by Christopher Fulkerson

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

On Cloud Computing

1. An Introduction by a Concerned Skeptic

             Despite, or because of, its apparent importance, the topic of Cloud Computing is one I approach with some reserve.   There are cultural and legal consequences of Cloud Computing that are not as appealing, or certain, as the prodigious “spin” that is being given to this technological development.   At least one important Computer Science textbook participates in this “spin” by not answering directly the question “Should I store passwords on the Cloud,” and by calling Cloud Computing a “desired” technology.    I find it significant that there are some simple operational questions which commentators are avoiding, questions which revolve around the very social and legal problems I can only outline generally in this brief introduction to the topic.
             I have a perfect metaphor with which to describe not only the situation as I see it but one which I don’t mind saying suggests that the question has been important to me for a long time; in fact, the very word referent has enjoyed a key position in my life.  
             When I was a boy my father worked as a substitute machine operator for the County of Sacramento, and sometimes this meant he substituted as a drawbridge operator.   I thought this was only as slightly interesting as slightly interesting could be.   I was not enthused when once he dragged me along to “help” him cover a night shift.  Drawbridges, at least in those days, were equipped with sleeping areas in the same space as the office, somewhat in the manner of semi trucks, though perhaps more comfortably.   It was kinda cool to have my own den.  Although for my dad it would be a night shift of work, for me it would be possible to sleep (if I really had to).   Because boats needing the bridge drawn were infrequent, the experience was for me the height of boredom until my dad found a science fiction collection stashed somewhere.   Once I got that book in my hands everything changed.   I soon became interested partly because of the interesting stories and partly because of the typical weird “Modernist” art-deco shapes on the cover – as will become surprisingly clear, it would be relevant to say they were reminiscent of “sentient clouds.”   It is important to understand that it was through this literature and art that I approached the modern world, and mental and spiritual awareness in general.   It could be said that to this day, my work as a Classical composer still involves these strange shapes converted into high-tech sounds redolent of science fiction.   That was a formative night for me, so significant that it was almost fifty years before I realized the event was nothing more than an adventure in reading myself a bedtime story.
             I think it was the first story in the collection that was entitled, that’s right, “The Cloud.”    It was about an institutionalized mental patient who is being tortured by his doctors for some reason, or for being merely different than other people, or perhaps for no reason.   However, an entity he simply calls “the Cloud” visits him and communicates information, compassion and wisdom, and helps him to get out of the asylum, not through escape, but by learning how to fulfill the requirements of the evil doctors.   The patient cannot tell the doctors about “the Cloud,” or he will be shut up forever.   The author handles the material in such a way as to avoid facile comparisons with schizophrenia, and to increase the thoughtfulness of the story as a parable.   The patient is independent of the phenomenon; “the Cloud” is real.   Importantly, it is not an individual but a collective consciousness – a network perhaps.   After he leaves the institution he knows he can always be in touch with “the Cloud.”    He has a friend of awesome capability.   But, in the story, the very existence and presence of the friend (always referred to in capital letters as the CLOUD), remains a sign of disturbing conditions.
             Returning to this place we comfort ourselves to call reality, I must say that I feel about cloud computing that it is putting forward a more disturbing proposition of a new social order than seems at first to be evident.   I will present my reservations in the terms of the bias towards business applications seem to have.   But no one can deny that business creates, and is created by, politics and culture.   It is even remarked that different businesses have different “cultures.”  
             A culture of collaboration is an important aspect of the world Cloud Computing creates.   It is being presented not only as a new technology, one with irrefutable good possibilities, which I do not dispute may be good for persons in certain kinds of environments.   But it is being presented as a mode of activity in which important structural aspects of any reliable state are not made satisfactorily clear, for example, where precisely physical responsibility or even physical existence actually lies, and in which the ambiguity about where physical responsibility lies seems to be part of the process of accepting and working with the technology.   The effect upon a society that commitment to the methods described by the advocates of Cloud Computing would have would be to convert that society into one in which different types of interconnecting groups would become the order of the day.    Such an order is Soviet, or rather, soviet with a small “s.”   As everybody is supposed to know, a Soviet is a group, anywhere in size from a small committee to an entire state.   The Soviet Union was a “Union of Soviets,” or, in other words, a group of groups.   The Oxford English Dictionary does not so much define words as show exactly where a word comes from in historic usage.   The OED points out that in the USSR soviets “were set up prior to the establishment of Socialist rule in 1917,” and later operated “At all levels of government. ” Collaboration was its lifeblood, and in my opinion, it was only corruption in its method of collaboration, and not its supposed economic system, that caused its failure.   That corruption in collaboration is a problem in Cloud Computing.    Abstract interconnecting structures fascinate me, and I have given much thought to them, and created quite a few in my work as a Classical composer.    Further discussion of the resemblance between Cloud Computer and the theory and practice of Soviet structuring is outside the scope of this paper, but it merits close consideration.  I am not skeptical about Cloud Computing for merely reasons of detecting possibilities that it is like a particular social system thought nowadays to be bad (and, worse than that it seems, failed).  As a worker I am cognizant of and sympathetic to many aspects of Marxism and the ethics of improving the condition of those at the bottom of the social order.   But full disclosure is always paramount, which Cloud Computing does not always supply, and while reliance upon other people and groups of people is a characteristic of civilized existence, too much of this erodes standards of personal value and the integrity and sovereignty of the individual person.   Industrial-strength collaboration can bring with it the dangers of groupthink and the politics of the preservation of a strong political position at the expense of the goals of civil society.   These dangers existed in the Soviet Union and now they exist everywhere.   There are too many indications that “Collaboration” may become something achieved at the push of a button.   There was a time when a Boris Badenov might have frightened child audiences by pushing the “Collaborate!” button on his spy device.   But though a hoary cliché, that is exactly the situation that is now, in part, developing.   Saying “It does not matter where the Fearless Leader or Pottsylvania is,” is exactly the spin that Cloud Computing is being given.   Cloud Computing has the potential to bring sovietism, with a “small s,” into people’s lives in a manner they do not suspect.   It should be done carefully; I suppose I am saying, it should be done according to the Truman Doctrine.

