02 Apr 06
Originally posted by Rajk999The extreme illogic and ignorance of right wingers on this site never ceases to amaze me. Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister was indicted, among other things, for Crimes Against Peace for having a hand in the various Nazi aggressions. He claimed that Germany was acting in self-defense and in fact MADE THE SAME EXACT CLAIM YOU SET FORTH ABOVE to wit "All nations have the right to take whatever action it deems fit (preemptive and otherwise) to protect itself"! The defense didn't work.
Ribbentrop was one of Hitlers stooges. What claim does he have for self-defence ?
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI agreed with you on the USS Liberty. There need to be questions answered while survivors are still around.....NOW!!!!
Big difference; those Marines were in another country that was a war zone; you might as well bitch about the Germans killing guys on D-Day. The USS Liberty was in international waters and was a neutral (actually almost a "friendly"😉.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicIsrael feels no need to answer any questions; why should they when they have people like slimjim supporting them 100% no matter what they do and who they kill?
I agreed with you on the USS Liberty. There need to be questions answered while survivors are still around.....NOW!!!!
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDoes SJ know the facts about the Liberty?...has he mentioned anything about what Israel did that day? He may just be ignorant of the facts, 'cause SJ's brother was in the Navy, so I don't think it's his love for Israel in this matter.
Israel feels no need to answer any questions; why should they when they have people like slimjim supporting them 100% no matter what they do and who they kill?
02 Apr 06
4 edits
Originally posted by chancremechanicjust thought i would put in wikipedia's opinion:
Does SJ know the facts about the Liberty?...has he mentioned anything about what Israel did that day? He may just be ignorant of the facts, 'cause SJ's brother was in the Navy, so I don't think it's his love for Israel in this matter.
Liberty incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a U.S. Navy intelligence ship, USS Liberty (AGTR-5), in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of El Arish, by Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967. It occurred during the Six-Day War, a conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 171.
Israel's, the CIA and NSA positions on the incident is that it was a case of mistaken identity and was entirely due to error. Israel contends that it was assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, and that its air and naval forces wrongly identified the Liberty at various stages as either a Russian intelligence ship that was providing information to the Arabs, or as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir.
Critics assert that the attack was a premeditated and deliberate Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship. They say that it is not credible that the Liberty could be mistaken for the El Quseir which was a quarter its size. Critics include some of the surviving crew members, such as James Ennes, and some former U.S. government officials, including then-CIA director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
The United States and Israel exchanged diplomatic notes after several inquiries. Though the United States never officially accepted the Israeli explanation, it agreed to accept indemnities of $13 million, for damage and casualties.
it seems there is plenty of scope for the support groups from either side to read the incident in their preferred way.
i choose to agree with the people who use this as justification for peace ... from either side ... go peace go !!!
some prefer to use it, and many other similar incidents, as an excuse for violence ... from either side ... i disagree with them.
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI can use the same analogy on how you support the Arabs no matter how many soldiers they kill. Don't change the subject. We were talking about the Israeli conflicts.
Israel feels no need to answer any questions; why should they when they have people like slimjim supporting them 100% no matter what they do and who they kill?
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWikipedia does not agree with you. Here is what it says :
The extreme illogic and ignorance of right wingers on this site never ceases to amaze me. Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister was indicted, among other things, for Crimes Against Peace for having a hand in the various Nazi aggressions. He claimed that Germany was acting in self-defense and in fact MADE THE SAME EXACT CLAIM YOU SET FORTH ABOVE to wit "All nati ...[text shortened]... r action it deems fit (preemptive and otherwise) to protect itself"! The defense didn't work.
*****************
Ribbentrop was a defendant at the Nuremberg Trials, and the Allies' International Military Tribunal found him guilty of all charges brought against him. Even in prison, Ribbentrop remained subservient to Hitler, stating "Even with all I know, if in this cell Hitler should come to me and say 'Do this!', I would still do it4."
During the trial, Ribbentrop rather unsuccessfully attempted to deny his role in the war. For example, during his cross-examination, the prosecution brought up claims that he (along with Hitler and Göring) threatened the leader of Czechoslovakia, Emil Hacha, with a "threat of aggressive action." The questioning resulted in the following exchange [3]:
PROSECUTION: What further pressure could you put on the head of a country beyond threatening him that your Army would march in, in overwhelming strength, and your air force would bomb his capital?
RIBBENTROP: War, for instance.
While not recorded in the trial transcript, Göring was said to have remarked, after hearing these words, that Ribbentrop deserved to hang, if only for his stupidity.
************
Where is the SELF DEFENCE argument ?
Please post the source of your information ?
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Unfortunately the sum of all human knowledge is not contained in Wikipedia. If one wants to discover the arguments of the defense at Nuremberg, you must go to the actual source materials or at least books written concerning the trial by knowledgeable parties. I have a very good book by Teleford Taylor, one of the prosecutors at Nuremberg, around here somewhere that goes into great detail about the German defense arguments; I'll try to find it.
