Just a thought..

[Roberto]

In practice it means that every regime will fight to its dying breath just as the Third Reich did because defeat will mean criminality.

Every regime that has a reason to fear retribution on account of the crimes it committed, that is. It is not defeat that leads to criminality. Defeat only makes it possible to bring the criminals to trial.

History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.

Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.

When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.

Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.

[Scott Smith]

++In practice it [sweeping warcrimes trials] means that every regime will fight to its dying breath just as the Third Reich did because defeat will mean criminality.

<<Every regime that has a reason to fear retribution on account of the crimes it committed, that is. It is not defeat that leads to criminality. Defeat only makes it possible to bring the criminals to trial. >>

Every defeated regime has used violence to further its sovereign objectives, which are therefore criminalized. War is violence--a settling of scores. With Unconditional Surrender conflicts cannot ultimately be worked-out. That means that there is ample fodder for "criminality." And anything can be declared illegal ex post facto.

++History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.++

<<Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.>>

The Nazis were German soldiers and the lower-middle-classes radicalized by war, defeat, and revolution--something that Bourgeois minds would do well to consider. We are making "Nazis" out of the Iraqis and the Palestinians today, for example. Afghanistan is anybody's guess.

Today, the Israelis are the Nazis, radicalized by the collective Jewish experience in WWII, called the Shoah. (Oh, I forgot. No, they're not "Nazis" because they do not gas Arabs in diesel Gas-Vans! Silly me.)

Examples? How about 'Nam? Anyway, look around for your own examples. Doing your own thinking is the only way to learn. I suppose there are no Haves and Have-Nots in your worldview and that Democracy-Capitalism floats all boats equally. Coming from Columbia, from Ruhr refugee stock, as you do, I find your attitude curious but not surprising. Anyway, there are plenty of class schisms in Third World countries.

++When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.++

<<Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.>>

No, had Hitler been successful he not only would have been Time magazine's "Person of the Century" but perhaps the Millennium. In any case, had he died before September 1, 1939, Hitler would have been an incontestably great German hero and a remarkably tolerant dictator who ruled with a heavily-padded velvet glove. Germans would today be gushing shamelessly over Onkel Adolf the way some silly people still gush over that brandy-soaked bumpkin, Churchill.

Had Churchill been "caught" he would have hung with greater justification than many of the Nuremberg Eleven. Possibly even Roosevelt as well, or at least some of his advisors like Morgenthau.

As far as Stalin, only the West has the view of the Man of Steel as the Evil gangster. In Russia, he is the Red Peter the Great. I happen not to agree with Stalin's "oriental despotism" but I can understand, nevertheless, why many Russians would feel this way. Tovarich's attitude toward Uncle Joe was not surprising in the least for an idealistic Communist, even an American. The attitude of Pyotr I was that to build an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Stalin busted a few heads as well, and he had the advantage of modern technology, but he was not otherwise so far removed from any traditional authoritarian State, let alone "oriental despotism."

It can easily be argued that Hitler was too much the artist and not ruthless enough, although I would not make that case myself except with respect to the Junker military caste and the political Churches.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Roberto]

++In practice it [sweeping warcrimes trials] means that every regime will fight to its dying breath just as the Third Reich did because defeat will mean criminality.

<<Every regime that has a reason to fear retribution on account of the crimes it committed, that is. It is not defeat that leads to criminality. Defeat only makes it possible to bring the criminals to trial. >>

Every defeated regime has used violence to further its sovereign objectives, which are therefore
criminalized.

The Reverend repeats his apologetic baloney. The murder of millions of unarmed non-combatants outside the scope of combat actions is a crime regardless of whether the regime practicing it wins or loses. Better get used to the idea, Reverend.

War is violence--a settling of scores.

Mass murder as committed by the Nazis is not war.

With Unconditional Surrender conflicts cannot ultimately be worked-out. That means that there is ample fodder for "criminality." And anything can be declared illegal ex post facto.

Such as mass murder, right? Is the Reverend trying to tell us that the Nazi big shots were entitled to consider their murderous actions against civilians and prisoners of war legitimate at the time they engaged in them? Or that they were entitled to consider unprovoked aggression against other countries in violation of bi – or multilateral treaties to be legitimate behavior?

