"Victor's Justice"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Victor´s Justice?
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Apr 2002, 05:02
Location: Brasil

Re: re

#31

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 17 May 2002, 17:39

Because he wasn't caught. Unfortunately it usually takes total defeat in war for a criminal acting on behalf or with the authorization of a state to be put on trial.
Thanks a lot, this answers many questions...

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#32

Post by Roberto » 17 May 2002, 19:07

Quote:
When VJ has the time, he may let us know. In the absence of a convincing demonstration on hand of representative examples that the Nuremberg Trial substantially failed to live up to the procedural rules governing it, the above quoted statement is nothing other than unsubstantiated personal opinion.

As to the “portugues genius”, the second term is too much of an honor because I don’t consider myself a genius. As to the first, I appreciate it because, although not Portuguese-born, I love this country where I live.

Yes, when I have the time, I will show you some examples...where are you from by the way?
I was born and raised in Colombia, South America. Both my parents are from Essen, Germany.
Quote:
That being so, I wonder what the point of VJ’s reference to the US having “recently denounced the treaty for creation of a Permanent Military Tribunal” and Israel using “torture and illegal coertions and prisons to obtain confessions” is supposed to have been. What does recent US/Israeli misbehavior have to do with the question whether or not the Nuremberg trials lived up to proper legal standards of a defendant-friendly, fair procedure?

Yes, such misbehavior has to do with Nuremberg trials, in what pertains to double standards and victor´s justice practices. I thought you were able to realize that; once again I didn´t consider the ICC and Nuremberg the same matter, this is stupid; it was just a clear analogy; I thought I didn´t have to explain such thing again.
I think the message is that the Nuremberg defendants were tried by governments which didn’t have clean hands themselves at the time and don’t have them to this day. That may be so, but what do we conclude from this? That the trials should have been left to neutral bodies, perhaps. Whether the defendants would have been better off if tried by such neutral bodies is another question. And a conclusion I would by no means draw is that the trials should not have taken place at all, given that the defendants were in one way or another responsible for the mass murder of unarmed non-combatants on a rarely equaled scale.
Quote:
Sometimes right is enforced, sometimes it is not. Does the fact that it fails to be enforced sometimes imply that it should never be enforced? It would seem that this is how some people think.


That´s not what I said, obviously. But right must be enforced always and isonomically; unfortunately, such thing never happens, and that´s the main reason why I am here, to criticise double standards, even when this seems off topic for some.
As I said in my last post: Unfortunately it usually takes total defeat in war for a criminal acting on behalf or with the authorization of a state to be put on trial. It takes might to make right. Before you can try them, you have to catch them.
Quote:
Here is one gratuitous offense:

...

Now show me one gratuitous offense on my part. VJ should get used to the idea that he who argues and behaves like an ideologically motivated propagandist should not be surprised about being addressed accordingly.

Your very first response started a series of gratuitous offenses toward my person; I never addressed myself to you in such manners, without being provoked to.
Did it? What exactly did I write that offended you so much? Show me.
The quote you posted with my response was just that; as you are so keen with quotes, why not post your first labelling/offensive posts to show your prejudice and shallow analysis of people who disagree from you?
Why doesn’t the claimant do that himself/herself?
I know, you can´t do that, because it would blow up all your wannabe morale foundations.
The issue here is not morals. The issue is facts on the one hand and people who try to distort, misrepresent or dismiss them in support of an ideological agenda of theirs on the other. The ethically questionable nature of the such people's approach is not the subject matter of my contentions.
Anyway, we must be free to debate without personal offenses in this great forum; I hope you learn to be less outspoken and more polite from now on.
I don’t think I have any more to learn in this respect than my opponent. Rather the opposite.


