That was the primary reason why it was established, though it also serves political purposes, but these are in response to the West’s “war on historical memory” equating the USSR with Nazi Germany and blaming both for World War II.
The only correct way to reveal the whole truth about WWII is by organizing a real trial... That is: a fair trial, with neutral judges. Not trials like the Nürnberg tribunals, where one party, dressed up as judges, judged the other party.
Just imagine that it happens to you. You have a row with your neighbor. He accuses you of all kinds of crimes. You have to appear in court, and what do you see there? The judge is... your neighbor, dressed in a black robe. What would you think of such a "trial?"
It doesn't work that way. In a highly public trial - like Nuremberg or Eichmann, it is not so much about bias or non-bias of the judge(s), but about the publicly accessible court transcripts. It is these that give the court and the verdict legitimacy or non-legitimacy.
With Nuremberg, the Soviet side wanted to stress more the crime of war aggression rather than the crimes against humanity. Simply because by the time of Nuremberg, the Soviet state already had 3 years of experience of conducting war crime trials. Their experience was that most Soviet citizens informed about the trials showed little sympathy to the murdered victims when they knew that the biggest (or 2nd biggest) victim group were not Slavs. Hence the stress on punishing war aggression per se, and talking of victims as Soviet citizens.
Andrew, I don’t know if you’ve seen Lavrov’s latest remarks. They clearly cast a grim light on all our questions about Putin’s apparent restraint.
In any case, these statements completely contradict any idea that the Russian leadership is reckless or naive.
Lavrov is clear: Europe is preparing for a full-scale war against Russia within five years, and Ukraine is just a way to drain Russian resources before the confrontation. He adds that it’s no longer even a proxy war — it’s out in the open — and concludes that Russia must prepare.
So perhaps Putin believes that firmness is no longer of any use, and for reasons we don’t yet know, Russia (and China) wants to buy time by keeping a low profile and absorbing the blows, while relying as little as possible on resources in Ukraine — which has become a secondary theater, where a military resolution would solve nothing and only be exhausting.
I think that Lavrov has shifted from a "moderate"/balancer to a "hawkish" since being sidelined by Putin in favor of Dmitriev last October regarding talks with the US.
I expect that Lavrov will be allowed to retire (he's reportedly wanted to for some time but then the SMO came up) once the SMO ends.
This doesn't mean that what he says isn't important, and he still officially represents MFA, Putin, and therefore Russia, but I'm not reading too deeply into it.
There's no mobilization in Russia like you'd expect ahead of a large-scale war and the economy is really struggling right now. It's also election season.
About that, some reports claim that United Russia of which Lavrov is a part isn't doing too well ahead of the legislative polls, and that's for a variety of reasons.
One of them might be that some Russians share the same critiques that we do about Putin's restraint, etc., ergo an ulterior reason why Lavrov would speak like this.
He might also be looking for a comfy sinecure at a "hawkish" think tank after retirement from the MFA.
Anyhow, I don't see any war preparations here in Moscow nor have I read about any, including on Russian telegram channels that sometimes spread unconfirmed information.
It therefore seems to me that while the assessment is likely accurate, and I generally agree with it, Russia isn't behaving as though policymakers truly expect that to happen.
T he idea that Russia was as responsible for WWII and all the attrocities is absolut N ONSENSE. Germany started the war and came up to the gates of Moscow. Germany was defeated by the great RED army. 95% of the German/axis troops killed got killed fighting the Russians. The numbers speak l for them selves. Russia won WWII in Europe singlehandedly.
Not only Germany. There was Italy, Hungary, Romania, Tchekoslovakia, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Croatia and volonteers from France, Belgium, Nederland, Norway and Spain. Hundreds of thousands of european volunteers. Never forget that.
If Russia thinks that this will curry them any favor, they're wrong.
Russia will always be depicted as the Stalin-Era Soviet Union reborn, when the audience are right wingers, and as a fascist theocracy, when the audience is of a lefty persuasion.
Much like how Jews were once simultaneously dangerous radical subversives, religious obscurantists, capitalist pigs and Marxists. All at once.
The only correct way to reveal the whole truth about WWII is by organizing a real trial... That is: a fair trial, with neutral judges. Not trials like the Nürnberg tribunals, where one party, dressed up as judges, judged the other party.
