Why, would an order from Hitler be murder order?Scott Smith wrote:I'm not saying that there was a murder order from Hitler or not.
Wouldn’t it be perfectly legal because it came from the highest state authority?
Has Mr. Smith changed his mind in this respect?
I wouldn’t have expected the Führer’s Faithful Follower to write anything else, purposefully ignoring the findings of historiography, which has even managed to locate the exact date on which Hitler’s “go ahead” was most probably pronounced.Scott Smith wrote: I don't know. I certainly wouldn't say that the evidence is overwhelming.
Now that’s an interesting way to look at it.Scott Smith wrote: It might not be legal for a sovereign-State to do certain things, such as the USA, where rights are built into the foundation of the law itself, which is the Constitution.
It implies that only constitutional states can behave illegally, whereas totalitarian regimes without a constitution can butcher their citizens and whoever else get in their way as they see fit without ever incurring in illegal behavior.
It’s not as if there had not been a constitution in Germany when the Nazis came to power, by the way, although the first thing they did was to lock it in a drawer except where it served their purposes.
It’s neither as if there had been no German criminal law sanctioning the actions carried out in compliance with the Führer’s orders in question as murder, of course.
The problem is not the secrecy of the decisions but the violation of both domestic criminal law in force and international law by such decisions and their execution.Scott Smith wrote:If his power ultimately stemmed from the People, then does the dictator have the right to issue an order that surely would have been vetoed by plebiscite had it not been secret? It is not clear but I think Hitler, like any absolute Head of State, had the authority to make even secret decisions, albeit his power flowing in theory from the People.
Slaughering millions of unarmed non-combatants posing no threat whatsoever – except perhaps in the minds of fanatical morons – can hardly be called an “emergency measure” in wartime.Scott Smith wrote:In wartime, "emergency measures" are easily justified.
And as becomes apparent from statements such as Goebbels’ diary entry of 27.03.1942, this was not even how the Nazis themselves saw their genocide of Jews, gypsies and other undesirables.
David Thompson wrote:A sovereign state has no right to attack other sovereign states after agreeing with them to keep the peace, and then round up their citizens and shoot them into a pit or deport them for slave labor projects.
Unfortunately for warlord-minded fellows like Smith, “troublesome human rights laws” not only exist in the constitutions of states stupid enough to subject their power to the rule of law, but are also principles acknowledged by the international community and as such a part of international law.Smith wrote:Mostly I'd say that they do, especially if they are superpowers and there are no troublesome human rights laws (as opposed to patriotic and humanitarian rhetoric).
Superpowers can factually violate this law like everyone else, of course.
If they do, the fact that their power is likely to save them from ever being held accountable for it does not mean they didn't incur in such violation.
Unfortunately for warlord-minded fellows like Smith, the right of nations “to wage war as they think best to win it” had been limited by the Hague and Geneva Conventions and international customary law derived from them long before his beloved Führer saw it fit to shit on these acknowledged principles.Smith wrote:Nations have the right to wage war as they think best to win it and their is huge interpretation for what this might mean, however realistic or not.
If the victor is a warlord-minded fellow like Smith or a warlord like his beloved Führer, that is certain to be so.Smith wrote: Anybody can expect the gallows if defeated unconditionally.
Otherwise it takes conclusive proof of individual criminal acts in violation of national or international law.
As a fellow poster said, doesn’t Smith get tired of constantly repeating this beaten nonsense?Smith wrote: The legality, or lack thereof, is defined by the sovereignty in question. Without a higher sovereignty you cannot have law--that's what I've been saying. International Law is a misnomer; it consists of agreements among peers, not criminal statutes issued by a supreme sovereignty.
Whether Smith likes it or not, prevailing legal opinion considers the community of nations to be a sovereign superseding any individual sovereign nation, and the will of that community called international law, which consists not only of treaties and agreements but also of customary principles acknowledged by their use over a longer period of time, overrides the will or an individual nation expressed in its national law.
