak, were to be sunk on sight without warning. This was contrary to the terms of the Second London Naval Treaty.[88][89]

Shootings of shipwreck survivors

According to Alfred de Zayas, there are numerous documented cases of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force deliberately firing upon shipwreck survivors.[90]

In July 1941, the submarine HMS Torbay, under Lieutenant Commander Anthony Miers, was based in the Mediterranean where it sank several German ships. On two occasions, once off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, and the other off the coast of Crete, the crew fired upon shipwrecked German sailors and troops. Miers made no attempt to hide his actions, and reported them in his official logs. He received a strongly worded reprimand from his superiors following the first incident. Mier's actions violated the Hague Convention of 1907, which banned the killing of shipwreck survivors under any circumstances.[91][92]

Attacks against non-combatant ships

On 10 September 1942, the Italian hospital ship Arno was torpedoed and sunk by RAF torpedo bombers north-east of Ras el Tin, near Tobruk. The British claimed that a decoded German radio message intimated that the vessel was carrying supplies to the Axis troops.[93] Arno was the third Italian hospital ship sunk by British aircraft since the loss of the Po in the Adriatic Sea to aerial torpedoes on 14 March 1941 and the bombing of the California off Syracuse on 11 August 1942.

On 18 November 1944, the German hospital ship Tübingen was sunk by two Beaufighter bombers off Pola, in the Adriatic Sea. The vessel had paid a brief visit to the allied-controlled port of Bari to pick up German wounded under the auspices of the Red Cross; despite the calm sea and the good weather that allowed a clear identification of the ship's Red Cross markings, it was attacked with rockets nine times. Six crewmembers were killed.[94] American author Alfred M. de Zayas, who evaluated the 266 extant volumes of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, identifies the sinking of Tübingen and other German hospital ships as war crimes.[95]

Malaya

On 12 December 1948, during the Malayan Emergency, the Batang Kali massacre took place which involved the killing of 24 villagers. Six of the eight British soldiers involved were interviewed under caution by detectives. They corroborated accounts that the villagers were unarmed, were not insurgents nor trying to escape, and had been unlawfully killed on the order of the two sergeants in command. The sergeants denied the allegations. The Government's position was that if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the Sultan of Selangor.[96][97][98][99]

As part of the Briggs' Plan devised by British General Sir Harold Briggs, 500,000 people (roughly ten percent of Malaya's population) were eventually removed from the land, had tens of thousands of their homes destroyed, and were interned in 450 guarded fortified camps called "New Villages". The intent of this measure was to inflict collective punishments on villages where people were deemed to be aiding the insurgents and to isolate the population from contact with insurgents. The British also tried to win the hearts of the internees by providing them with education and health services as well as piped water and electricity within the villages. This practice was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[100][101][102]

Kenya

Treatment of detainees

During an eight-year conflict in Kenya from 1952 to 1960 in which Britain sought to restore order many Kikuyu were relocated. According to David Anderson, the British hanged over 1,090 suspected rebels. It was found out that over half of them executed were not rebels at all. Thousands more were killed by British soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.[103][104][105] Among the detainees who suffered severe mistreatment was Hussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of former U.S. President Barack Obama. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods and two others were castrated.[106]

In June 1957, Eric Griffith-Jones, the attorney general of the British administration in Kenya, wrote to the governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, detailing the way the regime of abuse at the colony's detention camps was being subtly altered. He said that the mistreatment of the detainees is "distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia". Despite this, he said that in order for abuse to remain legal, Mau Mau suspects must be beaten mainly on their upper body, "vulnerable parts of the body should not be struck, particularly the spleen, liver or kidneys", and it was important that "those who administer violence ... should remain collected, balanced and dispassionate". He also reminded the governor that "If we are going to sin," he wrote, "we must sin quietly."[106][107]

Chuka massacre

The Chuka massacre, which happened in Chuka, Kenya, was perpetrated by members of the King's African Rifles B Company in June 1953 with 20 unarmed people killed during the Mau Mau uprising. Members of the 5th KAR B Company entered the Chuka area on 13 June 1953, to flush out rebels suspected of hiding in the nearby forests. Over the next few days, the regiment had captured and executed 20 people suspected of being Mau Mau fighters for unknown reasons. It is found out that most of the people executed were actually belonged to the Kikuyu Home Guard – a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight a guerrilla enemy.

