When is a War Criminal not a War Criminal-Scenario

[Scott Smith]

Other responses talked about the legality of orders: "If a sovereign nation pronounces murder to be legal, it is legal." Well, this particular instance involves the mass executions of civilians by German military and security forces during WWII. The executions were carried out on the basis of an unwritten, secret order from Hitler. Many Germans were not aware of these killings until after the end of WWII.

So, how is this murder order the act of a "sovereign nation"? I don't recall reading about Hitler submitting the order to the Reichstag for enactment. I've never read about a "Ja" or "Nein" plebescite on the subject.

For the same reason that Operation Phoenix or Operation Gomorrah or bombing Cambodia were acts of sovereign nations. Whether by dictator, President, Parliament or Pope, if it is sovereign State-authority it is by definition LEGAL; to say otherwise is to say that there is a higher legal authority. Pull your head out. Something may not be in the newspapers or be put to the people in plebiscite and might have still happened (legally).

By the way, I never said that the murders/killings didn't happen, and I did say that they were morally-wrong, though probably not illegal.

What is it about the murder order that is legal? What is it about this secret, unwritten murder order that makes it a duly enacted expression of the German national will?

Maybe the order was transmitted by telepathy to fool us? Somebody generated the order at some point in the government along the military chain-of-command, and unless it spontaneously generated out of the legendary latent German anti-Semitism, it was probably a LEGAL military order no less than firebombing a village.

Yeah, I hear the screws dropping to the floor.

Well, you'd better put them back into your head. Use both hands.

[Scott Smith]

In WWII, civilians were targetted by both sides; but judging by some of the responses on the board, only the Jewish noncombatants were worthy of human life. It was okay therefore to kill German children in their beds or incarcerate the Japanese-American citizens. After all, they started the war, right?

In case of Jews, this group was singled out and targeted specifically. In case of "German children in their beds" we talk about indiscriminate
killing where these German children were not a target per se.

From the standpoint of Bomber Command they were targetted per se because they were Germans. The idea was to increase the terror to the point that the PEOPLE would rise up against their leaders as the Russians had the Tsar. It had the opposite effect, however; the people rallied around their government.

The USA made greater pretense in that their casualties were only "unintentionally" inflicted and were really just aimed at military targets and personnel. General Spaatz admitted, however, that at least for attacks on Berlin there was little real distinction between civilian and military deaths. And presumably this also applies at the Bannhoff of every city or town, and every passenger-train hit by JaBos, which may or may-not have been carrying troops, as the rolling-stock and locomotives were the stated targets anyway, not the people.

The only way to insure that only "military" personnel are targetted would be to have brightly-colored 18th century professional soldiers meet in open fields in perfect ranks in order to slaughter each other. And may the best side win! Modern war is very different. Yes, for all intents and purposes, civilians were targetted in the bombing campaigns. And even today with smartbombs, the "collateral damage" can be staggering.

[Roberto]

Other responses talked about the legality of orders: "If a sovereign nation pronounces murder to be legal, it is legal." Well, this particular instance involves the mass executions of civilians by German military and security forces during WWII. The executions were carried out on the basis of an unwritten, secret order from Hitler. Many Germans were not aware of these killings until after the end of WWII.

So, how is this murder order the act of a "sovereign nation"? I don't recall reading about Hitler submitting the order to the Reichstag for enactment. I've never read about a "Ja" or "Nein" plebescite on the subject.

For the same reason that Operation Phoenix or Operation Gomorrah or bombing Cambodia were acts of sovereign nations. Whether by dictator, President, Parliament or Pope, if it is sovereign State-authority it is by definition LEGAL; to say otherwise is to say that there is a higher legal authority.

Well, there is.

The will of a community of sovereign nations, called international law.

The principle, acknowledged by that community, that there are certain unalienable human rights which state authority cannot dispose of.

The principle, also acknowledged by that community, that there are rules and customs of war forbidding the deliberate killing of unarmed noncombatants, even if carried out in pursuit of a military necessity.

By the way, I never said that the murders/killings didn't happen and I did say that they were morally wrong, though probably not illegal.

A little test for Smith, who seems to be trying to avoid my questions:



Source reference:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... ng-pit.ref

The picture shows what, by your standards, would be a legitimate mass killing – the execution of an order to eliminate civilians who, under some absurd state rationale, were considered enemies and/or vermin to be done away with for the greater benefit of mankind.