1. Cloud Computing Defined
             Cloud Computing is a form of what is called Distributed Computing, of which the World Wide Web is an example, in which computational duties are distributed over a number of computers.   By creating networks of computers, the computing power is increased according to the computers and information made available, rather in the manner of a larger, more powerful computer.    Usually, this is effected by machines called servers, which function as distinct electronic destinations of particular computing machines.   These machines are at known physical locations which, if you have business knowing them, can be easily learned.   The same cannot be assumed of Cloud Computing.  
             The creation of various kinds of networks, whether Personal, Local, Metropolitan, or Wide Area, has generally, to the degree responsive to reasonable inquiry, required that computers involved in the network be identifiable at least by their IP address, and preferably by their address location.   (There is an additional aspect to the way the information is passed through many computers on its way to its intended goal; that is not part of the “network” under discussion.)   Inquiries can be made to a computer to determine with what other computers it is in a network; IP addresses of the participating computers can be easily listed on a screen.  The operator has the capacity to generally control, and certainly to specifically deny, other computers from having access to his computer, both through hardware such as routers, and through software.
             However, with Cloud Computing, the location and even type of computer is not considered relevant for the user to know about.   Concerning the infrastructure of interfacing computers, Cloud Computing advocates put forward that argument that “its exact location is both unknown and irrelevant to the users” according to a rather lazy argument that sober minds should in my opinion not accept on its own, namely, and bluntly, that “If it works, it works.”    But that is not a good enough answer to the question as to why we should accept something.  Rightly or wrongly, that is the excuse attributed to the Nazi doctors.   And we might say that it works only for as long as it works.
             We might wish we should be able to assume that the definition of Cloud Computing given at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a US Government agency , is authoritative, but it turns out it is a “limited” and “recommended” definition.   The NIST defines Cloud Computing not according to physical systems but according to what it does, as “a model for enabling… network access… with minimal management effort of service provider interaction.”    It is I believe important that the NIST Definition is part of a “minimum requirement” of the stated security duties of the NIST.   That is to say, this is one time that a “book definition” is insufficient; this cannot be taken as a “legal” definition.   I believe that no thoughtful person should be satisfied with a “minimal” definition, but I think it is most prudent to proceed from the NISL document.
             The NISL defines five “Essential Characteristics” of Cloud Computing as being, first, that of on-demand self-service, or the capacity of the user to “unilaterally provision [his own] computing facilities.”    This includes the advantage to the consumer of not having to install things himself.    The second essential characteristic is broad network access, or the ability to use all manner of computing devices; the third is resource pooling, or the service of users according to what is called a “multi-tenant” concept which “refers to a software architectural principal whereby several clients… share a single instance of cloud computing software;” the fourth is rapid elasticity, or the ability of the accessible service to respond only to the demands made by the user, not, for example, with terabytes of memory that are not needed for a particular operation; and the fifth is measured service, which is the ability of the service provider to apportion services as needed and demanded.    NISL reports that “typically this is done on a pay-per-use or charge-per-use basis.”    (I find it puzzling that USG thinks there is a difference between these two expressions.)
             There are three “Service Models” in Cloud Computing.  Each of what are presented as the main aspects of computing, namely Software, Platforms, and Infrastructure, can be hired by the user according to need.   However, as we shall see, these three functions are not presented by the different Cloud companies in a way that necessarily derives from the NISL “recommended definition.”   These are styled as Software as a Service, Platforms as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.   The inevitable acronyms are obviously SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS.  By hiring these functions from a Cloud provider, the user reduces the necessity of owning, operating, or maintaining any of them.   Software is no longer kept on one’s desktop or any other computer, but “on the Cloud,” and it would appear that one copy of each piece of software is all that needs to be installed.   Apparently the Cloud is a “Noah’s Ark” of Software.   Similar scenarios pertain for Platforms and Infrastructure.
             Increased ease and economy are powerful incentives, or temptations depending on one’s point of view.   For example, with the Cloud, it is no longer necessary to upgrade computer software one’s self; this is done by the provider in between usages.   Essentially, Cloud providers do, behind the scenes, a lot of the work presently being done by individuals.  
             The physical systems are called “deployment models,” and it is the differences between these deployments that defines the actual substance, I believe, of the appropriate usage and security concerns, beginning with a difference between the NISL recommendations and actual practice.  
             NISL describes four deployment models, of the Private Cloud, used by a single organization of whatever size, which “may exist on or off premises;” the Community Cloud, of organizations with shared concerns, soviets with a small “s,” which may be owned or operated by any one or more of the participants, and which may exist on or off premises; Public Clouds, which are open to use by the general public, may be owned by anyone, and which, according to NISL, “Exists on the premises of the cloud provider” (my emphasis); and Hybrid Clouds, which are defined with a long and rather vague definition too wordy to quote but which basically means any combination of the first three.   The question of who would be owning or operating a Hybrid Cloud, or where it would be located, is not mentioned.   I read this text to mean that there are three fairly quantifiable definitions, and one area of functioning in which “anything goes.”   I insist that this last category is too asymmetrical to be used together with the others.   It is rather like telling a child there are four kinds of water for bathing, bathtubs full, backyard swimming pools full, public swimming pools full, and then there are oceans.   
             It is this catch-all category which seems to be the area of interest for most developers, and where the greatest risk exists for users.   This risk is not limited to conventional concerns such as security, which remain variables as before, but extends to propriety and social patterning.   If a software writer decides to withdraw their product, Cloud users will be at their mercy; I would call this the “Atlas Shrugged” scenario.   Security risks that seem solved would only shift from one concern to another.   There might be fewer man-hours lost through individuals repeating the same actions as one another, but computer problems would manifest as major disasters for whole populations, instead of as at present, for individuals or firms.   If too many people become too used to using the Cloud, yet another level of ease will result in yet another loss of individual skill, as we have witnessed with, for example, the fact that fewer people now do math in their heads, relying instead on their calculators.   At some point, a society is vulnerable if there isn’t a basic reliability on the population to be able to “chop wood and carry water.”

