Colombo, International, International Relations, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance

The Curious Case of Diplomats & that ‘Internal Conflict’

We are in the USA, far away from Sri Lanka. Dr. Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN (in New York), had this to say: “We have come to a point where we don’t need to be defensive. As a country we need to be proud, we need to reach out, we need to look outwards, and express ourselves in a confident manner…” Important words, expressed after Sri Lanka’s Independence Day celebrations.

We are in Sri Lanka, far away from the USA. Things do not seem to be easy, the message is of a different nature; a call to be defensive (or offensive? or both?). The Prime Minister had the following to say, in Parliament: that the government has been informed that plans are being made by certain LTTE sympathizers and other elements in the Tamil diaspora in Europe to raise ‘war-crimes’ allegations, again, at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. This, I believe, is not news to anyone. Such plans will be hatched, until those who are alleged pass away, that is to say, until one reaches a point where allegations (and investigations) are meaningless because the alleged are no more. There is then a need to wake up, to realize, that such allegations even if they are dropped by States, will be made by various organizations, for years, if not decades.

How then are the diplomats going to “reach out”, “look outwards” and still defend the country and its leaders, at the UNHRC or elsewhere? This question seems to cause a lot of concern, naturally. Member of Parliament Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha informs that the regular meetings in Geneva will commence soon. There is some hope, since Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe is back. He together with the current External Affairs Minister will be a “tremendous force”, says Prof. Wijesinha (see ‘The Usual Suspects Threaten the Galle Literary Festival’)

One question, however, is whether there is enough progress made especially in the human rights front. Much of the investigations which began years ago have not been completed. There are attacks directed at media institutions. The final report of the LLRC will be out only later, after it completes its sittings. Legislation stuck in Parliament (the Draft Witness and Victim Protection Bill, for instance) has not come out. There are disturbing reports coming from the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, about killings and disappearances. This is why I tend to think that the task at the UNHRC is not going to be an easy one. As raised in these columns before, and as Mr. HMGS Palihakkara (a former Foreign Secretary) put it more eloquently in his ‘Prof JE Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture’ recently: “governance and foreign policy are functionally linked. So are the attendant challenges … when you get your governance act together, getting your foreign policy act together will be less of a problem.”

In sharp contrast, there are others who seem to paint a ‘rosy’ picture of the situation in Sri Lanka, and furthermore, about diplomacy. Ms. Sarala Fernando, a former diplomat in ‘Fixing the Problem’ (Sri Lanka Guardian), argues that much work has been done in the areas of resettlement and demining (which may be true, especially as regards the issue of resettlement, as acknowledged even by the US Ambassador in Sri Lanka). But then she argues that there has been a statistical “decline” in the allegations of human rights violations (decline, as in a drop in the number of allegations?), that there are only a “few” cases of disappearances remaining (few, as in not too much? not too many?), and comes up with a fantastic suggestion: “Is it not time for all the good news to be collated and disseminated through a credible website? How else to combat the endless propaganda churned out by the diaspora?” And then comes this: “such a site should not be ‘propagandist’ but represent creative diplomacy, using your assets to ‘attract’ attention and sending out a positive message.”

Is it that easy? Will that kind of diplomacy (what can we call it, ‘dot com’ or ‘dot lk’ diplomacy?) work, given the kind of challenges confronting Sri Lanka’s human rights record? What will this website say about the W/V Protection draft legislation, for instance (‘stuck in parliament, thanks for visiting the website’)? What will it say about the killings and abductions of journalists which remain to be investigated successfully? In any case, does not the government have enough websites already which disseminate information about issues pertaining to resettlement, demining, etc.? And how can such a site, Ms. Fernando’s site, be creative, and not ‘propagandist’? ‘Creative diplomacy’: as in creative with different types and sizes of fonts, or with nice colours, shades and patterns? Or creative, perhaps, with numbers, figures and facts?

Why then this focus on ‘dot lk’ diplomacy, one may ask. It is because a case is being made for ‘quiet’ or ‘traditional’ diplomacy; which had to be made, given what Prof. Wijesinha had to say: “… to ensure maximum impact [at the UNHRC in Geneva], they will need to involve Dayan [Jayatilleka] again in their deliberations, as well as their activities, though that should not be too difficult since he is now resident in Paris as our Ambassador.”

