Why was Warsaw's destruction not declared a Nazi war crime by Nuremberg? Was it actually destroyed by Soviets? There was no Warsaw destruction listed in court sentence anywhere, despite Poles putting loads of documents for the court to consider, just like Soviets did with Katyn, but were repelled by the court.
Was Stalin responsible for Warsaw destruction the same way he lost Katyn case in Nuremberg?
Dachau and Buchenwald aren't mentioned in the sentencing either, weirdly enough. Auschwitz had an episode of women getting neutered in indictment, but no mention of it in the sentencing. Were the Soviets responsible for all of those, I wonder? Judging by how it is claimed that since Katyn is missing in the sentencing, it means that court refused the accusation
152 posts and 26 image replies omitted.>>2920285>Out of 58 confirmed Nazi crimes, only 1 made it into verdictNope.
>>2920287What are you on about? Do you see Dachau or Buchenwald or Aushwitz anywhere in the verdict?
>>2920291>>2920295>>2920296None of these are about Katyn lol
Please quote where Katyn is mentioned pls snd thank
>>2920305Find Buchenwald, k thanks
>>2920314There's an entire section on the concentration camps
Now quote where Katyn appears pls and thank
>>2920305Katyn was mentioned in Goring's case, and Katyn was never strucken out of the indictment. Since Goring failed to defend even one case against himself, Katyn is still in
Meanwhile, there were documents stricken out. For example, when a defendant tried to sneak in "secret protocols" of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
>>2920322What? All of those:
>>2920291>>2920295>>2920296Speak about Katyn. Buchenwald was never mentioned by name.
Oh, and also, destruction of Warsaw was never mentioned either.
>>2920324I can't find it in your picture. Can you post screenshot of Göring's case exactly where Katyn is mentioned?
>>2920324>Meanwhile, there were documents stricken out. For example, when a defendant tried to sneak in "secret protocols" of Molotov-Ribbentrop.I mean, a defendant tried to ADD to the indictment by claiming that secret protocols were real and factual. Court dismissed the document and struck it out of indictment because authenticity of such document was never proven
>>2920327It's not in the verdict, it's in 17th volume, Otto Starmer was defending Goering, asking for witnesses and such. Since it was never struck out of the protocols, it's still a Goering's crime, as per Nuremberg trials' rules - since Nuremberg trials run under inquisitorial anglo-saxon court rules
>>2920336Can you post it here? I would give you many thanks.
>>2920341https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.aspIt stopped loading for me, but you can look it up here still.
>>2920346I read through it and it does not appear like the Soviet side had a good argument in court. They said signal battalion 537 carried out the executions and the Nazis were like signal groups do not have enough weapons for such actions. It really feels like the Soviet side had no experience with bourgeois law. Asking about Butz and other members af the German team like trying to imply it was a provocation but cannot get the defense to admit it. Too much reliance on weak circumstantial evidence the defense easily gets away with. If the rest of the Nuremberg trials were like this, I understand why Nazi apologists laugh at them.
>>2920374>it does not appear like the Soviet side had a good argument in courtExcept Soviet side has the only arguments in that court, because the other side said nonsense like wolves digging 1.5 meters into the frozen soil to get corpses out, lmao
>>2920380>>2920374Oh, and by the way, how do you rate Ahrens' words that Germans were conducting live fire drills in the same forest where they "found later" Polish corpses?
>>2920324>What? All of those:German massacres that have nothing to do with Katyn.
>Speak about Katyn. Buchenwald was never mentioned by name.The concentration system as a whole was mentioned. Where is Katyn?
>>2920389Are you implying that Germans didn't kill Polish officers and intelligentsia outside of concentration camps?
Do you even know that Poles killed by Germans in Katyn were POWed by Germans and kept in a concentrtion camp, until eventual murder?
>>2920390Katyn isn't mentioned in the verdict because not even the Nuremberg judges were convinced the Germans did Katyn.
>>2920386>>2920380I am not a lawyer so I don't know how a case like this should be handled. The Tyler Robinson case was the latest I saw and I found it weird how the old defense lawyer was trying to undermine a DNA forensic method. That being said, since this was not a jury trial, I find the whole thing a hard to follow mess of he said she said. Germans said stupid shit too, but I don't see any evidence from Soviet side except towards the end about body decomposition. Like how do they know it was exactly that unit that did it and not some einsatzgruppe?
>>2920395He was talking about specifically the destruction of Warsaw.
>>2920395Doesn't mention destruction of Warsaw, only of ghetto. I guess, Soviets did it, right?
Like another anon said it best,
>>2920325>>2920396>but I don't see any evidence from Soviet sideExcuse me? Burdenko commission? Massive amount of forensics and witness testimonies, as well as making fun of German idiotic defence?
>>2920398>>2920399What do you think "aggression against Poland" entails?
Btw the Soviet prosecution at Nuremberg only fielded 3 witnesses for Katyn, none of whom were actual eyewitnesses to the massacre.
No wonder Katyn was dropped from the final verdict lol.
