Why so long ,,??

[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.

[Nick Beale]

"In the European historical tradition intentional targeting of civilian population has been a rarity."

The history of siege warfare suggests otherwise. It appears to have been an accepted convention during the Hundred Years War for example that after a certain point (a declared number of days, say) everyone within the walls was fair game and could expect to die. I've read that under the Roman Empire a besieged city had the option of surrendering until the first battering ram touched the wall, after that it was understood that everyone was going to die.

Whole populations were massacred in mediaeval Italy, as at Cesena in 1377. The same happened in Southern France (Béziers, 1209) and thousands of civilians died in the crusader sack of Constantinople (1204). The list goes on.

If history teaches us nothing else, it is that wars quickly get very ugly indeed.

[John Vasco]

Jukka,

I will respond to a couple of points raised in your post #21.

1. "...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..." Go read up on the inital advance of German forces into Belgium in the First World War. I would venture to suggest that the slaughter of civilians by German soldiers was the first large-scale targeting of civilian population. And it was a quite deliberate act. Go read up on it.

2. I asked Kaczmarek to provide evidence that 1 million were 'killed', as opposed to 'died'. There is a difference, and your good command of English should enable you to understand the difference. Your criminal law point does nothing to prove what Kaczmarek said was correct, but I would suggest he needs to follow the legal tenet of 'He who asserts must prove', otherwise he is making a statement without providing any proof of it whatsoever (not the first time such a thing has happened on here, or elsewhere, recently...)

[Kaczmarek]

Mr. Vasco,

Excuse for the false choice of words. English is not my favorite language. I hope your German is much better as my English.

Many of the people in the Russian Zone were picked up and never appeared again. These did not simply die so. The revenge of the Red Army was terrible. This is forgotten with pleasure.

I must prove nothing. I do not know the exact source any more. I have announced the details from a book about crimes against Germans over 30 years ago. You can believe it or not. You can explore the www. You will find much proof. You only must want. I am sure the VDK will also answer your questions.

It is always the same everybody of the world knows the crimes of the Germans during the 2nd World War, but nobody will know the crimes against the Germans during and after the 2nd World War.

Only few examples of many. Google in the www for US Major Merrit P. Drucker. Look for Rhine meadow camps, or for James Bacque or look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...g_World_War_II

So you can delete my threads and banishing me from this forum. No problem.

[Nick Beale]

"I hope your German is much better as my English"

It is the difference between "gestorben" (died) and "ermordet" (murdered) or "getötet" (killed).

"The revenge of the Red Army was terrible. This is forgotten with pleasure."

The actions of the Red Army and NKVD been made very clear in a number of bestselling history books in Britain (e.g. those by Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor).

"I must prove nothing. I do not know the exact source any more ... You can believe it or not. You can explore the www. You will find much proof. You only must want."

You made the claim, you provide the proof. That's how historical debate works if you hope to be taken seriously and I would encourage everyone on this forum would approach discussions in that spirit.

And with that, I'm closing this thread.