That being so, why have you persistently denied that the picture shows just this, making the classic “Revisionist” claims that it shows the victims of an epidemic or was fabricated?

[Caldric]

Scott why are you skeptical about pictures of known German atrocities but you believe just off hand that of course the American's and British were out to kill German children? Why are you not skeptical about that? But will go to your grave defending German actions? Are Allied atrocities just so much easier to believe then 5 or 6 million Jews vanishing?

Not slamming you just wondering about your thought process, it seems unbalanced to me.

[Scott Smith]

Smith would loathe to be among the executors, but he would consider it his legal duty to shoot as ordered.

Ain't that so, Mr. Smith?

No, I don't know exactly what I would do. Bragadoccio is easy from an easy-chair. Ain't that so, Roberto?


Actually, Roberto, if I really considered it my "DUTY," like killing billions of Russkies and Red Chinese with atomic energy, or killing chickens for Colonel Sanders, it would be kind of fun.


I mean, they are not human beings anyway, right? That's why I find it so hard to believe that anti-Semites wet their pants at the sight of blood. The sight of innocent blood is actually about the first thing that soldiers get used-to.

[Richard Miller]

Roberto wrote:

Guess what we have here now: another "Revisionist" photo expert squealing "forgery".

I'm not an expert in photography and will therefore limit myself to questioning whether such observations can be accurately made on what is obviously a very poor quality print of a photograph, which barely if at all allows for establishing whether the contrasts of light and shadow are compatible with an authentic picture or suggest some tampering, photomontage or the like.

I wouldn't be surprised if Miller is neither and just shooting some knowledgeable-sounding bull in the hope that there's no one among the audience who knows about photography, by the way - it's one of the tricks these people apply to fool suckers.

And your conclusion?
Can such observations be made?

The point in exposing (pardon the pun) such blatant forgeries, is that it is overkill at this stage of the game.
I'm sure there are more compelling images of the activities attributed to the Einsatzgruppen. Images such as this only add fuel to the fire of forgery and fraud.
It does not take a practised darkroom technician to spot the discrepancies in photos such as this.
And yes, I am a photographer, with one book cover, a US Civil War museum display, crime scenes, and several images published in regional and local newspapers.
I also do all of my own darkroom work.

[Roberto]

Smith would loathe to be among the executors, but he would consider it his legal duty to shoot as ordered.

Ain't that so, Mr. Smith?

No, I don't know exactly what I would do. Bragadoccio is easy from an easy-chair. Ain't that so, Roberto?


Actually, Roberto, if I really considered it my "DUTY," like killing billions of Russkies and Red Chinese with atomic energy, or killing chickens for Colonel Sanders, it would be kind of fun.

So what is it, Smith?

If you consider the order given to you to be legal, wouldn't you consider it your legal duty to obey?

And if you failed to obey out of humanitarian or "moralistic" considerations, wouldn't you be in breach of the law of the state you serve?

[I mean, they are not human beings anyway, right? That's why I find it so hard to believe that anti-Semites wet their pants at the sight of blood. The sight of innocent blood is actually about the first thing that soldiers get used-to.

Yeah, sure.

Especially the blood, bone splinters and brain matter of naked women and children lying on top of each other inside a ditch, right?

Not to mention the screams, the crying, the begging for mercy and all those unpleasant scenes.

All of this not once or twice, but day after day over a period of months.

I'd say even the most fanatic anti-Semite would run the risk of becoming either a numb savage or a neurotic in the long run under such conditions, as Bach-Zelewski put it.

But that's another story, one that Smith is bringing up as a diversion to avoid my questions.

Which is why I'll ask again:

If the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazi government was a perfectly legal action by the state authority of a sovereign nation, why this “accusation” bullshit of yours? I quote:

Here we have a monumental accusation made against Gentiles in general and Germany in particular, that harms the German people--except of course their leaders, and perhaps also the plastic-spoon generation of neo-Germans--and it harms all of the Palestinian people.

Thu May 09, 2002 6:58 am Post subject: POINTLESS.
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 338adb8cad

How can a "monumental accusation" refer to something that was a perfectly legitimate exercise of the power of a sovereign state, Mr. Smith?

[Scott Smith]

Scott why are you skeptical about pictures of known German atrocities

I'm skeptical of all atrocity-photos, including those committed by others besides Germans.

but you believe just off hand that of course the American's and British were out to kill German children?