Now, I hesitate to endorse Prof. Wijesinha’s argument, because Ambassador Jayatilleka is not a ‘solution’ today, in that solutions need to come from Sri Lanka in the form of a significant improvement of human rights protection and the activities of the HR Commission, the passing of necessary legislation, the implementation of certain human rights action plans, etc. (issues on which Prof. Wijesinha is better able to answer as he is working on those areas back home). And since Ambassador Jayatilleka is not in Geneva, one cannot and should not expect a diplomat based elsewhere to do what other diplomats are supposed to do (unless of course a precedent has been set, since one saw, in some video clips, Ambassador Kshenuka Seneviratne in London during President Rajapaksa’s ill-planned ‘Oxford trip’!)

But interestingly, it is not this line of critique that some former diplomats, or ‘professional’ diplomats, have adopted. The approach adopted, rather strangely, is to show that Ambassador Jayatilleka’s brand of diplomacy was responsible for the emergence of the Special Session and that the success Sri Lanka achieved during that Special Session is, in any case, of marginal or very little importance.

So determined is Ms. Fernando to prove so, that her determination transforms into an amateurish argument. She claims that the sympathy and goodwill gained due to the tsunami disaster was such that: “supported by quiet diplomacy, that goodwill extended over a period of years, such that when I left Geneva in early 2007, a Special Session on Sri Lanka would have been unthinkable.” That, sadly, is an unthinkable statement, a misreading of the kind of pressure exerted on certain States by elements of the diaspora, which, along with the accusations raised by other human rights organizations, made such a Special Session necessary and inevitable in the eyes of the Western powers. A Special Session would have been unthinkable if only the armed conflict had ended in 2007!

But more seriously, it turns out that she was, at the time of leaving Geneva, well aware of a “highly critical draft EU resolution on Sri Lanka on the HRC agenda from 2006”, as pointed out by her successor, Ambassador Jayatilleka (in ‘The Geneva Consensus: Setting the Record Straight’). Ms. Fernando has not yet responded adequately to this serious charge.

While the pros and cons of ‘quiet diplomacy’ and ‘megaphone diplomacy’ need to be examined in a separate column, what is unfortunate is this attempt made to belittle the success gained in Geneva. Unfortunately, even Mr. Palihakkara seems to be reluctant to accept this when he argues that the most formidable challenge Sri Lanka faced was not in Geneva but in New York, because it is only the UN Security Council that could (rightly) issue a legally binding directive, and that: “Since such a decree would be legally binding, it would be qualitatively different from other similar calls, including a resolution in the Human Rights Council in Geneva which can be only recommendatory in nature and thus not legally binding.”

Firstly, what is unfortunate here is the inability or unwillingness to appreciate the seriousness of what could have happened had the UNHRC passed a resolution calling for an international investigation.

Secondly (and this is the most startling point of all), this belittling of the success achieved in Geneva comes, not from LTTE-sympathizers or elements in the diaspora (because for them, the Geneva outcome was a serious and damning blow anyway). This success is being belittled by our own diplomats, who served the country, together, during that challenging period! This, to me, is the greatest tragedy of all. Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, in his recent speech on the importance of civil society, quotes a passage from Judge CG Weeramantry’s book titled ‘A Call for National Reawakening’. Reading that, I was reminded of another passage contained in Judge Weeramantry’s book, wherein the author refers to one of Sri Lanka’s national weaknesses: ‘Envy at the success of others.’

This is what Judge Weeramantry wrote: “It seems to be almost a national trait that much envy is shown towards those who achieve a measure of success above one’s own. This has been the subject of many wry jokes such as the story of the pits in hell, allocated to different nationalities, each of which had guards placed above it to prevent unauthorized escapes. The Sri Lankan pit alone had no guards and when a visitor inquired why this was so he was told that for Sri Lanka it was not wanted, as the inmates themselves would pull down any one who was about to escape and improve his condition… So long as this national failing continues this will be a great impediment to the rise of Sri Lanka as a nation that will gain international recognition” (p. 19-20).