>>2920403By that logic Katyn also falls under German Aggression against Poland.
>>2920405Neither did Germany. They just claimed some people told them something.
>>2920406>By that logic Katyn also falls under German Aggression against Poland.No, because Katyn was Soviet aggression.
>Neither did Germany.How are they supposed to prove a negative?
>>2920409>Soviet aggressionNot at the time of the nuremberg trials
>prove a negativeUsually the side making the accusation has to prove it. In this case, the nazis should have brought witnesses to nuremberg who claimed to hear and see nkvd executions in 1940.
Are you Polish by any chance?
>>2920425>Not at the time of the nuremberg trialsExactly. Which is why Katyn was rejected in the final judgement.
>Usually the side making the accusation has to prove it.Yes. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, agreed. The Soviets did not fulfill their burden, which is why Nuremberg rejected their allegations.
>>2920448>Real men don't wear crowns, drop the jewellery, become the ChadZesty.
>>2920149These excerpts only prove that as long as the conditions for the withering away of the state are not met, there will still be the dictatorship of the proletariat, this means that even with the socialization of the economy there will still be the dictatorship of the proletariat to maintain the supremacy of the proletarian class, this means that there will be a socialist state even having extinguished the bourgeoisie within a country, abolished private property, the anarchy of production and social classes of owners in the country that had a communist revolution.
This follows what Marx and Engels wrote:
<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat[…]
<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmAny proletarian state that has socialized its economy to follow a national economic plan, enabling workers to acquire means of consumption without profit, in accordance with labor and need, will be a socialist state; because an international bourgeoisie will still exist elsewhere in the world, alongside agents funded by it to oppose the supremacy of the proletariat, there will therefore be a proletarian state, and thus a socialist state, so long as there is no global socialist hegemony.
>>2920525Socialism is the first stage of communism. There is no mention of the state in the first stage of communism.
>>2920527Wrong. When Engels and Marx wrote about the withering away of the state they were referring to the high phase of communism, that is, full communism, the lower phase of communism has limitations of bourgeois rights:
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter Ihttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmMarx writes about what transformations there will be in communist society. He is not writing at all that the state will be abolished as you keep thinking that it is:
<"Present-day society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from medieval admixture, more or less modified by the particular historical development of each country, more or less developed. On the other hand, the "present-day state" changes with a country's frontier. It is different in the Prusso-German Empire from what it is in Switzerland, and different in England from what it is in the United States. The "present-day state" is therefore a fiction.
<Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.
<The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter IVhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm >>2920576>the lower phase of communism has limitations of bourgeois rightsNone of which includes a state. The state, i.e., the DotP, is primarily used to ostensibly crush counterrevolutionary sentiment.
You can keep copy-pasting irrelevant excerpts about the transitionary phase all you want. There is no evidence that the state is part of the first stage of communism.
>>2920613Your own citations prove my point by the way.
>>2920614>>2920613You remain mistaken. A country that has socialized its economy following a revolution still faces the problem of capitalists abroad acting against a proletarian state; therefore, the state will persist.
You have once again overlooked the passage Marx wrote: "What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'."
From this point on, he is not denying the persistence of the state in a communist society; this means you are wrong to claim there will be no dictatorship of the proletariat during the lower phase of communism. For that is the conclusion here.
>>2920625>A country that has socialized its economy following a revolution still faces the problem of capitalists abroad acting against a proletarian state; therefore, the state will persist.This is mostly Lenin's interpretation. The DotP per Marx and Engels strictly focuses on suppressing the domestic bourgeois. Engels expected simultaneous revolution across the advanced nations.
>You have once again overlooked the passage Marx wrote: "What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'."He is asking what state-like functions might remain in communist society, not that a state will necessarily exist in the lower phase.
>he is not denying the persistence of the state in a communist societyNobody said he "denied" anything. If anything Marx is being opaque. Nevertheless, a state is not described anywhere in the definition of the lower phase of communism. If you want to argue the DotP continues into the lower phase, you need to argue that the transition period and the lower phase are the same thing, even though Marx distinguishes the two.
>>2920646>This is mostly Lenin's interpretation. The DotP per Marx and Engels strictly focuses on suppressing the domestic bourgeois. Engels expected simultaneous revolution across the advanced nations.You remain mistaken. Expecting revolution in several countries does not mean insisting that reality *must* produce simultaneous revolutions. Marx's own writings—such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*—indicate that the proletariat must initially contend with its own national bourgeoisie; had Marx stubbornly insisted that a simultaneous global communist revolution was mandatory, neither he nor Engels would have supported the Paris Commune.
Furthermore, they would not have offered the critique contained in the following passages:
<It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune, but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.