Just imagine that it happens to you. You have a row with your neighbor. He accuses you of all kinds of crimes. You have to appear in court, and what do you see there? The judge is... your neighbor, dressed in a black robe. What would you think of such a "trial?"
An impartial judge.... Well, well, well what an interesting dream.
In France we say:
Do you know what is a good lawyer?
A good lawyer knows perfectly the case.
A very good lawyer knows the judge.
It doesn't work that way. In a highly public trial - like Nuremberg or Eichmann, it is not so much about bias or non-bias of the judge(s), but about the publicly accessible court transcripts. It is these that give the court and the verdict legitimacy or non-legitimacy.
With Nuremberg, the Soviet side wanted to stress more the crime of war aggression rather than the crimes against humanity. Simply because by the time of Nuremberg, the Soviet state already had 3 years of experience of conducting war crime trials. Their experience was that most Soviet citizens informed about the trials showed little sympathy to the murdered victims when they knew that the biggest (or 2nd biggest) victim group were not Slavs. Hence the stress on punishing war aggression per se, and talking of victims as Soviet citizens.
Andrew, I don’t know if you’ve seen Lavrov’s latest remarks. They clearly cast a grim light on all our questions about Putin’s apparent restraint.
In any case, these statements completely contradict any idea that the Russian leadership is reckless or naive.
Lavrov is clear: Europe is preparing for a full-scale war against Russia within five years, and Ukraine is just a way to drain Russian resources before the confrontation. He adds that it’s no longer even a proxy war — it’s out in the open — and concludes that Russia must prepare.
So perhaps Putin believes that firmness is no longer of any use, and for reasons we don’t yet know, Russia (and China) wants to buy time by keeping a low profile and absorbing the blows, while relying as little as possible on resources in Ukraine — which has become a secondary theater, where a military resolution would solve nothing and only be exhausting.
What do you think?
I think that Lavrov has shifted from a "moderate"/balancer to a "hawkish" since being sidelined by Putin in favor of Dmitriev last October regarding talks with the US.
I expect that Lavrov will be allowed to retire (he's reportedly wanted to for some time but then the SMO came up) once the SMO ends.
This doesn't mean that what he says isn't important, and he still officially represents MFA, Putin, and therefore Russia, but I'm not reading too deeply into it.
There's no mobilization in Russia like you'd expect ahead of a large-scale war and the economy is really struggling right now. It's also election season.
About that, some reports claim that United Russia of which Lavrov is a part isn't doing too well ahead of the legislative polls, and that's for a variety of reasons.
One of them might be that some Russians share the same critiques that we do about Putin's restraint, etc., ergo an ulterior reason why Lavrov would speak like this.
He might also be looking for a comfy sinecure at a "hawkish" think tank after retirement from the MFA.
Anyhow, I don't see any war preparations here in Moscow nor have I read about any, including on Russian telegram channels that sometimes spread unconfirmed information.
It therefore seems to me that while the assessment is likely accurate, and I generally agree with it, Russia isn't behaving as though policymakers truly expect that to happen.
Thank you, those informations are precious.
Always welcome!
T he idea that Russia was as responsible for WWII and all the attrocities is absolut N ONSENSE. Germany started the war and came up to the gates of Moscow. Germany was defeated by the great RED army. 95% of the German/axis troops killed got killed fighting the Russians. The numbers speak l for them selves. Russia won WWII in Europe singlehandedly.
Not only Germany. There was Italy, Hungary, Romania, Tchekoslovakia, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Croatia and volonteers from France, Belgium, Nederland, Norway and Spain. Hundreds of thousands of european volunteers. Never forget that.
These were the Axis troops that got killed.
If Russia thinks that this will curry them any favor, they're wrong.
Russia will always be depicted as the Stalin-Era Soviet Union reborn, when the audience are right wingers, and as a fascist theocracy, when the audience is of a lefty persuasion.
Much like how Jews were once simultaneously dangerous radical subversives, religious obscurantists, capitalist pigs and Marxists. All at once.
Way Russia end Putin not remembering genocide by Boljsevik elite 90% of them was the Jews. Why only Nazi. Communist kills Moore Russian than nazie .
Does the PRC recognise the genocides committed by Japanese Imperial Forces during the aggressive occupation of 1931-1945?
Excuse me but I don't understand your question. Problem of translation?