American & French (post) War Crimes

[Roberto]

In fact the freak was on my mind as an exemplary guru of the kind that Smith, who can whine so loud about the mistakes and shortcoming of historians, piously and uncritically looks up to.

But it was Smith who picked up the hint and lashed out in defense of his hero, thus confirming both his fellow followership and his awareness of the fellow's intellectual dishonesty.

I never said that I endorsed Rudolf's work. All I said was that he has the right to intellectual dissent and that he has been treated shabbily by the German Bundestablishment for Thoughtcrime.

Blah, blah, blah ...

[Scott Smith]

Roberto, I don't see where you get off trying to claim that I advocate starving to death a bunch of people. All I am saying is that if there is inadequate food to go around, or if the distribution system is inadequate somehow, then somebody WILL starve. And if somebody will starve it is better that this be the enemy and not your own people. It's pretty simple, really.

Furthermore, by your own logic, if the USA, e.g., Eisenhower, had arbitrarily stripped German POWs of their status under the Geneva convention, then--although I would say that they can do this as a sovereign nation--if the USA had totally lost the war, it wouldn't matter because there is nothing from keeping said "Warcriminals" from being tried by the Victors and even hung. This is where your own logic leads.

Sorry, but I think you need to bite the bullet on this one.

[Brannik]

Aren't Scott and Roberto crossing the line of good tone?
Regards

[Scott Smith]

Aren't Scott and Roberto crossing the line of good tone?
Regards

Yes, but we've been at it a VERY long time, although sometimes it gets a little ridiculous.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Alexx]

This is my last post on this thread. It has gone to the dogs.

Roberto and Scott: Both of you seem to have lost all bearings. You are beginning to resemble an old couple, who should have divorced years ago.

Suggestion: Why not restrict yourself with a selfimposed moratorium. You don't adress or answer each others posts for a while.

Regards

[Scott Smith]

Suggestion: Why not restrict yourself with a selfimposed moratorium. You don't adress or answer each others posts for a while.

I don't have a problem with that if my partner agrees.

[Roberto]

Roberto, I don't see where you get off trying to claim that I advocate starving to death a bunch of people.

How about stuff like:

I see, and perhaps it was more "humanitarian" to let Soviet POWs and enemies in occupied countries "go without" than to let loyal Germans starve.

?

All I am saying is that if there is inadequate food to go around, or if the distribution system is inadequate somehow, then somebody WILL starve.

Not necessarily.

There seems to have been little if any starvation as a consequence of Eisenhower’s re-classification measures, for instance.

On the other hand “somebody” is not exactly the same as “umpteen million people” (who the Nazis foresaw would starve to death in the Soviet Union as a consequence of their exploitation of the land), is it?

And if somebody will starve it is better that this be the enemy and not your own people. It's pretty simple, really.

Except that the choice, as Smith well knows, what not letting either the German people or foreign peoples starve.

It was avoiding the starvation of “umpteen million people” in the occupied Soviet territories or renouncing the policy “to make it possible for the German people for enjoy food consumption as in peacetime and, thus, to stabilise wartime morale” (Streit, The Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War, as above; emphasis is mine).

Never during World War II did the German home front come anywhere close to experiencing starvation of even severe food shortage – which was intended to be and certainly was one of the factors that kept the German people going to the end.

Furthermore, by your own logic, if the USA, e.g., Eisenhower, had arbitrarily stripped German POWs of their status under the Geneva convention, then--although I would say that they can do this as a sovereign nation--if the USA had totally lost the war, it wouldn't matter because there is nothing from keeping said "Warcriminals" from being tried by the Victors and even hung. This is where your own logic leads.

Are you dumb, Mr. Smith, or are you just pretending that you don’t understand?

I’m not saying that in the event of defeat the US high command could not have been put to trial on account of this breach of international law.

What I’m saying is that they could have justified this breach by making out that it

i) was inevitable in order to prevent a famine among the civilian population and

ii) did not inflict on the POWs a hardship that was excessive, i.e. out of proportion to the humanitarian benefit obtained.

This justification would have hindered conviction, or at least been taken into account as an extenuating circumstance.

As I also said, the above mentioned justification could not have been applied to the murderous conditions prevailing at the Rheinwiesenlager during the first months of their existence, prior to the re-classification and independently thereof.

These conditions were an unjustifiable breach of international law, a war crime.

Sorry, but I think you need to bite the bullet on this one.

Very lame, Mr. Smith. Wishful thinking is what a true believer’s mind is full of.

As we are at it, my dear friend, how do you marry this contention of yours:

I never said that I endorsed Rudolf's work. All I said was that he has the right to intellectual dissent and that he has been treated shabbily by the German Bundestablishment for Thoughtcrime.

(emphasis is mine)

with your other contention that sovereign nations(the “Bundesestablishment”, in this case) may do as they please and there are no individual rights other than those granted by the legislation of sovereign states?

Whence would Mr. Rudolf derive his right to intellectual dissent, if there are no rights and principles overriding national law ?

[Roberto]

Suggestion: Why not restrict yourself with a selfimposed moratorium. You don't adress or answer each others posts for a while.

I don't have a problem with that if my partner agrees.

I don’t see why I should deprive myself of so much fun.

If I am to stop taking Smith’s bull apart, Smith must stop shooting the bull.

As simple as that.

[Hans]

I see, you want me to end the discussion.