2. Cloud Computing History
             The ancient Babylonian “Hymn to Eridu,” records a complaint by the god Enlil to the god Enki, Babylonian God of Science, that Enki was withholding the use of the ME, or “Tablets of the Divine Formulas,” of which there are many reports of city government being performed.   A ME was a portable item which if lost or misapplied could stop the whole world from functioning.   At first glance, losing a ME would seem to be similar to losing hardware or a computer chip, but though the name and location of Emmadurana, the “Master of the Divine Tablets” were known, the location of the MEs he administered was not known, and that suggests the MEs were “off site” from his temple.  The DURANKI, or “Bond Between Heaven and Earth,” could be broken through the loss of a ME.    The sun could stop in the sky.   So it appears that not only have people been inventing operational and memory units for a long time, but important civic tools have been kept secret even from their priesthoods.  
             More proximately, leaving apparently conceptual examples aside, Cloud computing in its precise 2013 configuration does not have a long history, but its predecessors as we know them go back to the late 1950s.   At that time mainframe computers were used for communications, but not processing.   The technology of “time sharing” was developed.   Just as Cloud computing reduces the costs of technology through shared use of the machines and software, time sharing allowed users to contract only as much time with a computer as they needed.   It also allowed the shared use of the CPU.   The school usually associated with this technology was MIT and the company, IBM.   The scientist Herbert Grosch put forward a world in which there were lots of “dumb terminals” and fewer actual computers.    While Cloud computing advocates now emphatically claim that that is not what is happening, the idea of a proportional distance in functioning between providers and consumers is probably one which Grosch would recognize.   As early as the 1960s “utility computing” also developed from concept to market; this was simply a form of “pay per use” marketing of computer availability.   Variations on the technologies used for time sharing were the basic trend until the 1990s, when Wide Area Networks began to link computers at different sites rather in the manner of private Internet functioning, “private” in this case meaning, a limited and well-known group of computers.   What were called Virtual Private Networks were thus created.   Individual computers in these VPNs would need only varying amounts of memory or CPU usage.   As with time sharing and Cloud computing alike, traffic on the network could be shifted according to need; though apparently this was not what we would now call automatic, this was a predecessor of “on demand” thinking.   It seems remarkable now that as recently as 2002 the idea of on-demand computing was being floated as a strange and wonderful idea; I found an article at ZDNet that asked the bold question “On Demand Computing: What Are the Odds?”
             Already by about the year 2000 companies with large projected computer use began to find that they were only using a small percentage of their capacity, often as little as ten or twenty percent.   This seemed an obvious place to economize.  By 2006 Amazon Web Services was launched.   In 2011 Apple launched its iCloud and IBM launched its SmartCloud.   Like IBM, Google has launched its Cloud capacity in components each with different launch dates, but perhaps a benchmark date exists for the Google Cloud Storage launch date of 2010.
             As a direct observer if not participant in the development of these things, I note that, from the point of view of public awareness, Cloud computing has seemed to make more sense to those who use handheld devices a lot.   This is not to say that the average person performing a given function on his handheld necessarily knows whether the operation is completed using the Cloud in contradistinction to conventional online internet computing.   Another thing that I think should be obvious is that the Cloud is proliferating in a manner that almost doesn’t allow definitions in a conventional usage sense.   That is, almost any connection or application seems possible.   Wired magazine’s founder Kevin Kelly even expressed the notion that someday we will have the “Intercloud,” or “Cloud of clouds.”    In the “Intercloud scenario,” if, or rather when, clouds become full to capacity, they will “contract out” to other clouds.   The Intercloud would reproduce the Internet.   Learning about this disturbed me, since one of my works in progress is “A Door of Doors Into Ecstasy,” and I rather feel as though someone is going to later think I got this idea, first sketched around 1980, at a much later time.