The Führer was actually very much aware of what he was doing right from the start, as his famous speech on 22 August 1939 reveals:

Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Ziel ist die Beseitigung der lebendigen Kräfte, nicht die Erreichung einer bestimmten Linie. Auch wenn im Westen Krieg ausbricht, bleibt Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Mit Rücksicht auf Jahreszeit schnelle Entscheidung.
Ich werde propagandistischen Anlass zur Auslösung des Krieges geben, gleichgültig, ob glaubhaft. Der Sieger wird später nicht danach gefragt, ob er die Wahrheit gesagt hat oder nicht. Bei Beginn und Führung des Krieges kommt es nicht auf das Recht an, sondern auf den Sieg.
Herz verschliessen gegen Mitleid. Brutales Vorgehen. 80 Millionen Menschen müssen ihr Recht bekommen. Ihre Existenz muss gesichert werden. Grösste Härte. Schnelligkeit der Entscheidung notwendig. Festen Glauben an den deutschen Soldaten. Krisen nur auf Versagen der Nerven der Führer zurückzuführen.
Erste Forderung: Vordringen bis zur Weichsel und bis zum Narew. Unsere technische Überlegenheit wird die Nerven der Polen zerbrechen. Jede sich neu bildende lebendige polnische Kraft ist sofort zu vernichten. Fortgesetzte Zermürbung. Neue deutsche Grenzführung nach gesunden Gesichtspunkten, evtl. Protektorat als Vorgelände. Militärische Operationen nehmen auf diese Überlegungen keine Rücksicht. Restlose Zertrümmerung Polens ist das militärische Ziel. Schnelligkeit ist die Hauptsache. Verfolgung bis zur völligen Vernichtung.
Überzeugung, dass die deutsche Wehrmacht den Anforderungen gewachsen ist. Auslösung wird nocht befohlen ...

Source of quote: Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns”: Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten. The document referred to is Nuernberg Document 1014-PS, IMT, Volume XXVI.

My translation:

The annihilation of Poland is the priority. The goal is the removal of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the annihilation of Poland remains the priority. Considering the time of the year, a quick decision is required.
I shall provide for a propagandistic reason to unleash the war, regardless of whether it is credible or not. The victor is not asked at a later stage whether he told the truth or not. In beginning and conducting a war, what matters is not right but victory.
Close heart to pity. Brutal proceeding. 80 million people must get their right, Their existence must be assured. Greatest harshness. Quick decision is necessary. Firm faith in the German soldier. Crises must only be attributed to commanders having lost their nerves.
First requirement: Advance to the Vistula and the Narev. Our technical superiority will break the nerves of the Poles. Every new Polish force forming must be immediately annihilated. Continuous attrition. New German frontier according to healthy criteria, eventually a protectorate as a buffer area. Military operations must not take these thoughts into consideration. The utter shattering of Poland is the military goal. Pursuit until complete annihilation.
Conviction that the German Wehrmacht is up to the task. Unleashing will yet be ordered ...

Emphasis is mine.

Quote:
++History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.++

<<Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.>>

The Nazis were German soldiers and the lower-middle-classes radicalized by war, defeat, and revolution--something that Bourgeois minds would do well to consider.

Wherever they came from, they were responsible for their own actions.

We are making "Nazis" out of the Iraqis and the Palestinians today, for example. Afghanistan is anybody's guess.

I don’t see what would be so bad about that from Smith’s point of view. He obviously idolizes the Nazis.

Today, the Israelis are the Nazis, radicalized by the collective Jewish experience in WWII, called the Shoah. (Oh, I forgot. No, they're not "Nazis" because they do not gas Arabs in diesel Gas-Vans! Silly me.)

Exactly, Reverend. The comparison stinks because the Israelis, whatever wrong they may have done to the Palestinians, never engaged in getting rid of all or a considerable part of them by shooting them into mass graves or taking them to places from which they never returned alive. Big difference.

Examples? How about 'Nam?

A better example than Smith’s beloved Nazis. The VC and NVA primarily targeted a world power rather than defenseless people deemed “inferior”, after all.

Anyway, look around for your own examples. Doing your own thinking is the only way to learn.

How about applying that recommendation to yourself, Reverend? I’m in no need of being reminded of what I practice all the time.

I suppose there are no Haves and Have-Nots in your worldview and that Democracy-Capitalism floats all boats equally.

Dead wrong, buddy. I just have a problem in seeing the Nazis as poor have-nots trying to grab their well-deserved share of the cake.

Coming from Columbia, from Ruhr refugee stock, as you do, I find your attitude curious but not surprising.

Two mistakes, Reverend. The country is called Colombia, and my parents emigrated from Germany but were not “refugees”. Or are you just trying to insult me?

Anyway, there are plenty of class schisms in Third World countries.

