From: Snow <snow@crash.suba.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:24:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Nazis on the Net
In-Reply-To: <199604231853.UAA04047@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960426222544.371C-100000@crash.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sorry about spewing this to the List, but nobody@replay.com wouldnot get 
it back to him.

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Anonymous wrote:
> E. ALLEN SMITH writes:
> | (one reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki being right
> | was the Japanese alliance with Germany)
> Was Dresden also right? (more died than at Hiroshima)  The firebombing

	Yes. War, especially in the modern era requires a large 
industrial base to maintain (well, non-guerilla operations anyway) 

> of Tokyo? (10% died in one raid).  Stalins execution of his own people?

	Yes, as above.               To accomplish his goals, yes. IMO, no. 

> Look at facts, not propoganda, before coming to such conclusions.
> The conventions of war (namely the aim of keeping civilians out of it,
> along with good treatment of prisoners) evolved over many centuries,

	Centuries? Maybe 3 of them, the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's, more 
like never.

> but then come the Brits and the Yanks to destroy it all with their
> indiscriminate bombing of civilians, using the "they can stop the
> torture simply by surrendering," and "those bombs saved countless

	There has been a long history of taking the war to the civilians. 
Salting crop land, poisoning wells, burning cities--long before Sherman 
marched on Atlanta civilians were targets. The Aristocracy didn't 
approve publically, but what does a blockade accomplish if not to deprive 
civilians of certain things? Yes, it also keeps it out of the hands of 
the Military, but it also affects non-military. 

> [American/British] lives!" excuses, and directing attention away from
> their own attrocities by spreading propoganda such as soap made from
> Jews.  Then to direct attention away from themselves even further, the
> victors judge the defeated at Nuremburg for "war crimes," when the
> accusors themselves were guilty of terror bombing, the worst war crime
> of them all.

	War is a most nasty thing, and often fought by people who are at 
very impressionable age (young men). Watching your friends and buddies 
die is a tough thing for most, as is killing other people. For most 
people killing is not something to be done lightly, and it is necessary 
to work them into a state were killing is possible. This state also tends 
to make certain actions seem like a good idea. 

	As to the Strategic decesions like the bombing of Dresden and the 
Nuking of Japan, well, when is the last time a Political leader (and High 
Ranking Generals ARE Political Leaders) actually stopped to consider the 
lives or feelings of people that aren't going to vote for hir?

> | and the Holocaust (people who claim
> | it didn't happen are calling my paternal grandfather a liar).
> 
> Does anybody really claim it did not happen?  I doubt it.
> I assert that those who express doubt over details of the current
> story (such as the numbers that died in the camps, the existence of
> gas chambers, or whether Hitler gave an order to systematically kill
> Jews) are referred to by the media as saying that the Holocaust didn't

	I doubt Hitler explicitly said "Kill all the jews for me would 
you Gobby?" but hey, the guy was the ABSOLUTE RULER, he made his desires 
known, and things happened. 

> happen, but that is *not* what they are saying.  With regard to your
> hundreds of thousands of people died, then who would disagree with him?
> If on the other hand he asserts that he saw gassed Jews at Dachau,
> then he is mistaken (although not necessarally a liar.)

	I don't know enough WWII history to know how the Nazis were 
attempting to solve the "Jewish Problem" at Dachau, but I hear that 
Belson was a Gas <sorry>

> The Nuremberg Trials...had been popular throughout the world and
> particularly in the United States.  Equally popular was the sentence
> already announced by the high tribunal: death.  But what kind of trial was
> this?  ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political
> promises subject to broad interpretation.  It was not a list of pleasing
> platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it.  It was
> the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft]
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional
> precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.

	I wasn't aware that the US Constitution could be applied outside 
the US. 

 	While I understand why you use a remailer, I wish you'd post some 
address that I could send mail to rather than cluttering up the list. 



Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com (prefered)
snow@crash.suba.com