[Jukka Juutinen]

A few comments:

1. The Soviet ideology viewed all wars from the revolutionary point of view, hence all wars fought by the Bolsheviks to spread the revolution were just by default and any act committed in its name was justified while anyone trying to hinder the revolution was by default a criminal.

2. The Geneva and Hague conventions were legally binding regardless of who started what.

3. War as a means of policy was not illegal according to those protocols. Someone may raise the issue of the Kellogg pact, but post-WW2 history proves amply that war in itself is not illegal. Quite recently we have witnessed e.g. two wars of aggression launched by a certain state and as far as I know, no leader of that nation has been prosecuted for the act.

4. Some people tend to argue that war itself generates unlimited violence. Untrue. There is substantial historical evidence that wars can be fought while honouring certain customs of chivalry. In the European historical tradition intentional targeting of civilian population has been a rarity and in fact, the first large-scale act of such policy was initiated by Britain in WWI through its maritime blockade of Central powers. And by the way, that blockade was illegal by the international legislation then in effect.

5. The pet culprit by many propagandists of Anglo-American heritage is "militarism" and "militarists". A highly faulty claim. One just have to examine WW2. Who were the main culprits behind the Holocaust? Civilians, from Hitler down. None of them hailed from traditional military families. Who were the main supporters of Allied area bombing? Civilians, from Churchill and Roosevelt down. Who were the main proponents of using atomic bombs? Civilians. Many of whom even claimed to be diehard pacifists. And who voiced the loudest dissonance against atomic bombs? The generals.

The question is why? The answer is simple. First, it is the military who does the fighting and henceforth knows what it is and in likelihood can understand also what it is on the other side. Second, to militarists war is the goal in itself, so why would they want to kill it out of existence. On the other hand, for idealistic civilians war is a means to an end, so the end defines the means. For pacifists the end is the abolition of war and thus anything goes in pursuit of that supposedly holy goal.

If one studies history of a longer period of time, one can easily see that not a single genocide or ethnic cleansing of major proportions has been initiated by the military, even a military dictatorship. Good example: if the generals had had their way, significant areas between Canada and Mexico might still be Indian country.

6. In the previous post it is questioned that whether or not the post-war deaths of Germans in Allied hands was deliberate. If one studies this from criminal law point of view, there is the idea of "should have known", i.e. if someone does something that he should have known to likely cause bodily harm, he is criminally responsible even if his intention was other.