About which I probably know a lot more than the Reverend does. Enough at least to realize that, however many black spots “Democracy-Capitalism” may have, totalitarian dictatorships are no alternative to it.

Quote:
++When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.++

<<Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.>>

No, had Hitler been successful he not only would have been Time magazine's "Person of the Century" but perhaps the Millennium.

Maybe so, but the Reverend seems to be unaware that the “Man of the …” – award bestowed by Time magazine does not necessarily signal a positive view of the character in question:

For each of the last 70 years, TIME has presented a Man of the Year--the single person (man, woman, or even idea) who, for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year.

Source of quote:

http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/

January 4, 1943

Joseph Stalin: Die, But Do Not Retreat

[…]

Had German legions swept past steel-stubborn Stalingrad and liquidated Russia's power of attack, Hitler would have been not only man of the year, but he would have been undisputed master of Europe, looking for other continents to conquer. He could have diverted at least 250 victorious divisions to new conquests in Asia and Africa. But Joseph Stalin stopped him. Stalin had done it before--in 1941--when he started with all of Russia intact. But Stalin's achievement of 1942 was far greater. All that Hitler could give he took--for the second time.

Source of quote:

http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/

In any case, had he died before September 1, 1939, Hitler would have been an incontestably great German hero and a remarkably tolerant dictator who ruled with a heavily-padded velvet glove.

Sure. Tell that to the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”, the inmates of the concentration camps and the Jews who were gradually stripped of all rights and had their property smashed to pieces during the Reichskristallnacht.

Germans would today be gushing shamelessly over Onkel Adolf the way some silly people still gush over that brandy-soaked bumpkin, Churchill.

And such attitude would be at least as silly.

Had Churchill been "caught" he would have hung with greater justification than many of the Nuremberg Eleven. Possibly even Roosevelt as well, or at least some of his advisors like Morgenthau.

They were small kids compared to Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Keitel and Göring, though you may argue that this is due to Morgenthau's plan not having been put into practice and that they were much worse than Hess, Dönitz or von Papen. However, I wonder how Smith matches his condemnation of these gentlemen with his contention that “defeat will mean criminality”.

As far as Stalin, only the West has the view of the Man of Steel as the Evil gangster. In Russia, he is the Red Peter the Great.

I wonder what our Russian posters will say to this.

I happen not to agree with Stalin's "oriental despotism" but I can understand, nevertheless, why many Russians would feel this way.

Ever been to Russia, Reverend? While I have no doubt that Uncle Joe has his “Revisionists” just like good old Adolf has, is there any evidence you can show us that such scumbags are representative of the Russian population? Could it be that I’ve been influenced by traitorous dissidents like Solshenizyn, Kopelev and Volkogonov?

Tovarich's attitude toward Uncle Joe was not surprising in the least for an idealistic Communist, even an American. The attitude of Pyotr I was that to build an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Stalin busted a few heads as well,

20 million people dispatched with a shot in the neck or rotting in the Gulag are “a few heads” to the Reverend. Very instructive.

and he had the advantage of modern technology, but he was not otherwise so far removed from any traditional authoritarian State, let alone "oriental despotism."

Why, and those traitorous dissidents and their Western copycats tell us that he was the oriental despot par excellence …

It can easily be argued that Hitler was too much the artist and not ruthless enough,

If you are a True Believer like the Reverend, you can certainly argue such nonsense in all seriousness.

although I would not make that case myself except with respect to the Junker military caste and the political Churches.

Why, and I thought the way he tackled the Slavs, Bolsheviks, Jews and other undesirables would make him seem ruthless enough. Maybe he should also have hung the Junkers on meat hooks and shot or gassed all clerics to satisfy the more radical Reverend.

[AndyW]

Actually, I think the idea that murderes and war criminals can be tried until they die VERY good.

Those many who came off with their crimes without ever being tried should at least have the permanent insecurity that there's an open bill and they are not save.

Justice for all.

'nuff said.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Percentage of people who admire Stalin in Russia is hardly bigger than percentage of people in Germany who admires Hitler. They primarily either old-timers or ultra-right nationalists. Even present day communist party does not hold uniform view on Stalin and the policies of that period –present day Mensheviks and Bolsheviks – so to say . There are two communist parties currently pros-Stalin under Viktor Anpilov and the less radical (and consequently better represented in parliament ) under Genadiy Zuganov. Scott you are making the wrong assumption that people see Peter the Great is seen in Russia as an ultimately good figure – nobody forgets that all his achievements were built on the blood of Russian peasants.So then one compares Stalin to Peter –that is not necessarily a good thing

[Scott Smith]

Percentage of people who admire Stalin in Russia is hardly bigger than percentage of people in Germany who admires Hitler. They primarily either old-timers or ultra-right nationalists. Even present day communist party does not hold uniform view on Stalin and the policies of that period –present day Mensheviks and Bolsheviks – so to say . There are two communist parties currently pros-Stalin under Viktor Anpilov and the less radical (and consequently better represented in parliament ) under Genadiy Zuganov.