In the case of the British, terror-bombing itself was the actual secret-policy, and I have studied strategic-bombing since I was a child and read thousands of books on the subject. I don't have a smoking-gun quotation at my fingertips but official documents started leaking out in the 1960s.

In the case of the Americans, collateral-damage was incidental but this is also somewhat hypocritical, IMHO. It is a big myth that bombing is clean and sanitary toward civilian life just because it is not involved with the mud and lice of the soldiers in the trenches.

Furthermore, gunboat-diplomacy is dangerous, IMHO, even if the objective is supposedly humanitarian. Are all those starved German children from the British Blockade, or Iraqi children from the UN sanctions "worth it"? At least the Nazis had the guts to openly shoot their perceived enemy and get blood and brains on their trousers. Not that I am defending cruelty, just deriding hypocrisy.

Why are you not skeptical about that?

I'm skeptical about everything, Caldric. You know that.

But will go to your grave defending German actions? Are Allied atrocities just so much easier to believe then 5 or 6 million Jews vanishing?

Because the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. People like Bunch and Roberto can pontificate about the "LESSONS of History" because in their infinite wisdom and omniscience, they have Moral Certainty. They have no doubts. I do.

Not slamming you just wondering about your thought process, it seems unbalanced to me.

I try my best to explain all serious questions. That may not mean that everyone will agree, but I'm willing to try to explain myself and my viewpoints.

[witness]

The sight of innocent blood is actually about the first thing that soldiers get used-to.

I am probably indeed too naive.I've always thought that soldiers are supposed to fight the enemy soldiers not massacre innocent civilians .If it is not the case what is the sense than speaking about War Crimes ?
Do I understand you right?
The notion of War Crimes is just crap by your opinion ?

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:

Guess what we have here now: another "Revisionist" photo expert squealing "forgery".

I'm not an expert in photography and will therefore limit myself to questioning whether such observations can be accurately made on what is obviously a very poor quality print of a photograph, which barely if at all allows for establishing whether the contrasts of light and shadow are compatible with an authentic picture or suggest some tampering, photomontage or the like.

I wouldn't be surprised if Miller is neither and just shooting some knowledgeable-sounding bull in the hope that there's no one among the audience who knows about photography, by the way - it's one of the tricks these people apply to fool suckers.

And your conclusion?
Can such observations be made?

I say no.

And I don't trust anything to the contrary coming from a "Revisionist".

The point in exposing (pardon the pun) such blatant forgeries, is that it is overkill at this stage of the game.

As I said, it will take someone other than Miller to convince me that this is a forgery.

Someone who has not shown an obvious tendency for making a fuss about evidence to Nazi crimes in support of an ideological agenda.

I'm sure there are more compelling images of the activities attributed to the Einsatzgruppen.

What's that "attributed" stuff supposed to mean?

The activities of the Einsatzgruppen have been proven by eyewitness and physical evidence and by their own reports that they sent to the RSHA on an almost daily basis.

Which is why the term sucks.

Images such as this only add fuel to the fire of forgery and fraud.

A fire that burns brightly in "Revisionist" minds - and only there.

It does not take a practised darkroom technician to spot the discrepancies in photos such as this.
And yes, I am a photographer, with one book cover, a US Civil War museum display, crime scenes, and several images published in regional and local newspapers.
I also do all of my own darkroom work.

Whatever else you ostensibly are and do, you are also the kind of fellow I would expect to tell me that lightbulbs carry electricity inside if he thought he could get away with it.

Which is why I couldn't care less for your assessment.

[Roberto]

Scott why are you skeptical about pictures of known German atrocities

I'm skeptical of all atrocity-photos, including those committed by others besides Germans.

Apart from the fact that Smith's "skepticism" is based on nothing but thin air, nonsensical considerations and wishful thinking, again the question:

Why the need to profess "skepticism" in regard to something as legitimate as the killing of unarmed non-combatants carried out by military or police forces in execution of the legal order of a superior authority of a sovereign state?

[Scott Smith]

The sight of innocent blood is actually about the first thing that soldiers get used-to.

I am probably indeed too naive. I've always thought that soldiers are supposed to fight the enemy soldiers not massacre innocent civilians. If it is not the case what is the sense than speaking about War Crimes ?
Do I understand you right?