Hola massacre

The Hola massacre was an incident at a detention camp in Hola, Kenya. By January 1959 the camp had a population of 506 detainees of whom 127 were held in a secluded "closed camp". This more remote camp near Garissa, eastern Kenya, was reserved for the most uncooperative of the detainees. They often refused, even when threats of force were made, to join in the colonial "rehabilitation process" or perform manual labour or obey colonial orders. The camp commandant outlined a plan that would force 88 of the detainees to bend to work. On 3 March 1959, the camp commandant put this plan into action – as a result, 11 detainees were clubbed to death by guards.[108] All of the surviving detainees sustained serious permanent injuries.[109] The British government accepts that the colonial administration tortured detainees, but denies liability.[110]

War on Terror

In November 2019, BBC News reported that the British government and military were accused of covering up the killing and torture of civilians and children during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Leaked documents allegedly contain evidence implicating British troops in killing children and the torture of civilians in these regions. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated British war crimes in Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated the same in Afghanistan, were dismantled by the British government in 2017 after Phil Shiner, a solicitor who took more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off from practising law amid allegations he had paid people in Iraq to find clients.[111]

Some former IHAT and Operation Northmoor investigators said Shiner’s actions were used as an excuse to close down the inquiries. No case investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor led to a prosecution. An IHAT detective told Panorama: "The Ministry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn’t wriggle their way out of it". Investigators said they found evidence of murders by an SAS soldier, as well as deaths in custody, beatings, torture and sexual abuse of detainees by members of the Black Watch. A senior SAS commander was found to have covered up the crimes committed by soldiers under his command.[111]

Corporal Donald Payne a former soldier of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment of the British Army who became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. He was jailed for one year and dismissed from the army. In June 2020, Johnny Mercer said that Operation Northmoor had been completed and no more British troops would be prosecuted over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.[112]

Afghanistan War

In September 2013,[113] Royal Marines Sergeant Alexander Blackman, formerly of Taunton, Somerset,[114] was convicted at court martial of having murdered an unarmed, wounded Taliban insurgent in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. On 6 December 2013, Sgt. Blackman received a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of ten years before being eligible for parole. He was also dismissed with disgrace from the Royal Marines.[115]

In April 2017, following an appeal that saw his conviction reduced to manslaughter, Blackman was released from prison having served 3 years of his sentence.[116]

gollark: Wait, idea: Discord for backups!
gollark: <:crow_of_judgement:724658449174233169> <:crow_of_judgement:724658449174233169> <:crow_of_judgement:724658449174233169> <:crow_of_judgement:724658449174233169>
gollark: I'm using bees, silly.
gollark: BEES DEPLOYED
gollark: Some stuff is market-thingied, some stuff is government-thingied, so mixed.

See also

Notes
    1. The ropes by which a boat is lowered from the deck of a ship to the water