3. Comparisons of Various Cloud Computing Systems: iCloud, Google, and IBM
             Apple’s iCloud product began as early as 2000 with the iTools application, which allowed email through a client and some functions now identifiable as Cloud operations, in the form of for example free post cards.   This product was given a name change to .Mac (i.e., “dot mac”) in 2002 when several functions were added to it, such as a personal web page service called HomePage, and iDisk, which offered disk storage online.   This begins to sound like “Infrastructure as a Service.”   In a move reminiscent of the Babylonian ME, in 2008 Apple bought “me.com” and upgraded and renamed it to MobileMe.   This name makes it clear that Apple, at least, is thinking about the Cloud as something that can develop in everyday usage, on the fly as it were, while riding in – though never, let us all hope, while driving – a car.   In a move that might not have been entirely popular with its customers Apple then gradually ceased to sell this application and by 2011 released iCloud.   MobileMe was discontinued on June 30, 2012, and Apple prefers now to work with icloud.com addresses, but it allows the use of earlier domain names: me.com still exists.   Presumably, both Enlil and Enki are happy about this.   At this time Apple’s orientation is still toward developing Cloud services as adjuncts of everyday use.   For example, the Apple iCloud page brings you swiftly to how to store your personal photos.   This is computer use as a great big personal album.
             Google’s Cloud services are organized into components rather than as a uniformly-approached product as Apple seems to present.   However, perhaps it may be said that the Google Cloud Platform is Grand Central Station for Google.   Google presents itself according to the Infrastructure aspect of the technology, and so seems, to me at least, to be more approachable as something that a developer who is working from the ground up might prefer.   The GCP page makes sure to emphasize the words “Mix and Match,” an obvious maxim that is remarkable for having not been used very much in this obviously mix-and-match universe.   Google stresses on several of its pages that there is support available, but it seems self-evident that “support” and “Google” are mutually exclusive; I will believe it when I experience it.   I think it is fair to say that support is not Google’s strong suit.
             Just as Apple did with its transition from email to Cloud through the lassoing in of the customer through existing technology such as email, Google has redesigned its gmail in order to bring its users around to its Cloud.   Clicking onto the Google Cloud Console I encountered my own photograph and gmail account.   Google has what seem to me to be very “Cloud component” aspects: a page for Compute Engine, for Cloud Storage, etc.
             What is evident is that these companies are acting to attempt to convert their users into a virtual society or religion, and since they want to rid the world of one another, there is a sense in which this culture is adversarial.   This is where my remarks about culture seem to me to be most relevant: the actual societal culture that these trends enable is the one that will arise.  It is foolish to assume everything about what society is actually developing from what we are told in the news.  With each push or pull of the giants, the customers are drawn into an action in which upgrading never ceases and those who don’t upgrade with the “winners” are relegated to the sidelines.   Ultimately, this is not the culture of service to the public.   The form of public service that we will get might very well have more to do with which company makes the most money defeating its competitors, and then we may be shocked to learn that the successful company will dictate terms as to what service is.   In fact this is already happening.   The customer seems to have his choice: fight the famous 90 hours a week for industry, or choose which Cyberia he prefers.
             IBM’s Cloud services are presented as heavy industry; its home page has an “Industries and Solutions” link closest to the main logo.   IBM goes Google’s claim to support one better by having an “Expert Cloud Consulting” page easily available from its home page.   Of the four Cloud companies I have studied and of the three discussed here, only IBM uses the terms SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS that are discussed in the “theoretical” (or simply promotional) literature on the subject.   I consider this a virtue on IBM’s part, as it makes it easier for people in that one crucial project of elevating themselves from a lower to a higher standard of living, by allowing their studies to be useful in their life pursuits.   That’s right, I just said that at this time, IBM has the best Cloud Soviet.
             My own concern about how this technology may affect culture is best fielded at IBM’s main page, where a distinction is drawn right away between the different deployments possible.   “Private and Hybrid Clouds” are stipulated as clear options; there is less likelihood of confusion about what one is doing.   IBM’s Cloud capacity seems organized more clearly and with fewer gross options to have to choose from.   There is less of the social sense of being drawn inexorably into a particular computing culture, and that therefore something besides driving around and texting your friends and having more storage for your iTunes may be what is conceived and available.