Now, let us ask ourselves the question: doesn’t that sum up quite neatly the tragedy of the Sri Lanka’s Foreign Service? Some think that ‘Geneva’ was more important than anything else; some others think it was ‘New York’; and there are those who think ‘Geneva’ could have been easily avoided. No wonder then that we have to spend millions on, or to put it less diplomatically, ‘go behind’, the Bell Pottingers to build an image! No wonder then that the LTTE sympathizers and such elements in the diaspora succeeded in their efforts overseas, for so long.

This paralysis is further aggravated by the fact that the problem is not only between the ‘professional diplomats’ and the ‘political appointees’, as some might try to show. As newspaper reports suggest, it is a problem that exists between ‘professional diplomats’ too. In such an overarching context, then, there is, of course, a need for politicians to get serious about issues of governance, including human rights protection etc. to make the task of the diplomat a less troublesome one. But then, one misses an important point here: the foreign or diplomatic service should, I believe, put its own house in order before anything else. Yes, we need a guard above our pit in hell.

  • Not-A-Rajapaksa

    What continues conspicuous by its absence is the matter of whether or not there were atrocities committed by “whoever” during the final days of the conflict. “Deny,” “Deny” continues to be the kernel of the argument and will not succeed given the fact that those calling for inquiry are NOT simply “enemies of Sri Lanka.”

    The central argument continues to be one of what “spin” is going to get us off a hook that we (our rulers) have chosen to impale ourselves on.

  • TT

    The Geneve Conventions and International laws relating to war were enacted by the biggest killers (of civilians and combatants) in the world including US, SU, UK, France, China, Japan. They ensured that they left massive loopholes in these laws (so that they can continue to engage in what they do in wars.)

    Past and future challenge to all governments including Sri Lanka is to find these loopholes and exploit them, not to abstain from violence when it is called for.

    The “war crimes” challenge (if ever it materialises) is the same.

    Will the war crimes law change after SL? I doubt it. Others need the loopholes more than SL.

  • eeurekaa

    ”LTTE sympathizers and such elements in the diaspora”

    Many respectable Sinhalese have told LLRC that LTTE was created by bad governance of successive governments from 1948. Some have even said that Tamils have been fleeing the country from 1956 onwards.

    Thus people need to stop using ”LTTE sympathizers and such elements in the diaspora” and start using ”the diaspora”.

    • TT

      What complete nonsense is this?

      In 1946 there were 733,700 Ceylon Tamils and it grew to 1,886,900 by 1981. This is a huge 157% increase. Overall population increase during this time was just 123% and the Sinhalese people increase by a mere 138%.

      [Tamils of recent Indian origin continue to flee Tamil Nadu and arrive in Sri Lanka.]

    • TT

      Bad governance also includes not nipping a military problem in the bud. Had the 1970-77 government and the 1977-82 government followed a better military strategy like the 2006-09 one, the LTTE problem would have been finished off at its birth place.

      The military is an essential part of the array of governance tools.

      Good governance today must include the pursuance of a proper, structured and effective counter insurgency strategy. Otherwise it is bad governance. Of course there are plenty of other things to do. But never forget the extreme importance of the US$1.6 billion military as one essential governance tool (among others).

      • George Berkeley said, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

        But one of the most intuitive of his sayings was “The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.”

      • TT

        DB,

        Sure! No contradiction. That’s why I said, “Of course there are plenty of other things to do. But never forget the extreme importance of the US$1.6 billion military as one essential governance tool (among others).”

      • Of course there’s a contradiction, TT. The military is there to protect the policies of the government, not be the policy.

      • TT

        DB,

        I said, “The military is an essential part of the array of governance tools.”

        You say, “The military is there to protect the policies of the government, not be the policy.”

        There is NO contradiction. I didn’t say the military should devise the governance policy. Not managing the military properly to anticipate, identify and destroy actual and potential threats to the nation and the government is BAD governance too. SL should not fall into this.

      • Your failure to see the contradiction is just one more in your long list of failures in this forum 😀

        The military is not an essential tool of governance; it is an essential tool of foreign policy and external defence. It becomes essential to governance only when government policy vis a vis its citizenry becomes or is unsustainable without the prop of military might.