Was locking away the Japanese-Americans in concentration camps fighting-the-enemy? Is the concentration camp not a weapon of government control? Is control of the enemy not the goal of waging war?

Most soldiers would not regard their comrades as filthy killers. Poets from WWI regarded the massacre of the British elite as a generation of innocent lambs led to the slaughter. Either a soldier gets used-to innocent blood or he goes insane. In WWII, the number of French civilians killed in Allied air attacks is staggerring. No, they were not targetted deliberately. Does that make it okay? Is it something that soldiers "get used-to" or not?

The notion of War Crimes is just crap by your opinion ?

It all depends. But I am in favor of disciplined troops and spelling out clearly what they can and cannot do. I think it is okay to question an order, but beyond that orders-are-orders and somebody has to give them whether soldiers agree or not.

If victorious soldiers were held to the same standards and the matters were adjudicated by neutrals according to valid international agreements, then that would be different, particularly if sovereign governments clearly spelled-out such things beforehand and established the rules. Then we could talk about crimes committed in war. But perhaps this is wishful thinking because no superpower wants their citizens and soldiers judged in foreign courts, even if manned by neutrals and ostensibly held according to the standards of law of the accused and the criminal definitions of the accused.

Having Victors lecture the defeated on Warcrimes is crap, IMO.

Ex post facto laws are crap, IMO.

Political charges like Conspiracy and Aggression are crap, IMO.

The concept of Crimes in the context of War is extremely problematical. One may as well argue that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a warcrime as saying that blockading Leningrad was a warcrime. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. We should be wary of the propaganda used to whip-up hysteria for war in the first place and the propaganda of the Victors used to justify the Peace in the second place.

[Scott Smith]

Why the need to profess "skepticism" in regard to something as legitimate as the killing of unarmed non-combatants carried out by military or police forces in execution of the legal order of a superior authority of a sovereign state?

Because--whether the facts are ultimately true or false--of the political capital derived from such atrocity-propaganda.

[Roberto]

Having Victors lecture the defeated on Warcrimes is crap, IMO.

What does it matter who is doing the lecturing if the actions in question are crimes by the standards of the time?

Ex post facto laws are crap, IMO.

Where do you see "ex post facto laws" in regard to acts of aggression and mass murder that the perpetrators did not and had no reason to consider legitimate at the time they committed them?

Political charges like Conspiracy and Aggression are crap, IMO.

What exactly is a "political charge"?

And what is so political about a charge based on the violation of legal principles internationally acknowledged at the time it was committed?

The concept of Crimes in the context of War is extremely problematical. One may as well argue that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a warcrime as saying that blockading Leningrad was a warcrime.

I'd say that by the standards of international law and historiography, both actions qualify as acts of mass murder.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

On that it may depend whether national or international law is factually enforced in a given case.

Whether an action qualifies as a crime under such law, however, is completely independent of who the perpetrators and who the victims are.

Smith is again purposefully mixing up legal sanction and enforceability on the one hand with actual enforcement on the other.

The impossibility of the latter due to practical hindrances or lack of political willingness doesn't invalidate the former, whether Smith likes it or not.

We should be wary of the propaganda used to whip-up hysteria for war in the first place and the propaganda of the Victors used to justify the Peace in the second place.

Blah, blah, blah.

Smith has again produced a lot of beating around the bush and bloody nonsense without providing an answer to a very simple question, which is also mine:

Independently of who did such things at what time, for which reason and under which circumstances, independently of whether the act was punished or not, independently of how much or how little it has been studied and publicized, is the deliberate killing of unarmed non-combatants not convicted of any criminal offense in execution of a superior order a legitimate act, in Smith's opinion?

Or is it a crime?

[Roberto]

Why the need to profess "skepticism" in regard to something as legitimate as the killing of unarmed non-combatants carried out by military or police forces in execution of the legal order of a superior authority of a sovereign state?

Because--whether the facts are ultimately true or false--of the political capital derived from such atrocity-propaganda.

If so, wouldn't it be better to convince suckers that what certain sectarian interest-groups are trying to derive political capital from were the legitimate acts of a sovereign state, rather than wasting time and credibility on the mindless denial of proven facts?

Or do "Revisionists" reckon that their "legitimacy" stance ("sovereign states may do as they please") is even more imbecile than their denial stance?

Everything the Nazis did was perfectly legal – and if it was not, they didn’t do it.

"Revisionist" article of faith

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10