Thank you, Oleg. In my experience, the Russian people that I have known, have been remarkably less hostile to Stalin than Westerners. He is considered a traditonal strongman more than a gangster. I agree that it is mostly the older generation that actually adores him as an icon. One of the reasons for the fall of Communism, in my opinion, was that the Stalinists had simply gotten old and died off.

Scott you are making the wrong assumption that people see Peter the Great is seen in Russia as an ultimately good figure – nobody forgets that all his achievements were built on the blood of Russian peasants.So then one compares Stalin to Peter –that is not necessarily a good thing

I agree with that point as well. Westerners have tended to have a nostalgic view of Peter, perhaps more so than Russians who have been educated in class-based history. Westerners are flattered by Petrinism or Westernization, but for the Russians it shook their identity to their very souls. Stalin's modernization program was very much Petrin, and xenophobic, not necessarily incompatible goals.

As far as Germans who admire Hitler, I think they are very large, but only the older generation who were actually alive back then. Every serviceman that I ever knew who was stationed in Germany for the decades after the war said the Germans were very sorry for the war, which they did not want, and for what happened to the Jews, but would have instantly voted for Hitler if he had returned as their Führer.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Scott Smith]

The Reverend repeats his apologetic baloney.

No, I just don't think you are employing a very long view of history. You are coming from the point-of-view of Wilson and Ambassador Morgenthau, Sr. You don't seem to realized that the corrolary to this doctrine is Morgenthau, Jr. and the Advance to Barbarism of a Holy Crusade. Oh, nevermind...

++War is violence--a settling of scores.++

<<Mass murder as committed by the Nazis is not war.>>

I think it is. It is just not Bourgeois or by the Marguis of Queensbury Rules. This, however, is not necessarily the way that wars SHOULD be fought, although one can also argue that wars should NOT be fought. Anyway, the philosophy of war is another subject. Maybe we should just have world leaders play a game of checkers to settle scores. Hmmm, perhaps I can employ that line of reasoning in labor negotiations someday to avert a strike...

++With Unconditional Surrender conflicts cannot ultimately be worked-out. That means that there is ample fodder for "criminality." And anything can be declared illegal ex post facto.++

<<Such as mass murder, right? Is the Reverend trying to tell us that the Nazi big shots were entitled to consider their murderous actions against civilians and prisoners of war legitimate at the time they engaged in them? Or that they were entitled to consider unprovoked aggression against other countries in violation of bi – or multilateral treaties to be legitimate behavior? >>

Why not? Oh, I forgot, Jewish lives are more important than anyone else.

(Snip sermon on Nazi rhetoric. Btw, I regard Ernst Klee with as much credibility as a middle-aged German hippie smoking pot in a Volkswagen microbus.)

++History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.++

<<Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.>>

++The Nazis were German soldiers and the lower-middle-classes radicalized by war, defeat, and revolution--something that Bourgeois minds would do well to consider.++

<<Wherever they came from, they were responsible for their own actions.>>

It matters if you wake-up from your Bourgeois slumber and wind-up on the receiving-end of History.

++We are making "Nazis" out of the Iraqis and the Palestinians today, for example. Afghanistan is anybody's guess.++

<<I don’t see what would be so bad about that from Smith’s point of view. He obviously idolizes the Nazis.>>

Whatever. I don't like to see American citizens attacked. But on the Nazis my opinions are fairly close to Irving's in many respects.

++Today, the Israelis are the Nazis, radicalized by the collective Jewish experience in WWII, called the Shoah. (Oh, I forgot. No, they're not "Nazis" because they do not gas Arabs in diesel Gas-Vans! Silly me.) ++

<<Exactly, Reverend. The comparison stinks because the Israelis, whatever wrong they may have done to the Palestinians, never engaged in getting rid of all or a considerable part of them by shooting them into mass graves or taking them to places from which they never returned alive. Big difference.>>

I think the comparison is valid. The Nazis had to make hay while the sun shone during a very costly and unpredictable war. The Israelis have had almost half a century for their ethnic cleansing which is less obvious. In addition, I qualified with my analogy of the Israeli schoolyard bully who is encouraged but restrained by Uncle Samuel, which thus prevents any resoultion of the conflict. The bully will never win except by attrition and the bully will never get beaten-up himself.