    References
    1. Solis, pp. 301–2
    2. Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 2
    3. Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 6
    4. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27874/JSP3832004Edition.pdf
    5. International Committee of the Red Cross. "Practice Relating to Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
    6. Pakenham, Thomas (1979). The Boer War. New York: Random House. p. 440. ISBN 0-394-42742-4.
    7. John Boje (2015), An Imperfect Occupation: Enduring the South African War, University of Illinois Press. Page 93.
    8. Boje (2015), page 93.
    9. Packenham (1979), pages 534–535.
    10. Leach (2012), pages 2–4.
    11. Leach (2012), page 3.
    12. Leach (2012), pages 3–5.
    13. Leach (2012), page 7.
    14. Packenham (1991), page 577.
    15. Davenport, T. R. H. (2000) [1977]. South Africa: A Modern History. p. 228. ISBN 0-8020-2261-8.
    16. Thomas Pakenham (1991), The Scramble for Africa, 1876–1912, Random House, New York. Pages 580-581.
    17. Charles Leach (2012), The Legend of Breaker Morant is Dead and Buried: A South African Version of the Bushveldt Carbineers in the Zoutpansberg, May 1901 – April 1902, Leach Printers & Signs, Louis Trichardt, pages xxviii-xxix.
    18. Leach (2012), pages 98–101.
    19. Arthur Davey (1987), Breaker Morant and the Bushveldt Carbineers, Second Series No. 18. Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town. Pages 78–82.
    20. Leach (2012), pages 17–22, 99.
    21. Leach (2012), pages 22–23, 99.
    22. Leach (2012), pages 35–60, 100.
    23. Leach (2012), pages 61–72, 100.
    24. Leach (2012), pages 62–68, 73–82, 100.
    25. Leach (2012), pages 83–86, 100.
    26. Leach (2012), pages 87–90, 100–101.
    27. Leach (2012), page 100-101.
    28. Leach (2012), pages 97–98.
    29. Leach (2012), page 104, 106.
    30. Leach (2012), page 105.
    31. Leach (2012), page 107.
    32. Leach (2012), page 203.
    33. Leach (2012), page 105-107, 203.
    34. Leach (2012), page 109, 203.
    35. Leach (2012), page 113.
    36. Davey (1987), page 123.
    37. Davey (1987), page 122.
    38. Leach (2012), pages 54–55.
    39. Leach (2012), pages 105–109.
    40. Leach (2012), page 110.
    41. Leach (2012), pages 115–118, 203.
    42. Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, NSW) 12 April 1902. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71522700#titleModal
    43. Silvester, John (18 October 2009). "Rest in Peace?". The Sydney Morning Herald.
    44. Packenham (1979), page 535.
    45. de Zayas (1989), page 3.
    46. de Zayas (1989), pages 3–10.
    47. de Zayas (1989), page 325.
    48. Telford Taylor (1 November 1993). The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-3168-3400-9. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
    49. Thomas Graham, Damien J. Lavera (May 2003). Cornerstones of Security: Arms Control Treaties in the Nuclear Era. University of Washington Press. pp. 7–9. ISBN 0-2959-8296-9. Retrieved 5 July 2013.
    50. Cook, Tim (1999). No Place to Run: The Canadian Corps and Gas Warfare in the First World War. UBC Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-7748-0740-7.
    51. Edited by David Large. The Port of Bristol, 1848–1884.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
    52. "Photographic Archive of Avonmouth Bristol BS11". BristolPast.co.uk. Retrieved 12 May 2014.
    53. Bridgland, Tony (1999). "The Baralong: Germany is Outraged". Sea Killers in Disguise: Q Ships and Decoy Raiders. Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0-85052-675-2. p. 21
    54. Messimer, Dwight R. (2002). Verschollen: World War I U-boat Losses. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-475-X. p. 23
    55. O'Neill, Gerry (Spring 2006). "Scandal of The Baralong Incident Was Hidden in Veil of Secrecy" (PDF). Journal of the Sea. The Maritime Institute of Ireland. 1 (4): 8–10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 November 2007. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
    56. Gibson, R.H.; Prendergast, Maurice (2002). The German Submarine War 1914–1918. Periscope Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-904381-08-1. p. 53
    57. Grant, Robert M. (2002). U-boats Destroyed: The Effect of Anti-submarine Warfare 1914–1918. Periscope Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-904381-00-6. p. 27
    58. Halpern, Paul G. (1994). A Naval History of World War I. Routledge. ISBN 1-85728-498-4. p. 301
    59. Messimer 2002, p. 30.
    60. Messimer (2002) p. 42
    61. Bridgland (1999) p. 43
    62. Halpern. A Naval History of World War I. p. 301. when some American muleteers who had been accompanying the mules returned to port, they spread stories of a massacre
    63. "Baralong Case". The Sydney Morning Herald. 6 January 1916. p. 7. Retrieved 28 July 2013.
    64. de Zayas (1989), page 8.
    65. Hesperides (2007) pp. 58–59
    66. "Medal commemorating the sinking of 'U.27' by Q-ship 'Baralong', 1915". The Collection. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 10 December 2011.
    67. E. Keble Chatterton, (1980), Q-Ships and Their Story, Ayer Publishing. ISBN 0-405-13034-1. Page 22.
    68. Hadley, Michael L. (1995), Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine, McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, p. 36; ISBN 0773512829.
    69. Messimer, pp. 61–62
    70. Hadley (1995) p. 36
    71. Chatterton, E. Keble (1980). Q-Ships and Their Story. Ayer Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 0405130341.
    72. Alfred de Zayas (1989), page 5.
    73. Alfred de Zayas (1989), page 7.
    74. Alfred de Zayas (1989), pages 8, 279 note 32, 325.
    75. Alfred de Zayas (1989), pages 9–10, 279 note 42.
    76. Alfred de Zayas (1989), pages 4–5.
    77. Flint, Edwards R (2009). The development of British civil affairs and its employment in the British Sector of Allied military operations during the Battle of Normandy, June to August 1944 (PhD). Cranfield, Bedford: Cranfield University; Cranfield Defence and Security School, Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Security and Resilience Group. p. 354. hdl:1826/4017.
    78. Biddiscombe, Perry (1998). Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944–1946. University of Toronto Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-8020-0862-6.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
    79. Longden, p. 195
    80. Cobain, Ian (12 November 2005). "The secrets of the London Cage". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
    81. Lt Col R.G.W. Stephens (2000). Oliver Hoare (ed.). Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies. Public Records Office. p. 7. ISBN 1-903365-08-2.
    82. Emsley, p. 128
    83. Gómez, Javier Guisández (2010). "The Law of Air Warfare". International Review of the Red Cross. 38 (323): 347–363. doi:10.1017/S0020860400091075. Archived from the original on 25 April 2013.
    84. USAF Historical Division
    85. "Dresden Bombing Is To Be Regretted Enormously". Der Spiegel. 2 November 2005. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
    86. Addison, Paul & Crang, Jeremy A. (eds). Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden. Pimlico, 2006; ISBN 1-84413-928-X. Chapter 9, p. 180
    87. Shermer & Grobman 2009, p. 261.
    88. Innes McCartney (15 July 2013). British Submarines 1939–45. Osprey Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-8460-3007-9.
    89. Nachman Ben-Yehuda (15 July 2013). Atrocity, Deviance, and Submarine Warfare: Norms and Practices during the World Wars. University of Michigan Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-4721-1889-2.
    90. de Zayas (1990), pp. 245–260.
    91. "HMS Torbay (N79) – World War II". Archived from the original on 23 September 2014. Retrieved 23 December 2014.
    92. Michael L. Hadley (17 March 1995). Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 135. ISBN 0-7735-1282-9.
    93. Rohwer, Jürgen (2005). Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two. Naval Institute Press. p. 192. ISBN 1-59114-119-2.
    94. "Lazarettschiffe Tübingen". Feldgrau.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
    95. "Alfred M. de Zayas, Die Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle für Verletzungen des Völkerrechts". Lazarettschiffe Tübingen. Lindenbaum Verlag. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
    96. "New documents reveal cover-up of 1948 British 'massacre' of villagers in Malaya". The Guardian. 9 April 2011. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
    97. "Batang Kali massacre families snubbed". The Sun Daily. 29 October 2013. Archived from the original on 11 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
    98. "UK urged to accept responsibility for 1948 Batang Kali massacre in Malaya". The Guardian. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
    99. "Malaysian lose fight for 1948 'massacre' inquiry". BBC News. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
    100. "The Other Forgotten War: Understanding atrocities during the Malayan Emergency".
    101. Fujio Hara (December 2002). Malaysian Chinese & China: Conversion in Identity Consciousness, 1945–1957. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 61–65.
    102. Pamela Sodhy (1991). The US-Malaysian nexus: Themes in superpower-small state relations. Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia. pp. 284–290.
    103. MARK CURTIS (2003). WEB OF DECEIT: BRITAIN'S REAL FOREIGN POLICY: BRITAIN'S REAL ROLE IN THE WORLD. VINTAGE. pp. 324–330.
    104. Caroline Elkins (2005). Britain's gulag: the brutal end of empire in Kenya. Pimlico. pp. 124–145.
    105. David Anderson (23 January 2013). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. W. W. Norton. pp. 150–154.
    106. "Kenya: UK expresses regret over abuse as Mau Mau promised payout". The Guardian. London. 5 June 2013.
    107. "Sins of colonialists lay concealed for decades in secret archive". The Guardian. London. 18 April 2012.
    108. Maloba, Wunyabari O. Mau Mau and Kenya: An Analysis of a Peasant Revolt.(Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN: 1993) pp. 142–43.
    109. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 21 October 2004. Retrieved 6 December 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
    110. "Mau Mau massacre documents revealed". BBC News. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2013.
    111. "UK government and military accused of war crimes cover-up". BBC News. 17 November 2019.
    112. "British troops will not face courts over Afghan conflict, says minister". The Telegraph. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
    113. "Marine guilty of Afghanistan murder". BBC News. 8 November 2013. Retrieved 9 November 2013.
    114. "Marine convicted of Afghan murder named". BBC News. 5 December 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2013.
    115. "Royal Marine Sgt Alexander Blackman jailed for life for murder of Afghan insurgent". The Independent. 6 December 2013. Retrieved 6 December 2013.
    116. "Jailed marine Alexander Blackman freed from prison". BBC News. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2017.