User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Hi Marcus,

#33

Post by Scott Smith » 17 May 2002, 19:58

Homer martin wrote:Scott should never jump into a tread just to post INSULTING AND OFF TOPIC.
Homer,

My post was in response to this one:

Roberto wrote:
Victor's Justice wrote:
p.s.: I didn´t label you, so I ask you not to label me or call me names, please...behave yourself, and we will be all right here.
As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.
It seems that Roberto can't behave himself, and when others get banned from the forum for similar behavior he gets a very mild rebuke.
Homer wrote:Marcus there is more than just one person here who wrote OFF TOPIC and INSULTING post.

Roberto posted a good start in the topic about the Numberg trails, nothing in Victor's relpy gave any factual information to support his posting a relpy. Victor should have looked up some point he could make base on a fact and not used an argument based on they, we, are you.
Homer,

Roberto restarted the thread because he fouled the other one and got it closed. Let's keep things in perspective here.

As far as Off-Topic comments it is not off-topic to use historical or contemporary examples. Issues must be put into historical perspective. You cannot consider something out of historical or situational context if you intend for anything other than rote analysis.

For example, if the topic is the Nuremberg trials and how they apply to the Germans, it is entirely proper to note that the Americans have today rejected warcrimes trials themselves so that Americans cannot be tried in foreign courts for political offenses.

Remember also that the thread originator did not specify any stipulations for more stringent on-topic rules, such as one that I started recently.

Best Regards,
Scott

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#34

Post by Roberto » 17 May 2002, 20:22

Homer martin wrote:
Scott should never jump into a tread just to post INSULTING AND OFF TOPIC.


Homer,

My post was in response to this one:


Roberto wrote:
Victor's Justice wrote:

p.s.: I didn´t label you, so I ask you not to label me or call me names, please...behave yourself, and we will be all right here.

As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

It seems that Roberto can't behave himself, and when others get banned from the forum for similar behavior he gets a very mild rebuke.
Looks like the Reverend would like to see me banned. Which I can fully understand, of course – it would remove a major obstacle to his indoctrination of this forum’s audience with “Revisionist” articles of faith.

Bad, bad fellow, this Roberto. But is the teasing irony that he learned all too well from his opponents comparable to the downright insults that some of these throw around?
Homer wrote:
Marcus there is more than just one person here who wrote OFF TOPIC and INSULTING post.

Roberto posted a good start in the topic about the Numberg trails, nothing in Victor's relpy gave any factual information to support his posting a relpy. Victor should have looked up some point he could make base on a fact and not used an argument based on they, we, are you.

Homer,

Roberto restarted the thread because he fouled the other one and got it closed. Let's keep things in perspective here.
Yeah, sure. The thread referred to was this one:

Soap...
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 39b7a97b3b

and I don’t think that who has read through it will have too high an opinion of the Reverend on account of his above quoted statement. But don’t take my word for it, dear readers. Have a look at the thread and decide for yourselves.
As far as Off-Topic comments it is not off-topic to use historical or contemporary examples. Issues must be put into historical perspective. You cannot consider something out of historical or situational context if you intend for anything other than rote analysis.
Nothing wrong in principle with putting issues into historical perspective, but what Smith calls “historical perspective” I would call apology of the National Socialist regime.
For example, if the topic is the Nuremberg trials and how they apply to the Germans, it is entirely proper to note that the Americans have today rejected warcrimes trials themselves so that Americans cannot be tried in foreign courts for political offenses.
Sure. And what conclusion do we draw from this? That the Americans behaved miserably when they “rejected warcrimes trials themselves so that Americans cannot be tried in foreign courts for political offenses”, or that the Nuremberg trials should not have taken place?
Remember also that the thread originator did not specify any stipulations for more stringent on-topic rules, such as one that I started recently.
The thread originator called for comments on his assessment of the Nuremberg trial procedures. And he hasn’t seen any so far. Just the good old “they also did this and that” – howling, which has nothing to do with the question whether or not the trial procedures lived up to proper legal standards of a defendant-friendly, fair trial.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

BANNED?