  • Heshan

    The Southerners – Sinhalese electorate – are afraid to go after the “war heroes”, because it would appear to show, on one hand, ingratitude. The irony is that the “war heroes” themselves have no qualms in this regarding, considering the fate of Fonseka. When it comes to political expediency, the “war heroes” do not hesitate, as they know their fate hangs in the balance. The electorate should take a similar attitude towards their (formerly?) elected rulers. In this case, the welfare </b of the electorate hangs in the balance. Surely, the future of your children trumps any measure of gratitude that you owe to the "war heroes."

  • Heshan

    *have no qualms in this regard

  • wijayapala

    Dear Not-A-Rajapaksa

    What continues conspicuous by its absence is the matter of whether or not there were atrocities committed by “whoever” during the final days of the conflict.

    My mentor, Prof Heshan has suggested that we avoid making critical remarks against the LTTE because such remarks are alienating the Tamil diaspora. Therefore, Kalana Senaratne is quite correct for this absence of discussion on atrocities since it would implicate the LTTE. Interestingly, Prof Heshan’s ideas of avoiding discussion on sensitive topics is quite in keeping with how the Rajapakshas would like to proceed as well.

  • The Analyst

    Atrocities are committed in any war from stone age to present day |
    In SL case however Govt had no option but resorting to war in face of a defiant LTTE as peace process proved to be an abysmal failure

  • eeurekaa

    There has been a great deal of analyses on the failure of peace processes which blame both parties by academics outside Sri Lanka.
    What some eminent Sinhalese have told LLRC also has both parties as responsible.

  • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    Heshan

    The diaspora TAMIL organizations are already hoping to bring Palitha Kohona before International Criminal Court. That is for mediating the surrender of three Tiger leaders who were alleged to have been shot dead later. But he didn’t pull the trigger to kill them. Was it you then…?

  • Heshan

    iiiiiiiiii,

    Interesting case you have brought up. But I do not know how international law works. At Nuremberg , however, several prominent Nazis were implicated for indirect roles, e.g. the Minister of Armaments, Speer, was given a 20 year sentence for (supposedly) allowing his Ministry to use slave labor. Most of the other defendants never pulled the trigger either – but they issued orders, on some level. If Kahona and Gothabaya gave orders to shoot those holding white flags, then perhaps they can be considered accessories to murder or however it is defined in the context of international law.

    • wijayapala

      Prof Heshan

      But I do not know how international law works.

      You have never let your unfamiliarity with a topic stop you before. We are simply dying to hear your views on these unfamiliar topics.

      At Nuremberg , however, several prominent Nazis were implicated for indirect roles,

      And as pointed out umpteenth times before, the Nazis were tried in court because they lost.

  • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

    Look, each society decides on accountability in war: whether to deal with it in one way or another or not at all or later. If Sri Lanka wants to go one route or another on this it will elect or re-elect a party that moves a resolution in parliament to that effect.

    As for externally propelled accountability allegations and judicial processes, those can work only in one of two circumstances: the state concerened is defeated in war or enfeebled to the point it no longer controls swathes of territory and caves in (Serbia/Kosovo) AND/OR the country has elected a government which decides to hand over local military and political personnel to foreign jurisdiction.

    I think it is blindingly obvious that sri Lanka is not in the first category, and will not be in the second either: no party which, due to the record of its leadership, is suspected of being capable of such a move will be elected, and no leadership which is nationally popular enough to be elected will ansuch thing.

    popular sovereignty and national sovereignty stand guarantee for each other.

    • Zorro

      DJ,
      to quote your statement in Paris ““while Sri Lanka is proud at having emerged victoriously from thirty years of conflict it would only be able to enjoy the liberties such victory and peace bring if we as a nation realize the reasons behind the conflict and act wisely to address such issues through dialogue and on the basis of justice, equality and democracy for all.” You have wisely avoided reconcillation however.
      But according to your statement above “…no party which, due to the record of its leadership, is suspected of being capable of such a move will be elected, and no leadership which is nationally popular enough to be elected will ansuch thing….” winning elections does not necessarily mean “…justice, equality and democracy for all..” especially in a country where elections are won at its best by means polarization of the citizenry and ethnics.