Palestinian schoolgirls are now willing to sacrifice their lives to kill as many Israeli civilians are they can; that's how badly the pot is simmering, my good man. I do not regard either set of lives as any more or less important, but I guess that must make me anti-Semitic. For is it not written in the pages of the Shoah, that the lives of the Gentiles are not worth more than a single Jewish fingernail?

++Examples? How about 'Nam? ++

<<A better example than Smith’s beloved Nazis. The VC and NVA primarily targeted a world power rather than defenseless people deemed “inferior”, after all.>>

Actually, I was thinking of wars-of-national-liberation, more-so than the Nazis, but they can be seen in those terms as well. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the Nazis without getting into their heads a little, and of the two of us, I would say that is me. You even mistake me for a Nazi.

++I suppose there are no Haves and Have-Nots in your worldview and that Democracy-Capitalism floats all boats equally.++

<<Dead wrong, buddy. I just have a problem in seeing the Nazis as poor have-nots trying to grab their well-deserved share of the cake.>>

Although we will never be free of our own biases, a good student of history will try to see people on their own terms from time to time. It's all about perspective.

++Coming from Columbia, from Ruhr refugee stock, as you do, I find your attitude curious but not surprising.++

<<Two mistakes, Reverend. The country is called Colombia, >>

My apologies on the spelling mistake. The new board is so easy to use that I hate to use a wordprocessor, which would have caught such an egregious typo! I hope a good spell-checker can be added because I don't usually have much time to proofread. In any case, you will allow that as a typical American I'm not too involved with Third World countries (oops, I almost wrote "toilets"). Sorry again--all of us can try hard to overcome our prejudices! In my defense, most Americans do not know how to find Texas on the map, at least according to the newspapers.

...and my parents emigrated from Germany but were not “refugees”. Or are you just trying to insult me?

No, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Were they dispossed Ruhr industrialists, then, who bought a plantation in South America?

I keeps on a-diggin',
My Master's got me workin'.

You don't have to answer, I was just curious. Silliness should not be confused with insult. Besides, I've told you before how much I admire your skill with numerous foreign languages.

++Anyway, there are plenty of class schisms in Third World countries.++

<<About which I probably know a lot more than the Reverend does. Enough at least to realize that, however many black spots “Democracy-Capitalism” may have, totalitarian dictatorships are no alternative to it.>>

Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. However, you are wrong to imply that I am recommending totalitarian dictatorships. I believe in liberal-democracy (note the small d). And I believe capitalism can be reformed. I do not feel that class-struggle is necessarily a good thing, but ignoring it or suppressing it will not make it go away. Genocide Greuelpropaganda is one such puerile distraction, IMHO.

++When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.++

<<Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.>>

++No, had Hitler been successful he not only would have been Time magazine's "Person of the Century" but perhaps the Millennium.++

<<Maybe so, but the Reverend seems to be unaware that the “Man of the …” – award bestowed by Time magazine does not necessarily signal a positive view of the character in question...>>

In this case it was. That's why Evil Hitler was not selected and Goody Einstein was. A better argument on your part would be the sheer irrelevance of Time magazine's covers. But my point stands.

++In any case, had he died before September 1, 1939, Hitler would have been an incontestably great German hero and a remarkably tolerant dictator who ruled with a heavily-padded velvet glove.++

<<Sure. Tell that to the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”, the inmates of the concentration camps and the Jews who were gradually stripped of all rights and had their property smashed to pieces during the Reichskristallnacht.>>

The Röhm purge was pretty-much kid-gloves compared to anything orchaestrated by Stalin. And Goebbels got the blame for Reichskristalnacht in 1938 by Hitler and he was in the doghouse until 1944. Only Goebbels' fanatic devotion to duty saved him during that period. Dr. G really screwed up. Irving sees him as one of the masterminds of continued policies against the Jews, though he was not alone of course. Hitler had other things to worry about, however.

++Germans would today be gushing shamelessly over Onkel Adolf the way some silly people still gush over that brandy-soaked bumpkin, Churchill.++

<<And such attitude would be at least as silly.>>

Yes, they were men, not icons, after all.

++Had Churchill been "caught" he would have hung with greater justification than many of the Nuremberg Eleven. Possibly even Roosevelt as well, or at least some of his advisors like Morgenthau.++

<<They were small kids compared to...>>

They were not small kids at all but Machiavellian masters. Hitler gravely underestimated his opponents based on his experience with Bourgeois politicians. As famous House Speaker Tip O'Neill once said, "Congress is not the State Legislature," meaning that it was the big leagues. Hitler was not entirely in his element in foreign affairs and he knew it.