#35

Post by Scott Smith » 17 May 2002, 20:29

Roberto wrote:Looks like the Reverend would like to see me banned.
No, I do not want to see you banned. When someone is banned or quits the forum it is a loss to everyone.

But you'd better start behaving.
:monkee:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: BANNED?

#36

Post by Roberto » 17 May 2002, 20:32

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Looks like the Reverend would like to see me banned.
No, I do not want to see you banned. When someone is banned or quits the forum it is a loss to everyone.

But you'd better start behaving.
:monkee:
I'll let our audience decide whose behavior deserves more criticism.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#37

Post by walterkaschner » 17 May 2002, 21:00

Hi Ovidious,

I quite agree with your belief that the death sentence awarded Julius Streicher by the Nuremberg Tribunal was grossly unfair. After all, he was booted out as Gauleiter in 1940 as a totally corrupt embarrasement and shunned by the Nazi hierarchy thereafter. IMHO his stuff in Der Stürmer was so trashy that I can't believe any but the most rabid anti-Semites paid it any attention anyway. I think its influence has been vastly overrated and the Tribunal's findings in that regard overstated. And after reading the notes of the Tribunal's "deliberations" concerning the counts against Streicher I feel the judges' casual and conclusory disposition of his case was truly shameful. They were undoubtedly influenced by the fact that he was such a detestable person - as you probably know, none of the other defendants wanted to have anything whatsoever to do with him. But being a detestable person is not a criminal offense, nor punishable by a death sentence, even in Nazi Germany (unless of course you were a Jew.)

Incidentally, the only evidence I know of as to Streicher's "being thoroughly beaten by his guards" was his own unsupported testimony at trial (which was ordered stricken) to the effect that when he was arrested two black soldiers stripped him naked, burned his nipples with live cigarettes and beat his genitals repeatedly. This of course may have been true but its semi-pornographic tone sounds so much like the stuff Streicher relished publishing in "Der Stürmer" as to raise at least a serious question, at least in my mind, as to its veracity.

But back to the Nuremberg trials. I also think Doenitz should have been let off with time served, and Hess declared mentally unfit for trial. And I could quarrel to some degree with a few of the other sentences handed down. But my disagreement with the outcome in those cases does not lead me to condemn the Nuremberg trials as a whole. I've practiced law for 45 years, both in the US and (as a conseil juridique ) in France, and believe me I have seen many judicial determinations in both jurisdictions which I disagreed with. This does not, it seems to me, compel the conclusion that the French and the US legal systems are hopelessly flawed.
It simply bolsters my view (which has become increasingly hardened over the years) that in the panoply of results of any legal system administered by human beings, there will be some that other humans may dispute with good cause.

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Matt Gibbs
Member
Posts: 3005
Joined: 23 Mar 2002, 01:46
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Justice by the victors

#38

Post by Matt Gibbs » 17 May 2002, 23:58

I have noticed by a general wider look through history that ""Victor's"" in conflicts - unless the conflict was supported by an oppressed people who wanted the ""Victors"" to win, generally conducted some kind of trial or exposee to either properly condemn the vanquished in front of witnesses or in a show trial to justify their attack and victory. It's not a phenomenon attached to the Third Reich I don't think. I do think that the main reason that there is so much debate over it is the fact that its the most recent massive conflict that involved almost incalculable civilian and other casualties. No one goes on with an outcry over how the former Mongol empire is always dirted on by historians because of the massive human rights violations they conducted do they..? I wonder if that's what will happen to the history of the IIIrd Reich in say fifty or a hundred years..? Will people start to view it in a much more historical context when there are no people left in the world with any relatives who can remeber the struggles of wartime or the rationing on the home front etc..? Could it be said that the absolute horror of the trench warfare of the 1st world war is almost forgotten now..? No one refers in a 'bad' or depreciating way for what the German army did in WW1 or what might be termed as warcrimes by either side in WW2. It almost seems like any hatred has to be buried under the guise of the nazi regime. Those not so well read all around us can suddenly become annoyed at the way historians might portray someone who could be hailed as a heroic combat veteran because of the side they fought on. Justice...? I almost think that the "jury" is still out on some aspects of the Third Reich, especially with regard to what causes controversy and what doesn't.
Interesting [and long] topic though.....
Regards
Matt G