      Germany has a higher standard of democracy and democratic values, reached not only via Nuremberg and Marshall plan but the Germans themselves have asked the question of why did they let themselves been manipulated by Hitler and NSDAP? You certainly know the famous Kneeling down of Willy Brandt in absolute humility in Warsaw for the atrocities of NAZIs. Still willy Brandt and this act of humility are highly respected in Germany. Why?

      • Because Germany lost the war, Zorro. Do you think if they’d won, that a Nazi chancellor of the Thousand-Year Reich would have knelt in Warsaw? There would have been no Chancellor Willy Brandt; only a modern day Fuhrer who would have visited Poland as its ruler.

        Has any prime minister of Britain knelt in Berlin or Hamburg and apologised for Bomber Harris’ fire bombing of Germany’s cities? has any US president knelt at Hiroshima or Nagasaki and apologised for those war crimes? Do you think a victorious Prabakharan, or some future PM of Tamil Eelam would have knelt in the Colombo Fort and apologised for the Central Bank attack, or the CTO bombing, or any of those acts of terror? Apologies are for the defeated.

        Reconciliation is all well and good, but you can’t expect reconciliation at the expense of the brave men who fought to defeat the Tigers.

  • Heshan

    And as pointed out umpteenth times before, the Nazis were tried in court because they lost.

    Who came up with that ridiculous argument? A handful of Nazis were tried in court because they committed crimes against humanity. Only 22 were charged, the vast majority of whom had important administrative roles. Most of the Nazis were never tried for anything. The real punishment for Germany was occupation , not Nuremberg.

    • “Who came up with that ridiculous argument? A handful of Nazis were tried in court because they committed crimes against humanity.”

      The argument probably thought up by the Americans. Their crimes against humanity have so far gone untried. Like SL, they are also not signatories to the ICC. Do you know of any such criminal trials of members of victorious armies? Admiral Doenitz was sentenced to ten years for unrestricted submarine warfare against merchant shipping, but US Admiral Nimitz who cleared the same actions was never charged.

      There were quite a few more than the “handful” of you mention (18 out of 21 were convicted) who were the Nazi top brass who created the policies that became the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. They were tried by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. No living Nazi of this rank escaped justice except by premature death. But in addition to these, thousands of German officers, soldiers, and civilian functionaries were tried for war crimes; over 1,600 by the Americans alone. Hundreds were hung or executed by firing squad.

      “Only 22 were charged, the vast majority of whom had important administrative roles.”

      Most of the very worst of war criminals are administrators — Stalin, Hitler, Milosevic, Roosevelt, Harris, etc never killed people personally.

      “Most of the Nazis were never tried for anything.”

      Because most Nazis — like most people — didn’t commit any war crimes.

      “The real punishment for Germany was occupation , not Nuremberg.”

      The real punishment was catastrophic defeat with the resultant massive loss of life, and division between east and west. Occupation itself lasted just a few years. No one has suggested Nuremberg was a collective punishment inflicted on the nation; it was specific punishment for the accused individuals. The point is, there was no such punishment for the Allied war criminals because their nations had won the war and there was no one to bring prosecutions against them.

  • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    Heshan

    As you point out in the example of Nuramberg trial an accessory to a crime can be punished too. In the case of Kohona, he might be charged(though it’s a distant possibility only) as he is an Australian citizen only and Australia is a signatory to the Rome convention. But once again, I have not seen any report saying that he gave orders to shoot the surrendering LTTE LEADERS.-their surrender itself is a big ‘pie in the face’ of the LTTE who vowed never to surrender!

    On the other hand Heshan, this is not the only instance where the prisners were killed by the Sri Lankan forces.What about the killing of Wijeweera and Gamanayake by the Security Forces after they were captured? No international body like the UNHRC OR ANY OF THE ngoS TRIED TO BRING THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS CRIME TO BOOK! i THINK, THIS MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE sINHALESE! eVEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE GONE INTO THE TROUBLE OF CRYING FOR JUSTICE IF they were (Pulidevan and Nadesan etc) Sinhalese terrorists! That’s because people like you never see a fair view through your tinted glasses!