As I have pointed out in another thread, the failure to sign this convention did not deprive Soviet prisoners of war of the protection under the principles of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which at the time had the force of international customary law.Smith wrote:In the case of the Soviet POWs, the Russians did not sign the Geneva convention in the first place
In a memorandum of 15 September 1941, the Foreign/Defense Department (Amt Ausland/Abwehr) of the OKW under Admiral Canaris pointed out that the basic international principles of war concerning the treatment of prisoners also applied in a war without written conventions, because the provisions contained in the Hague Rules of Land Warfare had been accepted as customary law in the meantime. In this regard the memorandum referred to an enclosed Soviet directive on the treatment of POWs dated 1 July 1941, which largely corresponded with the fundamental principles of international law.
The ideas expressed by the Amt Ausland/Abwehr in its memorandum on the validity of customary law in the field of the law of war were nothing new; this was the opinion prevailing at the time. The source of jus in bello, the law of warfare, is not just limited to positivist rulings. The source can be extended to unwritten customary law, as was emphasized after the war at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.
The Amt Ausland/Abwehr’s memorandum had no effect. Keitel, rejected it, noting that these reservations corresponded to the soldierly views of chivalrous warfare, whereas this war was about the annihilation of a Weltanschauung. Keitel had been swayed by Hitler’s opinion concerning the nature of war with the Soviet Union, and had thus squashed the plans of the AWA, his department responsible for prisoners of war, to treat captured Russians according to customary law analogous to the Geneva Convention.
According to Hitler, the war with the USSR was the collision of two fundamental world-views, in which the doctrine of the law of war was based solely upon Nazi ideology, with the aim of totally wiping out the ‘Judeo-Bolshevist system’. This ideological definition of war meant that nothing was unlawful that served the execution, security, and consolidation of National Socialism, the preservation of the Nazi state and its people. Hitler considered international law to be old-fashioned, still based upon the ideal of ‘chivalrous war’, as Keitel put it in his statement on the Amt Ausland/Abwehr memorandum. It was an obstacle in the Nazi world-view’s path. Since for Hitler, as in the Third Reich as a whole, the law was merely a part of his world-view, law of war had no place in the total ideological struggle.
It goes without saying that this view is totally contrary to the rule of law. It fails to recognize what the law of war is and what its aims are, and is outside the system of law as we know it. If it was left up to one side in a conflict to decide whether the international law of war is to be applied or not, then that would be the end of the rules of warfare.
“Deplorable” is a nice word for deliberate mass murder planned and organized at the level of the highest state authorities.Smith wrote: and I would argue their treatment, which was deplorable, revolved around the neglect of Soviet POWs by the General Staff not by racist ideology.
Even if ordered by the Führer himself, it constituted a violation of customary international law and was thus illegal, see above.Smith wrote: The treatment of the Soviet POWs may not have been legal if ordered by a general.
Which means that it also qualified as murder under German criminal law in force at the time.
I'd say that Nuremberg substituted mere vengeance by justice, however hard folks like Smith try to deny this.Smith wrote: As I have stated, when one is conquered no justification whatever is needed to erect a gallows. Nuremberg claimed to be law and justice.
What Smith thinks is irrelevant, given that he has nothing to show in support of his arguments.Smith wrote:I think that is questionable.
That might be arguable if Smith could demonstrate that the defendants did not benefit from presumption of innocence and from qualified defenders of their choice with the right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and to produce evidence in favor of the defendants, and that the tribunal’s verdicts were foregone conclusions rather than the result of a thorough and weighted assessment of the evidence.Smith wrote: Nuremberg was Victor’s Justice, the rights of naked-force and conquest.
Which he so far as not been able to do.
Which is why his contentions are just so much hollow whispering.
Propaganda is what Smith tries to sell on this forum all the time.Smith wrote:It was also propaganda.
He should be accordingly careful with the use of this term.
If so, what the heck?Smith wrote:Furthermore, some of the “facts” somehow supposedly established at Nuremberg are questionable,
There’s no such thing as perfection within the realms of human endeavor, and hence there’s also no such thing as a perfect trial.
No, the “denier” comes from taking real or alleged minor inaccuracies in the evidence presented at the trial to make a case that the whole trial was flawed, a sweeping argument that is as illogical and imbecile as it is a “Revisionist” favorite.Smith wrote:yet this makes one a “Denier.”