4. Security Concerns
             None of the security issues of earlier computing are absent from the companies offering Cloud service.   It is probably already considered that fewer computers exposed to hacking means a more secure environment, but the problem is only really secure when conflict no longer occurs.   Hybrid computing might involve the most risk due to its nature, but even if you think you can trust Big Brother, it seems certain that hackers will attack small companies because they are less evidently secure, and large ones because they are bigger targets.    It seems obvious that if hacking is a major international problem – though one not entirely without location – then there could be increasing risk to those who compute on their own.   Or, from this point of view, maybe we should ask, is the Cloud just a very high-tech way of buying “Protection” from a world of hacking geniuses?
             The larger the company, the greater the potential for misbehavior on a grand scale.   Abuse of trust could lead to some unexpected abuses.   If someone really holds and controls all your computing capacity, how is that so different from a supposedly intrusive NSA?    I have already noted the phenomenon of “arresting someone by the eyeballs:” if you download something that a security algorithm says shouldn’t be allowed, and it causes problems, your chances of having this sort of problem are only greater, the larger the company you have working for you.  
             There are some basic definitional questions that I am very surprised have never been approached.   For example, if your location doesn’t matter, what are the legal implications of all the borders that have probably been crossed to get to and from the “end user’s” computer?   A person in Iran who claims it does not matter whether their computer is part of your Hybrid Cloud may have very different motivation to say that their location is “irrelevant” to you than a person in Minnesota.    International borders are now being electronically crossed on a mind-beggaring scale, are we to believe that this should be of no concern to governments?   Is the Cloud just a way to secure data collection by not involving pre-existing companies, like telephone companies, which would have to make further agreements that are settled in that “behind-the-scenes” world of Cloud computing, which we are being told we don’t need to know about, so that we bleat as happy sheep?   When there are problems, the local police are unlikely to be involved, so the usual avenues of quick recourse are closed.   The phenomenon of a private disaster that affects only you and no one around you may only escalate.   Would it be an FBI matter because state borders are crossed?   (The answer should be yes, but can we count on this in practice?)   Who do we call when we discover the issue crosses international borders?    If there are persons in India getting microloans to use their cell phones to create businesses to get out of bad circumstances, an application we should think very admirable, are they through no fault of their own risky partners, easily hacked, mere gates to hackers? 
             Certain realities are different than they are presented.   I find that there are persistent security protocols that suggest capacities as yet unsuspected.   Can someone reach onto your laptop and operate a document?   I have learned this can be done.   For example, downloading a Cloud Computing document from USG, I learned that the document could be locked from my personal use even after I had downloaded its PDF onto my desktop.   The information that “Oh this is a new PDF your computer hasn’t seen before” is a description, not an explanation of why this should happen only now, that I am doing simple, straightforward research introducing Cloud computing.  A computer meta-situation is already prescient.   Hybrid Cloud Computing in particular may actually involve a vast system of workarounds; it may be that not all of the “on-demand” functions are as facile as they are described as being; and that your Cloud Computing experience can vary depending on where you fit into some established security or business structure.