    Sources
    • Bridgland, Tony (1999). "The Baralong: Germany is Outraged". Sea Killers in Disguise: Q Ships and Decoy Raiders. Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0-85052-675-2.
    • de Zayas, Alfred (1989), The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939–1945 (with Walter Rabus). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989; ISBN 0-8032-9908-7. New revised edition with Picton Press, Rockland, Maine; ISBN 0-89725-421-X. German edition: Die Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle, 7th revised and enlarged edition Universitas/Langen Müller, Munich 2001; 8th revised and enlarged edition Lindenbaum Verlag, 2012; ISBN 978-3-938176-39-9.
    • Emsley, Clive (2013). Soldier, Sailor, Beggarman, Thief: Crime and the British Armed Services since 1914. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-019965-371-3.
    • Hesperides (2007). The Annual Register Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1916. Read Books. ISBN 978-1-4067-5198-7.
    • Longden, Sean (2004). To the Victor the Spoils: D-Day to VE Day, the Reality Behind the Heroism. Arris. ISBN 978-184437-038-2.
    • Messimer, Dwight R. (2002). Verschollen: World War I U-boat Losses. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-475-X.
    • Shermer, Michael; Grobman, Alex (2009). Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (2nd, illustrated ed.). University of California Press. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-520-26098-6.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
    • Solis, Gary D. (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press; 1 edition. ISBN 978-052187-088-7.
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.