The unknown holocaust

It's not sound just because it is in a number of legal documents, particularly if these documents, like McRis pointed out, stem from the days before the justice state.

My main problem with "an eye for an eye" is that it leads to vendettas. It was all too common, for example, in the Middle Ages, that simple retribution led to feuds that stretched out over the centuries for the simple reason that no one dared to take a stand against the principle that if something bad is done to you, you repay it in kind. If you consider the extreme forms that vengeance can take, you must admit that it is preferrable to let an independent agency speak justice than to take matters into your own hands. The exception to this, of course, is when said independent agency is non-existent or corrupt - in which case it is them you should be fighting, not whoever did you wrong.

Ricky: Nationalism is definitely not a part of what I would call a decent moral code.

 

I don't say to stand and turn your other cheek. You should fight back, but not by killing and/or raping your enemy's undefended wife and children.
You should rather seek the proper implemetion of the justice state

 

Roel state

"My main problem with "an eye for an eye" is that it leads to vendettas. It
was all too common, for example, in the Middle Ages, that simple
retribution led to feuds "

It's exacly why the early codification of justice appeared ,
to end the personal interpretation of pay back and set standards

- the punishment should be proportionate to the damage
- the punishmnet should be relevant to the suffering
- the punishment should be finite and end the matter
- the punishment should be impersonal and apply to anyone

an eye for an eye is NOT a free for all , it is a limit !

the only true concept of justice is when both parties , the aggreived
an the perpetuator , accept the than the result is acceptable

Early societies first public official is the judge , to mediate and prevent
the excesses of the first basic human right ,
seeking direct , immediate , bloody revenge .

as for holding one's vengeful hand from punishing the vanquished
I have no personal experience on the subject .
Except for the gratification of the senses , the raping of the loser women
is the ultimate humiliation , the ultimate proof of victory
the murdering of women and children was a nazi german characteristic
not a soviet russian one who "only" rapped ,

It qualifie as as deplorable , ghastly discipline , certainly a war crime
not an holocaust .
.
.
.
.

 

Such faith you have in mankind!

I would rather have legal justice carried out by professionals than by the victim. They will be guided much more by reason and objectivity.

 

Uh, I think that this is what jeager is arguing for as well...

 

Thanks Ricky




.

 

On a related note, I read somewhere that the Germans deliberately left stores of wine and alcohol in thei retreat westward, hoping the Russians would get sloshed and lose their fighting prowess... I imagine this would only have contributed to their disorderly behaviour

 

As far as i know, such incidents happened during the siege of Budapest(January-February 1945).The Germans left cellars full of wine and other alcohol untouched and retreated to nearby blocks. Then at dawn, they used to attack the drunk Soviet soldiers, moving through smashed walls and sewers.

 

ive read a number of accounts of russian troops getting a heat on before an assault, on purpose...and also of japanese troops inbibing before a banzai charge.......lord knows,most fist fights ive wittnessd were preceded by drinking..

 

Isn't that a different process though? As in, drinking, then getting irritated or insulted by something and starting a fight. As opposed to knowing you have to fight, and drinking so that you won't think quite so much about your imminent death.

 

for myself ,i think i would rather be sober even if faced with a very dicey assault order,being drunk in close combat would make death more likely,seems to me...

 

In addition to the war crimes comitted by some Gourmiers, there was also a famous movie with Sophia Loren, called "Two Women", which deals with that disgusting facts.



Regards,
Che.

 

The Russian solders who comitted these atrocities deserved punishment its true... And they got the punishment; they were punished long before they even comitted the crime... Country invaded, women and children shot, gassed and tortured... What had the average Red soldier in 1941 done to deserve having his family slaughtered by the SS? Nothing... So what does he do when he sees the women of Nazi Germany, who cheered upon hearing of his towns extermination? Who probably manufactured the very rifle used to beat his child to death? :angry: Have a guess... He comitted the crime for which he was punished... Double Jeopardy Rule

In my mind it is not the Red Army who should be blamed for this atrocity... It is Hitler: He is the one who brought destruction and ruin to Germany... He is the one who induced his people to comit crimes against humanity... It is his fault that they were 'punished'... German women were not raped because Russia invaded Germany, they were raped because they were citizens procuring a war to exterminate an entire race... The extent of the horrors experience by the victims of the SS and the Nazi regime is unprecedented in history... What did their supporters expect? a slap on the wrist?

 

There is no justification for random violence. Hitler was guilty of the destruction his armies brought to Russia - and so vengeance would have to be exacted upon him, his closest followers, and those who believed in his ideal. Not on the defenceless women and girls of East Prussia.

 

its funny ...many german women state that the first russian troops they encountered (COMBAT TROOPS) were kind and even offered food to the german women ,,,it was mostly the rear echelon troops who arrived in trucks that were the drunken gang rapists...roel the woman as chattel ..ie combat booty is as old as warfare ..certainly all the horse archers from the steppes considered the women of the vanquished as part of their pay the huns ,mongols ,tamerlane,the cossacks ..its only us in the west who expect women to be unharmed by victorious armys..and even this notion is a recent one

 

If you count the 11th Century as 'recent', sure

 

Yes, I have seen it. More than 7000 rapes of both women, men, priests (!?) and children were accounted for by Moroccan troops in Italy under French command. The French authorities brought in Berbian women to entertain the troops in the hope that this would calm them down. I don't know if this made any difference. It was probably a cultural thing.

 

One characteristic unites the Huns, the Mongols, the forces of Tamur Lan and the Cossacks - they were not representatives of sedentary civilizations and all "civilized" settled peoples (not just the western ones) considered them barbarians. Nomadic tribal warriors like these have always had and still have a completely different set of morals than sedentary civilizations.

What I am talking about is not the fact that for nomadic tribal warriors women are part of the booty (indeed a very old concept but entirely restricted to these nomadic tribes and appalling to all civilizations), but that it is unjustifiable to treat them thusly. No doubt this is because of my sedentary civilized background, but would you prefer an alternative code of morals?

 

Its to late to do anything now...I know this comment will anger you but nothing is going to happen to thous Russian soldiers still alive.

Smergehead I liked your comment.

 

Oh, well, that's OK then.

It's too late too do anything so why bother? I mean it was too late too do anything at Nuremburg. It's too late to so anything with Saddam. It's too late to do anything post event regardless, so why concern yourself with it? :roll:

Whatever you might consider the justifications of it the Red Army soldiers that raped schoolgirls in Berlin did not act wihtin the agreed protocols of international law. Whatever crimes members of the SS and Whermacht comitted in the Soviet Union those women and children were not directly responsible for them. Frankly I find your attitude irresponsible at best.