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

Re: A FEW QUESTION FOR ROBERTO

#39

Post by Ovidius » 18 May 2002, 14:11

Roberto wrote:
Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:Come on, Ovi, I’m aware that you are a true but honest National Socialist and would therefore never address you in the manner alluded to, as you well know.
I know the opposite, as it becomes apparent from here: http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1497
Well, that was a sermon. :lol:
The fact that the White Rose Group, and Schulze Boysen and plenty others like them were Leftists was not a sermon, but a reality - a hardly acceptable one from your point of view.
Roberto wrote:2. I think there is a difference between advocating the bombing of civilian targets in a war in order to bring an enemy government to its knees and advocating the extermination of a whole ethnic group, independently of there being a war and said group being in any way related thereto, for no reason other than irrational hatred of said group. How about comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges, Ovi?
1. The hate-speakers(the term "hate speech" belongs to you, not me) did not say "bomb the Germans to defeat the Governmant". They said "Kill the Nazi bastard" and plenty other kind words.

2. The propagandists for the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia did claim(and I can support it with quotes) that the Serbs as a whole were a barbaric and criminal people, who can't tolerate anyone living around them, and thus bombing them was fair.
Herzfeld/Heartfield was a Communist, no doubt about that. This doesn't change the fact that the Der Stürmer was a filthy pamphlet containing nothing but violent and often pornographic hate propaganda, whereas Heartfield's photomontages are works of art. As said, I appreciate art regardless of where it comes from.
Thanks for this sort of art. :mrgreen:

To say that Der Stürmer was a newspaper for monkeys only is exactly what I would have expected from a Communist scum like Herzfeld/Heartfield, who was endlessly praised in the last decades by all those who were against the Reich, just like the other Commie known as Schulze-Boysen was deemed to have been a hero.

~Ovidius

PS As for your favorite Herzfeld/Heartfield photomontage, "Millions stand behind me", it fails to explain why, despite the "millions", National Socialist Germany had experienced a financial crisis the led to Schacht's resign.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: A FEW QUESTION FOR ROBERTO

#40

Post by Roberto » 20 May 2002, 12:45

Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:Come on, Ovi, I’m aware that you are a true but honest National Socialist and would therefore never address you in the manner alluded to, as you well know.
I know the opposite, as it becomes apparent from here: http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1497
Well, that was a sermon. :lol:
The fact that the White Rose Group, and Schulze Boysen and plenty others like them were Leftists was not a sermon, but a reality - a hardly acceptable one from your point of view.
I have no problem in principle in seeing them as Leftists, although I i) don’t see what would have necessarily been wrong about that under the circumstances and ii) have my doubts as to just how “Leftist” the members of the White Rose group were. What I have a problem with is contentions that they were bad folks for resisting the Führer and deserved to have their heads chopped off.
1. The hate-speakers(the term "hate speech" belongs to you, not me)
It belongs to neither of us, I would say.
did not say "bomb the Germans to defeat the Governmant". They said "Kill the Nazi bastard" and plenty other kind words.
Wartime propaganda, a representative sample of which would be appreciated. And then, the “Nazi bastard” was not supposed to include unarmed non-combatants to be killed off on account of considerations not necessarily related and even alien to the effort of bringing a military enemy to its knees, just because they were a vermin to be removed, was it?
2. The propagandists for the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia did claim(and I can support it with quotes) that the Serbs as a whole were a barbaric and criminal people,
Did they? Let’s have a representative quote, then.
who can't tolerate anyone living around them, and thus bombing them was fair.
Bombing them for what purpose? For the purpose of killing them off, or for the purpose of forcing their government to give in to demands to stop genocidal killing?
To say that Der Stürmer was a newspaper for monkeys only is exactly what I would have expected from a Communist scum like Herzfeld/Heartfield, who was endlessly praised in the last decades by all those who were against the Reich, just like the other Commie known as Schulze-Boysen was deemed to have been a hero.
Thanks for another honest Statement of Faith, Ovi. As a reward here is an illustrative caricature from what seems to be one of your favorite periodicals:

Image
PS As for your favorite Herzfeld/Heartfield photomontage, "Millions stand behind me", it fails to explain why, despite the "millions", National Socialist Germany had experienced a financial crisis the led Schacht's resign.
The reason may be that Adolf spent his resources on an under-financed rearmament effort in preparation for a war of aggression.
It is undisputed that unemployment sank drastically in the first years of National Socialism. The peak number of 6 to 7 million unemployed sank to 4.8 million in 1933. In 1937, there were only 1 million unemployed. Many branches already had a lack of qualified workers in 1935.
So there was indeed a reduction of unemployment which, however, was by no means as dramatic as is widely assumed if you look behind the scenes, for the National Socialist state knew all the tricks. Women, for instance, were “voluntarily” removed from production by means of a marriage loan (Ehestandsdarlehen) that could be repaid through the birth of a child. Wages were cut (the real gross wages in 1937 were lower than they had been in 1928, at the height of the economic crisis), workers’ representatives and the right to free choice of the working place were abolished. In 1934, all industrial workers who had come from agriculture less than three years before had to return there. Job creation programs and the labor service (Arbeitsdienst) further reduced the unemployment figures. The recruitment of volunteers for the Reichswehr in 1935 removed 300,000 people from the labor market, the introduction of compulsory military service in 1935 and its extension to two years in 1936 did the rest to simulate “full employment”. Due to the highly increased working time and the simultaneously lowered wages the mass of the population was not nearly as well off as is widely assumed.
It must further be taken into consideration that this “boom” stood on the basis of no solid financing. And the branch chiefly responsible for the boom was the armament industry. The participation of armament expenses in the state budget grew from 7.5 % in 1932/33 to 60 % in 1938/39. The production of consumer goods, however, still stood at the level of 1914 in 1936. A great part of the financing was borne by so-called “Mefo-Bonds” (“Mefo-Wechsel”; Mefo = Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft), an instrument of covered-up “financing in advance” of armament expenses developed by finance minister Hjalmar Schacht and employed since 1934. Mefo, a completely undercapitalized bogus company, issued 5 year bonds that – although worthless – were accepted by every bank. Thus the savings and patrimony of the population deposited at the banks were led into the channels of the armament and construction industries. Further billions came from also worthless Reich bonds (Reichsanleihen) . This practice relied on the assumption that the enormous debts would be covered by the tax income from a healthy economy after 1938. As it became apparent, however, that the state expenses could not be reduced and were even increasing in the armament sector, Schacht took his leave as minister of finance in 1937. The miscalculations of National Socialist economy led to there being only one way to recover the enormous armament expenses: the reckless exploitation of conquered lands. A war of conquest thus became an economic imperative.
Evolution of Domestic debt of the Reich between 1933 and 1939 (in billions of Reichsmark, respectively at the end of the month):
January 1933: 4.0; March 1936: 14.4; March 1938: 26.2; August 1939: 44.5; increase since 1933: 40.5


I translated the above from: Markus Tiedemann, In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast – 60 rechtsradikale Lügen und wie man sie widerlegt, Omnibus Verlag Mülheim/Ruhr, 2000.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

Re: A FEW QUESTION FOR ROBERTO

#41

Post by Ovidius » 20 May 2002, 15:18

Roberto wrote:I have no problem in principle in seeing them as Leftists, although I i) don’t see what would have necessarily been wrong about that under the circumstances
Nothing would have been wrong... with few exceptions:

1. the Left was the quasi-religious ideology of the Soviet Union, which was far worse than any sort of Reich, not to mention that the same Soviet Union was fighting(with pretty dirty means) against their Fatherland :? ;

2. the same Left was the political doctrine of those groups who had mounted in 1918 rebellions over the Second Reich, who had done a fourious propaganda during the 1920s-1930s for a Communist system in Germany, who had almost one third of the votes in the 1932 elections, and who, if ever victorious in Germany, were going to turn the entire of it into a Soviet satellite, just like they did with East Germany... oh I forgot you've told that the Soviets were the "lesser evil" :oops: ;
Roberto wrote:and ii) have my doubts as to just how “Leftist” the members of the White Rose group were.
Idealistic, naive and stupid sort of Leftists, who saw the Soviet Union as the benefactor of humanity(I feel sorry Schulze Boysen and his friend Hans Scholl did not live to see the post-war DDR) :mrgreen:
Roberto wrote:What I have a problem with is contentions that they were bad folks for resisting the Führer and deserved to have their heads chopped off.
No, they deserved to be sent to Poland or Ukraine in a penal battalion, to see what the Commies they liked so much were doing right there; after finding a few mutilated bodies of their comrades killed by bandits, they were going to be cured of sympathy for Uncle Joe Stalin the Benefactor of Humanity :mrgreen:
Roberto wrote:And then, the “Nazi bastard” was not supposed to include unarmed non-combatants to be killed off on account of considerations not necessarily related and even alien to the effort of bringing a military enemy to its knees
I would say it pretty much did include(Dresden, Hamburg, Nemmersdorf, plenty other East Prussian towns, use of former concentration camps for "political opponents" in post -war DDR )

A joke with Stalin:

Joseph Stalin interviewed by a Western journalist:

- Mr. Prime Minister, is it true there was a famine?
- Yes, but only a few died and suffered;
- And that there were a lot of arrests and deportations?
- Yes, but only a few traitorous Kulaks did suffer and they didn't die;
- And there were lots of people sent to labor camps?
- yes, but they didn't die;
- Mr. Prime Minister, why don't you try with cyanide, maybe you'll have better and quicker results !?

Roberto wrote:Thanks for another honest Statement of Faith, Ovi. As a reward here is an illustrative caricature from what seems to be one of your favorite periodicals
The Devil shown as a seductive Jew :D :D :D
Roberto wrote:The reason may be that Adolf spent his resources on an under-financed rearmament effort in preparation for a war of aggression.
Why "under-financed"? Why the financial boycott from USA and other states who saved their capitals during the Great Depression? Why Romania and other poor, unsecure states, got loans, and Germany was refused, despite her perspectives? Please let down the cartoon with the funny Jew with green socks on a bag of gold at the Stock Exchange and think a little.

~Best regards,

Ovidius

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#42

Post by viriato » 20 May 2002, 16:00

Roberto quoted:
The participation of armament expenses in the state budget grew from 7.5 % in 1932/33 to 60 % in 1938/39.
Where on hell come this astronomical number? 60%? 8O 8O In peace time?Than what was the number for 1944?

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#43

Post by viriato » 20 May 2002, 18:46

I wrote:
Roberto quoted:

Quote:
The participation of armament expenses in the state budget grew from 7.5 % in 1932/33 to 60 % in 1938/39.


Where on hell come this astronomical number? 60%? In peace time?Than what was the number for 1944?
But I'm afraid I commited a mistake. We are talking about the budget not about GDP/GNP... :oops:

So yes it is quite possible the numbers are correct. I will do some search about it.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#44

Post by Roberto » 23 May 2002, 13:32

Roberto wrote:
and ii) have my doubts as to just how “Leftist” the members of the White Rose group were.