However, I wonder how Smith matches his condemnation of these gentlemen with his contention that “defeat will mean criminality”.

I do not think that Göring was a warcriminal, and as far as Keitel, naïvete and incompetence is different than criminality. Keitel was useful to Hitler mainly because the Junker generals were so disagreeable. Hitler should have cleaned-house.

Anyway, I have said before that the neglect and exploitation of the Russian POWs was one the greatest warcrimes, IMHO. But that was a matter for negotiation and investigation, not for Victor Justice and legal philippics.

++As far as Stalin, only the West has the view of the Man of Steel as the Evil gangster. In Russia, he is the Red Peter the Great.++

<<I wonder what our Russian posters will say to this.>>

Exactly what I thought. In any case, you can ask them yourself.


Ah, I'm bored with the rest of your self-righteous rodomontade...

I will close with the idea that when one is convinced of his moral justness, his Moral Certainty, he enters a slippery-slope, a region where any injustice is permitted to advance his crusade.


Which of the two of us, me or you, has ever admitted to the possibility that he could be wrong?

[Roberto]

No, I just don't think you are employing a very long view of history.

I’m not employing the Reverend’s “very long view of history”, for sure. As that view is all about apologizing mass murderers, adopting it is neither one of my ambitions.

You are coming from the point-of-view of Wilson and Ambassador Morgenthau, Sr.

How could I possibly? I know nothing about either.

You don't seem to realized that the corrolary to this doctrine is Morgenthau, Jr. and the Advance to Barbarism of a Holy Crusade.

That may be so in the mind of the Reverend, which does not mean it is so in history. The fact is that lunatic “corrolaries” like Morgenthau were overruled before they could do any harm.

Quote:
++War is violence--a settling of scores.++

<<Mass murder as committed by the Nazis is not war.>>

I think it is.

Nuff’ said. Thank you, Reverend.

Quote:
++With Unconditional Surrender conflicts cannot ultimately be worked-out. That means that there is ample fodder for "criminality." And anything can be declared illegal ex post facto.++

<<Such as mass murder, right? Is the Reverend trying to tell us that the Nazi big shots were entitled to consider their murderous actions against civilians and prisoners of war legitimate at the time they engaged in them? Or that they were entitled to consider unprovoked aggression against other countries in violation of bi – or multilateral treaties to be legitimate behavior? >>

Why not? Oh, I forgot, Jewish lives are more important than anyone else.

Another instructive statement that is highly appreciated. The issue is the lives of 5 to 6 million Jewish and about twice as many non-Jewish unarmed non-combatants snuffed out in actions that bore little or no relation to any acts of war, Reverend. For him who considers the millions killed by Stalin “a few heads”, the victims of Nazi genocide and mass murder are not likely to matter either, of course.

(Snip sermon on Nazi rhetoric. Btw, I regard Ernst Klee with as much credibility as a middle-aged German hippie smoking pot in a Volkswagen microbus.)

On what basis, Reverend? Other than the fact that the results of his research don’t fit into your ideological bubble, of course? Klee is just quoting an original document, by the way. One that apparently leaves the Reverend speachless, judging by how he avoids talking about it.

Quote:
++History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.++

<<Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.>>

++The Nazis were German soldiers and the lower-middle-classes radicalized by war, defeat, and revolution--something that Bourgeois minds would do well to consider.++

<<Wherever they came from, they were responsible for their own actions.>>

It matters if you wake-up from your Bourgeois slumber and wind-up on the receiving-end of History.

Hollow bunk. Smith’s heroes put a lot more people on the “receiving-end of History” than those who allegedly “forged” them ever did.

Quote:
++We are making "Nazis" out of the Iraqis and the Palestinians today, for example. Afghanistan is anybody's guess.++

<<I don’t see what would be so bad about that from Smith’s point of view. He obviously idolizes the Nazis.>>

Whatever. I don't like to see American citizens attacked. But on the Nazis my opinions are fairly close to Irving's in many respects.

From what I’ve seen of the Reverend, I would say that “fairly close” is an understatement.