    As Daya points out unless the Sri Lankan state is so anti-people like so as to bring about a public uprising, these incidents will never be in the list of priorities of the Sri Lankan people.
    The ‘victors’ of a war were never punished for war crimes! Go back to your history books, Heshan!

    • The Mervyn Silva

      “As Daya points out unless the Sri Lankan state is so anti-people like so as to bring about a public uprising, these incidents will never be in the list of priorities of the Sri Lankan people.
      The ‘victors’ of a war were never punished for war crimes! Go back to your history books, Heshan!”

      Dear the many i’s,

      This is spot on and on the spot also. We must never be trying anything that is not happening before in the history simply because it is not happening before. It is a very progressive and intelligent way to be going about the business of thinking. Of course there are always foolish people who are trying to be challenging the past and present and everything in between. Sometimes I am wishing that people are just going on believing the earth is not round like the ball but flat like the pancake simply because people are always believing this but some foolish peoples challenging it and proving it wrong also so now we are all knowing that the earth like the ball.

      Do not be worrying about popular uprisings coming up in the Sri Lanka. We are having ways to be controlling it. Elections are one good way. We can be holding elections every now and again and winning them by the hook or the crook or the jilmart and then everybody will think the government is stil very popular and the anti-people things we are feeling are nothing but the figment of our imaginations. If some idiots are trying to be too smart and still wanting to be rising up then we will be crushing them and many peoples who are now writing to the Groundviews about popular uprising becoming measure of governments unpopularity will be then teling in very good enlgish also how fair it was to be crushing so mercilessly an uprising against the elected government of the people.

      And please, never ever be forgetting the Tamils, our biggest weapon!

      • MV

        Haha, brilliant! The Mervyn.

        “many peoples who are now writing to the Groundviews about popular uprising becoming measure of governments unpopularity will be then teling in very good enlgish also how fair it was to be crushing so mercilessly an uprising against the elected government of the people.”

        Just like how MR went about “defeating terrorism” when decades ago he was preaching human rights (JVP).

      • MV

        …then the people will be writing about how a government elected by the people for the people crushed terrorism, restored democracy and increased their prospects of living. and in the case of Tamils, not to forget the “sovereignty” will also be restored.

  • There is a Latin saying which goes, “There is no victory until you have subjugated the minds of your enemies.” Going by the number of Tamils who attended the funeral of Mrs. Vallipuram Parvathi, the mother of former LTTE leader Velupillai Pirapaharan…even after being intimidated by the security forces for hanging black flags etc…it can be safely assumed that a vast number of Tamils even though defeated are still unbowed and unafraid!

    • PDBean,

      Despite the utter defeat and crushing of Fascism, millions of neo-Nazis (in Germany and around the world) still celebrate Hitler’s birthday and unique achievements. Would you call them ‘unbowed’ and ‘unafraid’? No, people will believe in all sorts of nonsense.

      • Yes, dear Mango,
        People certainly do believe in nonsense. Like for example,

        1. A majority of people in Sri Lanka believe that Sri Lanka is the greatest country in the world and it’s people the most humane on this planet.

        2. A majority of people in Sri Lanka believe that their language, culture and religion is also the greatest in the world.

        3. A majority of people in Sri Lanka believed that since they won the cricket world cup in 1996, they would continue to keep winning it every 4 years.

        4. A majority of people in Sri Lanka believe that there are hundreds of International Conspiracies being hatched by the international community because they are jealous of what a great country we are.

        5. A majority of people in Sri Lanka believe that there is nothing wrong in imposing their culture, language and religion on the minorities, just because they happen to be a numerical majority.
        …and the list goes on and on.

      • Dear Mr Dunce, are these “majorities” you mention similar to the “majority of nations” TT insists haven’t granted their minorities rights? Your broad generalisations are very credible 😉

      • Zorro

        Mango, there are no millions of neo-Nazis in the world and definitely not in Germany, surely less than 100 thousand; there are but certainly different fascistic movements spread all over the world and if they want to win on profile they try to find some interface in other movements to profit from the situation. These neo-Nazis can actually associate themselves with some extreme right political parties like JHU in Sri Lanka too. In this sense JHU would become a neo-Nazi movement as well? And because these idiots celebrate Hitlers birthday doesn’t mean that they have anything to say in the accepted political arena.