5. Conclusion: Cloud Computing is a Two-Edged Sword
             I insist that Cloud computing is more of a two-edged sword than it is being presented.   I have outlined social trends that could have unexpected negative results on the ability of individuals to maintain their individuality.   It is worth remembering that when Osama bin Laden was finally brought to task, his computer systems had his grand strategy on them: computer-enabled terrorism he was calling “the Cloud.”     We may smile when here that Albert Gore said he invented the Internet, but it sounds rather more chilling to learn that Osama Bin Laden was developing a “Cloud.”
             As an effort to reduce personal risk due to computing, Cloud computing seems an obviously positive development.   There is nothing wrong with large companies saving large amounts of money, and I think we should be supportive of limited hybrid Cloud Computing as a means of empowering those with otherwise little or no means.
             It’s all too much like the Aristophanes play “The Clouds.”   In this play, Aristophanes shamefully lampoons Socrates as someone who enables people to shirk their debts by learning casuistry – basically, by learning how to effect workarounds of their debts, and “not be there” when the taxman or the creditor arrives.   Socrates is lowered into the scene in a basket from the “Cloud Cuckoo Land” he has inhabited as a brainiac.
             All this said, I suppose I agree with the college textbook that Cloud computing is “desired.”     However, rapid growth for the companies is only the profit-side concern of the situation.   Are we being yet again shepherded into another learning curve, which may only separate society further?   Is there unsuspected governmental involvement, or has this involvement carefully maneuvered us already to a business arrangement that reflects overmuch control on our lives?   I remain suspicious of anyone who tells me I don’t need to know where my own data resides.    And in 2015 as I write this, astute people should be noticing the evidences of increased government surveillance.
             The politics of Cloud Computing is a collaborationism which people could become over-dependant upon, indeed addicted to, and the legalities of responsibility are not as settled as they seem.   Certain ethical questions have not apparently been broached.     Activities without specific location are the stuff of the very worst social developments of all time.   At the trials of the major Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg in 1945-1946, the most heinous crimes were those “without specific location.”    The situation was exactly the same as Cloud Computing: the achievement of acts ordered in an office but about which those making the orders would not have to concern themselves with details of time, manner, or place.   The storage of paperwork in out-of-the way places can have a terrible aspect depending on what that paperwork is about.   No later than summer 1944, before leaving for the Quebec conference, Winston Churchill informed the British War Cabinet “that he proposed to discuss personally with President Roosevelt the question of war criminals whose crimes had no geographical location.”    This paradigm remained written into the articles and intentions of the War Tribunal.

HOME

PRINCIPAL WORKS

LISTING BY NOMENCLATURE