Quote:
++Today, the Israelis are the Nazis, radicalized by the collective Jewish experience in WWII, called the Shoah. (Oh, I forgot. No, they're not "Nazis" because they do not gas Arabs in diesel Gas-Vans! Silly me.) ++

<<Exactly, Reverend. The comparison stinks because the Israelis, whatever wrong they may have done to the Palestinians, never engaged in getting rid of all or a considerable part of them by shooting them into mass graves or taking them to places from which they never returned alive. Big difference.>>

I think the comparison is valid. The Nazis had to make hay while the sun shone during a very costly and unpredictable war.

Exactly, my dear friend. As Goebbels very aptly put it in his diary entry of 27.03.1942:

It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27

In other words: let’s kill as many Jews as we can as long as the war is going on, because afterwards it may be more difficult to do so.

Thanks, Joseph.

The Israelis have had almost half a century for their ethnic cleansing which is less obvious.

It sure is. No mass executions, no extermination camps. How many Palestinian lives has the Israeli “ethnic cleansing” claimed so far, Reverend? Any figures from a reliable source you can show us?

In addition, I qualified with my analogy of the Israeli schoolyard bully who is encouraged but restrained by Uncle Samuel, which thus prevents any resoultion of the conflict. The bully will never win except by attrition and the bully will never get beaten-up himself.

Aha, it is because of Uncle Sam that those bloodthirsty Talmudists don’t proceed like the Nazis did, in Smith’s opinion. Another instructive statement that is very much appreciated.

Palestinian schoolgirls are now willing to sacrifice their lives to kill as many Israeli civilians are they can; that's how badly the pot is simmering, my good man. I do not regard either set of lives as any more or less important, but I guess that must make me anti-Semitic. For is it not written in the pages of the Shoah, that the lives of the Gentiles are not worth more than a single Jewish fingernail?

Getting better. The suicidal terrorism of fanatics emerging from a religion and culture that extols and encourages martyrdom and self-sacrifice Smith sees as nothing other than an indication of how bad those bloody Jews are. There’s nothing wrong about considering all lives to be equally important, but I strongly doubt that the Reverend gives a damn about the innocent civilians that are victimized by his hallowed martyrs.

Quote:
++Examples? How about 'Nam? ++

<<A better example than Smith’s beloved Nazis. The VC and NVA primarily targeted a world power rather than defenseless people deemed “inferior”, after all.>>

Actually, I was thinking of wars-of-national-liberation, more-so than the Nazis, but they can be seen in those terms as well.

Yeah, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union was a German war of national liberation. Hear the screw dropping to the floor?

Indeed, it is impossible to understand the Nazis without getting into their heads a little, and of the two of us, I would say that is me.

It takes one to know one, as they say.

You even mistake me for a Nazi.

I used to think it might be a mistake, but I no longer do.

Quote:
++I suppose there are no Haves and Have-Nots in your worldview and that Democracy-Capitalism floats all boats equally.++

<<Dead wrong, buddy. I just have a problem in seeing the Nazis as poor have-nots trying to grab their well-deserved share of the cake.>>

Although we will never be free of our own biases, a good student of history will try to see people on their own terms from time to time.

Except that the Reverend is not trying to see his heroes on their own terms for the sake of studying history. He adheres to those terms.

It's all about perspective.

The Reverend’s being rather clear to whoever has followed his ramblings.

Quote:
++Coming from Columbia, from Ruhr refugee stock, as you do, I find your attitude curious but not surprising.++

<<Two mistakes, Reverend. The country is called Colombia, >>

My apologies on the spelling mistake. The new board is so easy to use that I hate to use a wordprocessor, which would have caught such an egregious typo! I hope a good spell-checker can be added because I don't usually have much time to proofread. In any case, you will allow that as a typical American I'm not too involved with Third World countries (oops, I almost wrote "toilets").

Why, are countries like Colombia peopled by sub-humans, in the Reverend’s opinion? I wouldn't be surprised if so he thought.

Quote:
...and my parents emigrated from Germany but were not “refugees”. Or are you just trying to insult me?

No, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Were they dispossed Ruhr industrialists, then, who bought a plantation in South America?

The Reverend feels urged to insult my family, yet he keeps saying that he’s not mad at me. Never mind. Who knows the Reverend is aware that he never had a problem with contradicting himself.

Genocide Greuelpropaganda is one such puerile distraction, IMHO.

It sure is, but documenting and remembering ugly historical facts is not, however inconvenient to the Reverend’s beliefs they may be.

Quote:
++When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.++

<<Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.>>

++No, had Hitler been successful he not only would have been Time magazine's "Person of the Century" but perhaps the Millennium.++

<<Maybe so, but the Reverend seems to be unaware that the “Man of the …” – award bestowed by Time magazine does not necessarily signal a positive view of the character in question...>>

In this case it was.