        I want to add one more point to the list of PDBean, the GoSL is trying to convince the Sinhalese majority that the Diaspora is very powerful in the West, and in the US and EU and the patriotic majority is willing to eat this bullshit out of the hands of the manipulative politicians. The diaspora does lobbying just like the GoSL does and the other nations have wide important matters take care of than pleasing the diaspora.

    • Dear PDBean,
      I think we move in different circles. Whether in urban Colombo or the rural deep south, 90% of people I meet and know are bitterly critical of the state of the country, where it is now and how it got to there.

      They’re well aware of SL’s many deficiencies and know of a big wide world outside SL.

      They know of international conspiracies – not because the West is jealous of SL’s greatness, but due to the Diaspora vote. See, these rural people aren’t total idiots 🙂

      The cricketing delusion’s common to all countries that have won a world cup. e.g. English football fans, still going on and on about 1966.

      What they want most of is a better future for themselves and their kids — they don’t sit around feverishly plotting how to impose their culture and language on the Tamil minority.

      The only country where I’ve had people unashamedly tell me that they’re the ‘greatest in the world’ is the US. But that’s typical US ‘manifest destiny’ thing.

  • wijayapala

    Prof Heshan,

    Who came up with that ridiculous argument?

    So you are saying that if the Nazis had won WWII, they would have been tried for crimes against humanity?

  • Heshan

    The Mervyn and Wijayapala:

    The ‘victors’ of a war were never punished for war crimes!

    What about Kosovo/Albania? The Serbs were successful in their war against the KLA, but the party ended after NATO attacked Yugoslavia. But the only reason NATO attacked Yugoslavia is because of the Serbian aggression – in effect, genocide against the Albanians.

    So you are saying that if the Nazis had won WWII, they would have been tried for crimes against humanity?

    If not for the Holocaust, the Nazis would not have been tried for anything.

    • wijayapala

      Prof Heshan

      If not for the Holocaust, the Nazis would not have been tried for anything.

      But nobody would have found out about the Holocaust if the Nazis had not been defeated by the Allies.

      But the only reason NATO attacked Yugoslavia is because of the Serbian aggression – in effect, genocide against the Albanians.

      Then how come NATO did not attack Sri Lanka, given your belief of “genocide” against Tamils?

  • Heshan

    iiiiiiiii,


    But once again, I have not seen any report saying that he gave orders to shoot the surrendering LTTE LEADERS.-their surrender itself is a big ‘pie in the face’ of the LTTE who vowed never to surrender!

    I don’t know about Kohona, but its pretty clear GR gave some kind of orders, or else SF would not be sitting in prison.


    On the other hand Heshan, this is not the only instance where the prisners were killed by the Sri Lankan forces.

    The thing is you had hundreds of thousands of people packed into a densely populated area, caught between two warring factions. If you are an organization like the UN, it’s a catch-22 situation. In theory, the UN exists to prevent armed conflicts from escalating to the stage such as you have the scenario described in the above. But once the critical threshold has been crossed, there is little it can do other than issue largely redundant statements with the threat of sanctions. But it cannot just sit back, given the initial failure I pointed out.

  • Heshan

    Wijayapala

    Regarding your comments of February 24, 2011 • 5:26 am, the first one is obviously wrong and the second one is irrelevant. I don’t want to call DJ a liar, but he is obviously mistaken about the “victors of war never go on trial” hypothesis. Hitler conquered most of Europe, but committed suicide in a bunker, after ordering that Germany destroy itself. The Japanese conquered a great deal of Asia, but where is there Empire today? Let me rephrase DJ: “you may win the first battle, but if you make the wrong enemies, you’ll surely lose the second, or third. In that case, the first battle was a hollow victory . The proposed 1000-yr Third Reich did not even last 50 years.