Idealistic, naive and stupid sort of Leftists, who saw the Soviet Union as the benefactor of humanity(I feel sorry Schulze Boysen and his friend Hans Scholl did not live to see the post-war DDR)
No problem with Schulze-Boysen, but what evidence is there that the members of the White Rose group saw the Soviet Union as the “benefactor of humanity”?
Roberto wrote:
What I have a problem with is contentions that they were bad folks for resisting the Führer and deserved to have their heads chopped off.

No, they deserved to be sent to Poland or Ukraine in a penal battalion, to see what the Commies they liked so much were doing right there; after finding a few mutilated bodies of their comrades killed by bandits, they were going to be cured of sympathy for Uncle Joe Stalin the Benefactor of Humanity
Assuming that they had such sympathy in the first place. If they had any doubts about the true nature of Adolf and his regime left, on the other hand, those might have been dissipated by witnessing the large-scale massacres or starvation death of prisoners of war, Jews and unfortunate civilian inhabitants of “bandit-infested” areas, the burning alive of women and children inside barns and churches, the use of civilians as mine-sweeping devices and other niceties of the National Socialist New Order.
Roberto wrote:
And then, the “Nazi bastard” was not supposed to include unarmed non-combatants to be killed off on account of considerations not necessarily related and even alien to the effort of bringing a military enemy to its knees

I would say it pretty much did include(Dresden, Hamburg, Nemmersdorf, plenty other East Prussian towns, use of former concentration camps for "political opponents" in post -war DDR )
It contributed to such horrors, for sure. Which were not comparable to the planned and organized mass killing of entire ethnic/social groups, however.
Roberto wrote:
The reason may be that Adolf spent his resources on an under-financed rearmament effort in preparation for a war of aggression.
Why "under-financed"? Why the financial boycott from USA and other states who saved their capitals during the Great Depression? Why Romania and other poor, unsecure states, got loans, and Germany was refused, despite her perspectives?
If there was such a “financial boykott”, it may have been related to the declared belligerence of the Nazi government and the concern that they might use financing for purposes of rearmament – which is what they obviously would have done.
Please let down the cartoon with the funny Jew with green socks on a bag of gold at the Stock Exchange and think a little.
That’s what I do all the time, my thinking being unobstructed by paranoid concerns about the evil Jewish moneybags that seem to haunt the nightmares of certain people.

Image

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: "Victor's Justice"

#45

Post by Panzermahn » 01 Nov 2010, 04:15

I am currently reading Kerstin von Lingen's work, Kesslering's Last Battle: War Crimes Trials and Cold War Politics 1945-1960 (University Press of Kansas, March 2009)

Image

Contrary to the myth that only the Germans regarded the Nuremberg trials as well as subsequent trials (High Command trials, South-East Trials, Kesselring trial and von Manstein's trial) as siegerjustiz, a number of British and American personalities of high-level standing as well as high-ranking military commanders such as Lord Hankey (the Hankey Circle), Winston Churchill, Field Marshals Montgomery and Harold Alexander, Sir Basil-Henry Liddel Hart & Colonel Alexander Scotland regarded the subsequent trials of German military commanders as "victors justice". This can be seen that many of the British personalities believed that the trials of high-ranking German commanders such as Kesselring and von Manstein was motivated by retribution or revenge from the political side of the Allies.

The author espoused a provocative thesis which is many Allied military commanders were concerned that the trials of their opposite counterparts of high-ranking German commanders would lower the Allied soldiers prestige in WW2 since it is commonly believed that Germany has been a superior opponent (initially) in WW2 and the defeat of a superior opponent such as Germany would enhanced the military prestige of the Western Allies eternally in the face of history. Another factor are the British admiration for the military brilliance of the Germans such as Field Marshals Kesselring and von Manstein as shown by Field Marshal Alexander who gave a public statement in his capacity as a British Field Marshal that Kesselring has fought honorably and chivalrously in Italy.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”