In what case, Reverend? Didn’t Time state that if Hitler had beaten Stalin in 1942, he would have been Man of the Year instead of Uncle Joe? Quite remarkable for the leader of a nation that the United States were at war with at the time, hence an inconvenient fact that the Reverend is quick to sweep under the carpet.

That's why Evil Hitler was not selected and Goody Einstein was.

Please enlighten us, Reverend: When did Einstein beat Adolf for the award? The contest seems to have been between Hitler and Stalin, not between Hitler and Einstein.

A better argument on your part would be the sheer irrelevance of Time magazine's covers.

Shown that his argument is wrong, Smith now contends that it’s irrelevant. Again very instructive.

But my point stands.

What point, brother? Unless I missed something, you didn’t make your point.

Quote:
++In any case, had he died before September 1, 1939, Hitler would have been an incontestably great German hero and a remarkably tolerant dictator who ruled with a heavily-padded velvet glove.++

<<Sure. Tell that to the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”, the inmates of the concentration camps and the Jews who were gradually stripped of all rights and had their property smashed to pieces during the Reichskristallnacht.>>

The Röhm purge was pretty-much kid-gloves compared to anything orchaestrated by Stalin.

Different people, different categories of victims. Unlike Stalin, Hitler tended to trust people and thus bumped of only 100-odd of his old party cronies – but you have to be Reverend Smith to see the murders of the Röhm purge as “kid gloves”.

And Goebbels got the blame for Reichskristalnacht in 1938 by Hitler and he was in the doghouse until 1944. Only Goebbels' fanatic devotion to duty saved him during that period. Dr. G really screwed up. Irving sees him as one of the masterminds of continued policies against the Jews, though he was not alone of course. Hitler had other things to worry about, however.

The Reverend is cooking up Irving’s nonsensical assertion that the Führer had nothing to do with the Reichskristallnacht. Could it be that he has not yet read the judgment at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, where the falsity of these contentions was thoroughly exposed?

Quote:
++Had Churchill been "caught" he would have hung with greater justification than many of the Nuremberg Eleven. Possibly even Roosevelt as well, or at least some of his advisors like Morgenthau.++

<<They were small kids compared to...>>

They were not small kids at all but Machiavellian masters.

Maybe so, but they didn’t produce nearly as many mass graves as their opponents.

I do not think that Göring was a warcriminal

Sure. How could one of the masterminds of the genocide of the Jews and the mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war possibly be a war criminal?

, and as far as Keitel, naïvete and incompetence is different than criminality.

Except that he naively issued those funny orders calling for the reckless massacre of prisoners of war and civilians on the Eastern Front, among other products of his incompetence …

Keitel was useful to Hitler mainly because the Junker generals were so disagreeable. Hitler should have cleaned-house.

As I said, the meat hooks …

Anyway, I have said before that the neglect and exploitation of the Russian POWs was one the greatest warcrimes, IMHO.

Neglect and exploitation – what sweet euphemisms for mass murder. And Göring, who bragged to Count Ciano about starving Soviet prisoners of war resorting to cannibalism, had nothing to do with it, of course …

But that was a matter for negotiation and investigation, not for Victor Justice and legal philippics.

Negotiation - hardly so. As Goebbels once pointed out, the Nazis had broken down all bridges behind him.

Investigation – was carried out on a scale and with a degree of thoroughness never seen before in similar cases, at the Nuremberg Trials.

“Victor justice and legal philippics” – hollow slogans coined by an avowed supporter of the Nazi regime unwilling to look at facts that don’t fit into his bubble.

Quote:
++As far as Stalin, only the West has the view of the Man of Steel as the Evil gangster. In Russia, he is the Red Peter the Great.++

<<I wonder what our Russian posters will say to this.>>

Exactly what I thought. In any case, you can ask them yourself.

The exact opposite, I would say after reading Oleg’s post. Smith seems to know as little about Russians as he does about Germans – and that is saying something.

Ah, I'm bored with the rest of your self-righteous rodomontade...

The good old smokescreen of insults to cover up your lack of arguments, Reverend?

I will close with the idea that when one is convinced of his moral justness, his Moral Certainty, he enters a slippery-slope, a region where any injustice is permitted to advance his crusade.

A very accurate self-portrait, Reverend. Congratulations.

Which of the two of us, me or you, has ever admitted to the possibility that he could be wrong?

Let’s say that neither has, the difference being that the Reverend has every reason to do so, as he would recognize if he left his dream world of Faith for just a moment.