War atrocities

Have their ever been any allegations (or even factual records) of the allies committing any wrong doing in WWII?

I have read reports that the allied bombing of Berlin was in breach of the Geneva Convention as they did not only target industrial areas but civilian ones also. Is this true?

Are there any other cases of breaches of the general rules of warfare?

The Eastern Front was rife with Soviet atrocities. There was a book several years ago, with tales of hospitals burned with wounded still inside, etc. Then there were accounts of troops of the 82nd Airborne throwing German wounded off the Nijmegan bridge, and killing the wounded in a bunker, Sept. '44.

Oh, certainly. There's a cadre of apologists for Germany who post such items on this newsgroup at regular intervals.

There has never been a war without an atrocity. The western allies were remarkably good in this respect (I wouldn't say the same of Russia). Still, individual soldiers shot prisoners out of hand. They were seldom if ever punished. Victors don't go out of their way to punish their soldiers when nothing is to be gained by it.

No. Civilians were targeted by all sides in WWII, and the initial decisions were made by Germany in Poland and by Japan in China.

Berlin didn't suffer unusually. Dresden is usually considered the most awful of the holocausts suffered by German residents. Then there was Japan: Toky in the March 1945 firebombing, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the atomic bombs. Some will argue that the latter two were war crimes, but I don't happen to agree. (I do think Nagasaki was a bit hasty. Another week would have been worth the cost, in my opinion.)

all the best

Nothing that went on the record by and large. Your talking about the victors here. Think about it.

Yes, there is a documented event I know of, some 70 Italian POWs killed in Sicily by US troops. A captain and a sergeant were charged and tried, one was convicted but got a lenient verdict. It has been discussed before on this newsgroup.

Yes. The on-battlefield behaviour of the troops of the western Allies in relation to Axis troops was, generally, not that much different from, the on-battlefield behaviour of the troops of the Axis in relation to western Allied troops. The massive dissimilarity is between the off-battlefield behaviour of Axis and western Allied troops in relation to both soldiers and civilians.

The Geneva conventions had nothing to do with bombing policy. The Hague conventions are the ones that matter. And bombing defended cities was not a breach of Hague. So, no, it isn't true.

If you mean Hague, lots, almost all by the Axis powers.

(source: Diario Storico Comando Superiore Africa Settentrionale, 14 Settembre 1942, allegato 8 - Ufficio Storico SME - Roma)

I think no charges were filed for the V-1 and V-2 bombings because many of the designers came to work for the Allies after the War

1. Although he presided over the meeting which approved the bombing of Dresden (Feb. 1945), Churchill appears after the fact to have considered it an atrocity (partly by accident, viz. firestorm, rare in WW2.) He issued instructions that Bomber Command destroy no more German cities but concentrate on army support or pinpoint targets.

2. The most important war crimes trials concerning air bombing were those of the German commander against Rotterdam (1940) and Belgrade (1941). The former was acquitted of crime and the latter convicted.

3. The Hague Conventions concerning 'bombardment' antedated the First World War i.e. were written with artillery (naval or land guns) in mind. The basic rule is that undefended targets should not be bombarded but defended targets could be. Both sides during WW2 agreed by 1940 that RAF and Luftwaffe defensive forces meant the whole territory of Britain and Germany was 'defended,' thus a legitimate target for bombing. (Before May 1940 the RAF was ordered to attack no German land targets, only ships at sea, and the Luftwaffe was ordered not to attack Britain