Wikipedia does not agree with you. Here is what it says :
*****************
Ribbentrop was a defendant at the Nuremberg Trials, and the Allies' International Military Tribunal found him guilty of all charges brought against him. Even in prison, Ribbentrop remained subservient to Hitler, stating "Even with all I know, if in this cell Hitler should come to *
Where is the SELF DEFENCE argument ?
Please post the source of your information ?
The proceedings at Nuremberg are also covered in international law courses. The treatise International Law by Henkin, Pugh, Schachter and Smit has a discussion of the Nuremberg Crimes Against Peace defense. It states on p. 674:
The defense argued on behalf of the German defendants that although a nation could not wage aggressive war without transgressing international law, it could use war as an instrument of self-defense and that the nation itself must be the sole judge of whether its actions were in self-defense.
This is precisely the claim you made above.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderCareful. If you advocate principles of responsible scholarship, someone will accuse you of Liberalism.
Unfortunately the sum of all human knowledge is not contained in Wikipedia. If one wants to discover the arguments of the defense at Nuremberg, you must go to the actual source materials or at least books written concerning the trial by knowledgeable parties.
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmorehttp://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=40505
just thought i would put in wikipedia's opinion:
[i/] Liberty incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a U.S. Navy intelligence ship, USS Liberty (AGTR-5), in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of El Arish, by Israeli fi ...[text shortened]... er similar incidents, as an excuse for violence ... from either side ... i disagree with them.
The sailors who were there have a different opinion than the official Israeli position. The ship was bombed, torpedoed and strafed with machine gun fire for a protracted period. The USS Liberty was flying a US flag, had clear markings indicating it was a US ship and was stationed in international waters.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI have the full text of the protocols of the trial, so I have done some reading. Especially interesting in this context are Ribbentrop's answers to General Rudenko (97th day of the trial, exactly 60 years ago). Asked whether the annexation of Czechoslovakia, the attack on Denmark, the attack on Poland etc. were German acts of aggression, he consequently answers no. He calls them "preventive interventions". He doesn't use the word self-defence, but the meaning is clear enough. Here are two examples:
Unfortunately the sum of all human knowledge is not contained in Wikipedia. If one wants to discover the arguments of the defense at Nuremberg, you must go to the actual source materials or at least books written concerning the trial by knowledgeable parties. I have a very good book by Teleford Taylor, one of the prosecutors at Nuremberg, around here som ...[text shortened]... hether its actions were in self-defense.
This is precisely the claim you made above.
"Nein, der Überfall auf Dänemark, wie er bezeichnet wird, das heißt das Eingreifen, wie wir sagen, in Dänemark war nach dem, was der Führer mir gesagt und mir dargestellt hat, eine Präventivmaßnahme gegenüber der kurz bevorstehenden Landung englischer Streitkräfte."
(My quick 'n dirty translation: "No, the attack on Denmark, as it is called, that is the intervention, as we call it, in Denmark was, according to what the Führer has told me and presented to me, a preventive measure against the imminent landing of English forces." )
About the attack on the Soviet Union:
"Jedenfalls fürchtete er, mit dieser ganzen politischen Lage eines Tages in eine Situation zu kommen, die sich für ganz Deutschland katastrophal hätte auswirken können, nämlich, er wollte damit verhindern die Niederlage Deutschlands und die Zerstörung des Gleichgewichts der Kräfte in Europa."
("In any case he [Hitler] feared that with this political situation he might one day get into a situation which might have had a disastrous effect on the whole of Germany, that is, he wanted to avoid the defeat of Germany and the destruction of the balance of powers in Europe." )
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PeachyIt would have helped if Ribbentrop hadn't had a tendency to use very longwinded and chaotic sentences. 😞 If I want to be as literal as possible in my translation, the result is necessarily longwinded and chaotic.
Take your time for all future translations dear. 😉
(And it has taken me long enough to find some relevant quotes, going through hundreds of pages. 😞)
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by NordlysYou have my pity that you read Ribbentrop's testimony; from the sources I have it is described as unbelievably turgid. As the premise was a legal argument, perhaps a more explicit statement may be contained in defense counsel's closing arguments. Horn was Ribbentrop's I believe, although most of the general principles of law were contained in Jahrreiss'. If there's a good Index, anything relating to Count 2 and defense motions might be a more rich vein.
I have the full text of the protocols of the trial, so I have done some reading. Especially interesting in this context are Ribbentrop's answers to General Rudenko (97th day of the trial, exactly 60 years ago). Asked whether the annexation of Czechoslovakia, the attack on Denmark, the attack on Poland etc. were German acts of aggression, he consequently answ ...[text shortened]... id the defeat of Germany and the destruction of the balance of powers in Europe." )