<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Communehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm
<If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting. What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months of hunger and ruin, caused rather by internal treachery than by the external enemy, they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets, as if there had never been a war between France and Germany and the enemy were not at the gates of Paris. History has no like example of a like greatness. If they are defeated only their “good nature” will be to blame. They should have marched at once on Versailles, after first Vinoy and then the reactionary section of the Paris National Guard had themselves retreated. The right moment was missed because of conscientious scruples. They did not want to start the civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers had not already started the civil war with his attempt to disarm Paris. Second mistake: The Central Committee surrendered its power too soon, to make way for the Commune. Again from a too “honorable” scrupulosity! However that may be, the present rising in Paris – even if it be crushed by the wolves, swine and vile curs of the old society – is the most glorious deed of our Party since the June insurrection in Paris. Compare these Parisians, storming heaven, with the slave to heaven of the German-Prussian Holy Roman Empire, with its posthumous masquerades reeking of the barracks, the Church, cabbage-junkerdom and above all, of the philistine.
<Marx to Dr Kugelmann Concerning the Paris Commune, April 12, 1871https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htmBesides, you are overlooking this:
<Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.
<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
>He is asking what state-like functions might remain in communist society, not that a state will necessarily exist in the lower phase.But you said that he denied there would be state functions. My argument is that the conditions for the withering away of the state will not be met until there is global socialist hegemony—or do you think it is possible to have full communism in a single country while surrounded by capitalists?
>Nobody said he "denied" anything. If anything Marx is being opaque. Nevertheless, a state is not described anywhere in the definition of the lower phase of communism. If you want to argue the DotP continues into the lower phase, you need to argue that the transition period and the lower phase are the same thing, even though Marx distinguishes the two.When Marx writes about the lower phase of communism he writes about an economic change in the organization of society's means of production along with its class relations due to the abolition of private property, social classes and the anarchy of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a change of political control where the proletarian class organized as a class will become the ruling class to socialize the economy, abolish social classes and suppress those who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class. This new social order will endure until the state withers away completely; while various changes may occur, the state will remain to suppress those who wish to return to the previous order—a necessity arising because foreign capitalists will fund agents to act against any proletarian state and attempt to overthrow it.
>>2920681>Expecting revolution in several countries does not mean insisting that reality *must* produce simultaneous revolutions. Marx's own writings—such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*—indicate that the proletariat must initially contend with its own national bourgeoisie; had Marx stubbornly insisted that a simultaneous global communist revolution was mandatory, neither he nor Engels would have supported the Paris Commune.Doesn't address anything I've said, but ok.
>But you said that he denied there would be state functions.I said there is no mention of the state in the lower phase of communism, which remains true.
If the state cannot wither away until global socialism, then the DotP persists throughout the transition, up to the point where global conditions are met. It does not follow that the state is a feature of the lower phase of communism. You're still equivocating between the transition phase and lower phase of communism.
>When Marx writes about the lower phase of communism he writes about an economic change in the organization of society's means of production along with its class relations due to the abolition of private property, social classes and the anarchy of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a change of political control where the proletarian class organized as a class will become the ruling class to socialize the economy, abolish social classes and suppress those who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class. This new social order will endure until the state withers away completely; while various changes may occur, the state will remain to suppress those who wish to return to the previous order—a necessity arising because foreign capitalists will fund agents to act against any proletarian state and attempt to overthrow it.Begging the question.
>>2920435>Which is why Katyn was rejected in the final judgement.There was NO rejection of Katyn anywhere in Nuremberg. Buchenwald and destruction of Warsaw are not in the final judgement, but are proven to be German acts - same as Katyn.
You cannot claim that Nuremberg had doubts about Katyn without invoking that Buchenwald and Warsaw destruction weren't Nazi crimes - which is Nazi crime denialism.
You have to drop this line of argument permanently, because Nuremberg did, in fact, persecute Goring, Hess and others for Katyn. But specifically Goring was the defendant on Katyn, and Nuremberg didn't abscond him of guilt during the Katyn hearing, as it was not stricken out of indictment. This is also proven by the fact that Nuremberg did drop stuff out of indictment, like the aforementioned case of secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which was DISMISSED by Nuremberg court outright as having no factual evidence behind it even existing
>>2920711Oh, and also, Romanov
not a real person btw, but rather a collection of anticommunist writers from katynfiles doesn't go over Nuremberg trials' rules and proceedings specifically because if he were to read them out loud his whole position would fucking collapse. Hence, instead of open and direct going over rules and proceedings, he instead tries to recreate them off records of certain cases - a certified conspiracy theorist behaviour. In our case, though, he is more like those sleazy climate change denialist scientists who attack late edits on papers as a proof of paper being rushed and untrustworthy
Katynfiles takes you people for idiots. It's not factual, it's propaganda
>>2920701You remain mistaken. In the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx is already including the lower phase of communism when he writes about the state.
<Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter IVhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm >>2920836>Marx is already including the lower phase of communism when he writes about the state.That's not what the excerpt says, you copy-pasting retard. He's referring to the organized collective and community of a potential communist society, not to a state in the traditional, class-based sense.
>>2921643You remain mistaken. Marx is criticizing Lassalle's concept of the "free state," which tends toward class conciliation without resorting to anarchist fantasies.
Unique IPs: 12