Beria should bad been tried in nuremburg ?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7008
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 02 Feb 2007 04:20

I see Herr Thompson, can type alot faster than me :wink: ,

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".

Chris

Perhaps DT will be so kind as to allow something to grow here and kick it into a new topic based on this.

Jacob Peters
Banned
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Dec 2006 04:20
Location: Boston, USA

Post by Jacob Peters » 03 Feb 2007 21:55

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".


There was neither a state of war nor any serious armed conflict between the USSR and Poland, Romania, and Baltic states. Hence, not war crimes were committed. And there were no war crimes committed during the Winter War which almost exclusively consisted of military casualties.

In 1941-45, Soviet territory was occupied by Axis countries. The Soviets fought a purely defensive war. It's impossible to commit war crimes in a defensive war. The governments of Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria had all made peace with the USSR in 1944-45. Hence, a state of war did not exist.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23059
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Feb 2007 00:25

Jacob Peters -- This is a formal warning. There will not be another. Previous warnings and deletions of your posts can be seen by our readers at:

v.....68#1015468
v.....76#1014976
v.....00#1013900
v.....32#1005832
v.....799#998799
v.....175#998175
v.....739#997739
v.....735#997735
v.....520#997520
v.....499#997499
v.....601#995601
v.....571#995571

Your time has run out. The AHF host and staff have lost patience with your ignorant, disinformative, and unsourced agitprop. If your future posts fail to comply with the forum and section rules, posted for all to see at: H&WC Section Rules
viewtopic.php?t=53962
you will be banned.

Jacob Peters
Banned
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Dec 2006 04:20
Location: Boston, USA

Post by Jacob Peters » 04 Feb 2007 00:30

Actually, the content in my previous post can easily be verified by a standard encyclopedia. One does not need to hastily type pages from a scholarly book when discussing something as commonly known as the fact that the USSR was under foreign occupation in 1941-45. The source for my previous post can be located here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ I'm not going to take the time to post pages of text on material which can be easily verified.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7008
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Feb 2007 04:05

Jacob Peters wrote:
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".


There was neither a state of war nor any serious armed conflict between the USSR and Poland, Romania, and Baltic states. Hence, not war crimes were committed. And there were no war crimes committed during the Winter War which almost exclusively consisted of military casualties.

In 1941-45, Soviet territory was occupied by Axis countries. The Soviets fought a purely defensive war. It's impossible to commit war crimes in a defensive war. The governments of Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria had all made peace with the USSR in 1944-45. Hence, a state of war did not exist.


I made a mistake on this one . I was thinking of something unrelated , mainly based on
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"


It was not you. Actually what I was thinking about was Hasegawa's quote in relation to the Japanese peacefully surrendering to the Soviets, when in comparision, not surrendering to Americans because we ( The US) just, "killed all of them "so to speak.

This would make an intersting comparision topic , that the Soviets accepted Japanese surrenders during that last week of the war while Americans rarely did through the whole war. Now I realize neither your post or Hasegawa's comments were made in this context, rather it was the Soviets wondering if the Americans had been there already. I read a little more into it than the title of book the quote came from "Racing the Enemy".

Excuse my earlier post for this , and perhaps something can be done down the road on this "idea" .

However, overall, as I said in another post, some of these "old topics" are not the best starting grounds for a debate.

Regards,
Chris

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23059
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Feb 2007 05:59

Jacob Peters -- The burden is on the poster to provide sources, or sourced argument, for ignorant notions like:
It's impossible to commit war crimes in a defensive war.


H&WC Section Rules
viewtopic.php?t=53962

Adios.

Anne G,
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 02 Jan 2007 15:02
Location: Espoo, Finland

Post by Anne G, » 07 Feb 2007 21:14

Xanthro wrote: since the Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva Convention and other international treaties concerning the conduct of war, the Soviets were bound by them.


Actually, in the beginning of the war the Soviet government stated that it acknowledged the signature of Imperial government in the Hague treaty concerning the conduct of war.

Also, it is commonly held that even if a country hasn't signed the treaty, the general principles (f.ex. to treat POWs humanly) bind it.

User avatar
wildboar
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 12:15
Location: India

without Beria Nurmberg was just a more than Hoax

Post by wildboar » 13 Feb 2007 14:58

Infact Beria was responsible for all the preplanned war-crimes that were carried by soviets in germany and for expulsion of germans from eastern europe.

Strange for such war-criminal to miss trials

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23059
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Feb 2007 17:59

wildboar -- You wrote:
Infact Beria was responsible for all the preplanned war-crimes that were carried by soviets in germany and for expulsion of germans from eastern europe.

Prove it -- if you can.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

H&WC Section Rules
viewtopic.php?t=53962

User avatar
Xserx
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 15:57
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Beria should bad been tried in nuremburg ?

Post by Xserx » 17 Feb 2007 17:23

Roberto wrote:
First thing, there is no evidence whatsoever linking Beria to the crimes commited by Soviet forces against German civilian's in Eastern Europe and the Soviet zone of Germany and also against East Europeans, how ever often you repeat that accusation. Beria was a horrible fellow who committed lots of horrible crimes, but this one was not his doing.


Excuse, but you are not right. Beria was involved in many crimes accomplished in territories, seized by the Soviet army and, subsequently, already in territory of the Soviet union, in relation to POW's.
Thus, I agree that the Nuremberg tribunal cannot be considered, as a celebration of validity. But it also was not by its purpose. It considered not military crimes in general, but military crimes accomplished by Germany. And with this role, IMHO, it quite has consulted. I do not consider possible to subject doubt validity of the Nuremberg tribunal only because on it the military criminals of all parties of the conflict were not condemned.
Sorry my english

Best
Xserx/

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”