Stalin's regime never condemned for the crimes during WW II

[Schiffrer]

The nazis crimes were discussed in courts after WW II, but they never mentioned soviet crimes (the allies were rather quiet about them) and they never publically condemned Soviets.
In Nürenberg one of the lawyers of Rudolf Hess tried to submit the documents about German-russian agreement about the division of eastern euorpe between Germany and soviet union. They made tis contract before the germans attacked Poland. If this lawyer would have succeded, that would be a proof of attacking means of one of the allies and that would negatively affect the trials against Nazis.

That means that there were double standards for crimes. Depends from which country you were.
I condemn mass killing, but I think that all should give answers for their crimes and not only the loosers.
It is sad truth that still only the winners write history.

[menel]

No one judges the winner.

[Sergey Romanov]

> Stalin's regime never condemned for the crimes during WW II

This is wrong. It may or may not have been condemned in courts (to be condemned in courts Stalinist officials should've been tried, and that was impossible), but the crimes like Katyn massacre have been condemned in public opinion.

[Uninen]

Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

Just look at world war 2 or today Iraq..

Sad but true.

[Johan Björklund]

Wiew it like this: Eastern Europe freed itself from communism in the late 80´s. That´s what I call condemning warcrimes and the whole idea of bolchewism.
Too bad the reds weren´t stopped already in the twenties.

[Sergey Romanov]

> Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

Then I don't see what's the problem. If public opinion doesn't matter, then condemnation by a court means even less. It's simply some words on the paper. What do they mean without public agreement/support?

[Erik]

Uninen, and then Mr. Romanov:

> Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

Then I don't see what's the problem. If public opinion doesn't matter, then condemnation by a court means even less. It's simply some words on the paper. What do they mean without public agreement/support?

Earlier:

> Stalin's regime never condemned for the crimes during WW II

This is wrong. It may or may not have been condemned in courts (to be condemned in courts Stalinist officials should've been tried, and that was impossible), but the crimes like Katyn massacre have been condemned in public opinion.

What does it mean? What’s the matter? They are trying to say something. What is it?

Do they mean different things?

Try this (I have rearranged statement and reply from above.) :

> Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

This is wrong. It may or may not have been condemned in courts (to be condemned in courts Stalinist officials should've been tried, and that was impossible), but the crimes like Katyn massacre have been condemned in public opinion.

> Stalin's regime never condemned for the crimes during WW II

Then I don't see what's the problem. If public opinion doesn't matter, then condemnation by a court means even less. It's simply some words on the paper. What do they mean without public agreement/support?

(Please note – the above is a falsification of Uninen’s and Mr. Romanov’s exchanges, done in order to exaggerate in the legitimate(?) sense described by Mr. Kaschner here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 557#543557)

Public opinion is what matters, unless courts rule against such public opinion (it happens, doesn’t it?), to ensure that it doesn’t matter any longer. Rulings of Courts don’t mean anything, though, as long as – or as far as – their decisions are ”simply some words on the paper”. Then it means ”even less” than public opinion.

How about public opinion and truth? Is that the same thing? Vox populi, vox dei? If so, what can be more truthful than the voice of God?

Uninen:

Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

To whom? To each other? What else is there? Those who rule, perhaps? Don’t public opinion and truth mean anything to them?

If the voice of the people isn’t the voice of God when it comes to public opionon (i.e., public opinion is not necessarily the truth), what matters most? Public opinion or truth? There must be a difference, then.

If you reread the falsified exchange between Uninen and Mr. Romanov above, you will find the latter’s reply indicating that public opinion means something since it is doing the right thing – condemning ”crimes like Katyn massacre”, and condemning without any condemning from courts, which was impossible anyhow.

Public opinion has been concerned with the truth, in this case, and that’s the important thing. Courts are irrelevant when they are impotent, anyhow.

In the non-falsified exchange above, on the other hand, you will find that Mr. Romanov’s reply pooh-pooh’s the necessity of court proceedings against war criminals, i.e., he more or less spits on the effort of the IMT to
”cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock”:

Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945
[…]
If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.
[…]
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

Rephrase:

We must make clear to the Russians that the wrong for which their non-fallen leaders are on trial is not that they won the war, but that they started it.

Does this make sense? Would this have been the legitimate effort of ”clear-making” of an IMT against the war crimes of the Soviets during WWII? ”Impossible” according to Mr. Romanov, but a ”true” effort, according to public opinion?

And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

Is it?

Uninen complete:

Back then and even today public opinion and truth doesnt mean anything.

Just look at world war 2 or today Iraq..

Sad but true

Is Mr. Romanov using ”Obscurantism as an argument”?

[Erik]

Wiew it like this: Eastern Europe freed itself from communism in the late 80´s. That´s what I call condemning warcrimes and the whole idea of bolchewism.
Too bad the reds weren´t stopped already in the twenties.

(Emphasis added).

That's what Hitler thought in the twenties, and tried in the forties. How come he wasn't wrong, arterall?

Conclusion: you can't "Wiew it like this". History condemns it.

[Uninen]

Policy, strategy and needs of the people in power overrule public opinion and truth back then and even today, nothing has changed, nothing is just.

That was what i tryed to say.

Just to clarify.

[David Thompson]

From the section rules:

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.

In addition, this subject has been exhaustively discussed on many other threads in this section of the forum.