Jacob Peters wrote:The Soviet Union was not bound by the Geneva Conventions during World War II.
http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?Rea ... d=305&ps=P
Hence, legally speaking, it was impossible for it to have committed war crimes. To the contrary, when the Red Army moved into recover western Ukraine and Belorussia from Poland in 1939, it faced microscopic armed reaction.
Well Jacob, to start with most of the Nuremburg trials were not "war-crime " trials, and the charges were based crimes against humanity and not based on violations of the Geneva conventions. And really this topic started on this same sort of bogus misunderstanding to begin with, plus given the ALLIES initated the proceeding , there was certainly no way that any Allied people would be put on trial.
And when the Red Army moved in to liberate occupied Manchuria and Korea, casualties were light and almost exclusively consisted of soldiers:
"The Japanese forces, 6000 soldiers and officers, peacefully surrendered. The first question that Soviet soldiers asked on Etorofu was: "Are there any Americans on the island?", Source: Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "Racing the Enemy"
Since this is a long dead topic you are resurrecting
I would like to know know what exactly you are implying here , I have my suspicions as to the defence you are building for "Soviet" war crimes, and if what I think you are implying is correct, I can only say , "two wrongs don't make a right".
Perhaps DT will be so kind as to allow something to grow here and kick it into a new topic based on this.