But then, why deny at all the tribunals’ findings on facts that, to the extent they refer to actions carried out at the orders of a higher state authority, would have been perfectly legal in Smith’s opinion?
Could it be that the fellow is as insecure about his “legitimacy” stance as his beloved Führer and his minions – who took care not to put certain orders and decisions in writing, to apply utmost secrecy in regard to them and to erase the traces of their practical application as best as they could – obviously were?
Why dangerous, Mr. Smith?Smith wrote:And Denial is illegal in some countries. Thoughtcrime is a dangerous idea, IMHO.
Such misguided legislative measures (for which the term “Thoughtcrime” is rather ridiculous hyperbole) actually benefit your ilk.
Where would you be without such legitimate exercises of state power to make a fuss about?
All perfectly legal because resulting from decisions by the governments of sovereign nations, isn’t it?Smith wrote: YES. And ethnic-cleansing of millions of Germans from their ancestral eastern territories to the tune of two-million German deaths occurred too.
No. It is only they who de facto get caught, for obvious reasons. Big difference.Smith wrote: Yet only the Vanquished are legally guilty.
Is a trial against one drug lord less legitimate because another is not tried for whatever reason, Mr. Smith?Smith wrote: Where is Truman, Stalin, and Churchill’s place on the gallows? If Nuremberg were lofty law and not mere conquest then why would not these individuals have stood trial?
No.Smith wrote: they have to be caught first, says Roberto. Were they hiding in Argentina with Eichmann, perhaps?
They were in power, which means they were even further beyond the reach of international law.
Which doesn’t mean, on the other hand, that they couldn’t give others of their ilk a fair trial.
Even the drug lord in power can give the vanquished drug lord a fair and proper trial if certain procedural rules are complied with.
And then, the “drug lords”, except for Stalin, were not exactly comparable with Smith’s beloved Führer.
But that’s another story.
No, we are talking about the victors enforcing criminal law resulting from codified and customary, internationally acknowledged legal principles. Big difference.Smith wrote: As I said, we are talking about agreements among Victors and not criminal law.
Whether or not those holding trial had the moral authority to do so, it doesn’t make the trials into mere propaganda.Smith wrote: I am merely exposing the hypocrisy of Nuremberg propaganda.
And I neither think that is Smith’s issue. What he and other of his ilk dream of is seeing the damning findings of the Nuremberg trials removed as one of the arguments against a regime they cherish and admire.
Which due to the woeful fallacy of their allegations will never be anything other than a pious dream, of course.
I maintain that anything happening on my beloved Führer’s orders, however brutal and murderous, was legitimate.Smith wrote:I am not advocating brutality.
But I’m not advocating brutality.
How could you possibly think that of me?
Is that so, Smith?Smith wrote:But to understand History we have to examine unpleasant aspects, even about our own natures.
Then why do you fight with claws and teeth against the evidence to such “unpleasant aspects” insofar as they concern your beloved Führer and his regime?
There are times when I feel sorry for fellows like Mr. Smith, and this is one of them.Smith wrote:Even our Roberto would agree that we have to reexamine ourselves, presumably why he hates Germans of the 1933-1945 era so much.
It should be clear to whoever has read my post with just a flicker of reason that I don’t hate but in fact admire Germans of the 1933-1945 era, some of whom are/were my relatives and friends.
What I don’t like is the Nazi regime, which unlike the Führer’s Faithful Followers I don’t identify with Germans of the 1933-1945 era.
Well, my dear Smith, as you also well know I’m as critical of the modern German state as anyone, if usually for other reasons than those suggested by Smith’s fathomless ignorance and stubborn misconceptions of this state.Smith wrote:But he seems less inclined to look at the Allied cause critically and the postwar German Bundestablishment. That speculum has not been so examined.
As to the Allied cause and its crimes, I’d say that the extent to which they have been explored on this forum – which, after all, is a Third Reich forum – is largely if not mostly due to my contributions.
Just who do you expect to buy these stupid lies of yours, Mr. Smith?
And why this need to talk about my humble person in an exchange with another poster?
Are you that obsessed with me, Mr. Smith?
Do I haunt your nightmares?