    • “What about Kosovo/Albania? The Serbs were successful in their war against the KLA, but the party ended after NATO attacked Yugoslavia.”

      Field Marshal Heshan, the Serbs didn’t win the war; they won the first battles. NATO airstrikes and subsequent invasion ensured the Serbs lost the war. And that’s the point; no victor has been charged with war crimes.

      “If not for the Holocaust, the Nazis would not have been tried for anything.”

      Regardless of the Holocaust, they would still have not been tried for anything if they had won the war. As i already pointed out to you, Doenitz and Nimitz issued exactly the same orders, but only the former was tried and convicted.

      “Hitler conquered most of Europe, but committed suicide in a bunker, after ordering that Germany destroy itself. The Japanese conquered a great deal of Asia, but where is there Empire today? Let me rephrase DJ: “you may win the first battle, but if you make the wrong enemies, you’ll surely lose the second, or third. “

      See my answer about the Serbs. Winning battles don’t end a war until the last battle has been fought. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese declared the war won after Poland and France had fallen, or after Pearl Harbour. The only head of state to make such a ridiculous declaration in recent times was George Dubbeyoo. The destruction of the Tigers at Mullaitivu wasn’t the winning of an early battle; it was the last battle of a long war. The war is over, and we’ve won.

      Pointing out the fact that winners are never tried doesn’t necessarily mean that we agree with that, or that it is an unwritten rule; just that that’s the way the vadai crumbles.

      • Dear David,
        Ever heard of The Hundred Years’ War? The conflict lasted 116 years but was punctuated by several periods of peace, before it finally ended in the expulsion of the Plantagenets from France. The “war” was in fact a series of conflicts and is commonly divided into three or four phases: the Edwardian War (1337–1360), the Caroline War (1369–1389), the Lancastrian War (1415–1429), and the slow decline of Plantagenet fortunes after the appearance of Joan of Arc (1412–1431).

        I personally believe that the war did not end in Nandikadaal.It was just the ending of another phase in the struggle for independence of the Tamils from the Sinhalese. As long as human beings value their freedoms, they will continue to fight. Remember that their is NO victory until you have subjugated the minds of your enemies. This country is only one bomb away from the next phase of war. So David don’t hold your breath thinking all is well in the land of Jilmart.

      • Yes, Mr Dunce, I have heard of the Hundred Years war. Have you heard of WW2? It ended when Hitler died and never had another “phase”.

        Certainly the recently concluded war was one part of the wider conflict, but the conflict itself isn’t war. War is an armed clash between two or more forces.

        I don’t dismiss the possibility of the Tamils taking up arms again if their legitimate aspirations are not looked into, but it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. As for that bomb you were talking about, I do hope you strap it onto your own chest this time instead of that of a young girl or little boy as your people did in the past while your Thalaivers lounged by the pool and got fat on lobster.

  • Heshan

    *but where is their Empire today?

  • wijayapala

    Prof Heshan

    I don’t want to call DJ a liar, but he is obviously mistaken about the “victors of war never go on trial” hypothesis. Hitler conquered most of Europe, but committed suicide in a bunker, after ordering that Germany destroy itself. The Japanese conquered a great deal of Asia, but where is there Empire today?

    Clearly then, the Germans and Japanese were not “victors of war” and DJ’s point still stands.

    In that case, the first battle was a hollow victory.

    You are probably talking about the LTTE, because the government won the war.

  • wijayapala

    Regarding your comments of February 24, 2011 • 5:26 am, the first one is obviously wrong and the second one is irrelevant.

    The first comment is not wrong. Nobody knew the extent of what was happening until the Allies liberated the death camps.

    In any case, Hitler’s Final Solution did not push the US to enter WWII. It was Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, followed by Germany’s declaration of war against the US.

    Regarding the second comment, you agree that the Eelamists are hopelessly deluded when they accuse the govt of genocide?

  • Heshan

    Clearly then, the Germans and Japanese were not “victors of war” and DJ’s point still stands.

    DJ’s point only appeals to weak minds that cannot conceive of history as a continuum. Hitler conquered far more of Europe than Napolean – in fact, Hitler conquered far more territory – extending from Africa to Europe to Asia – than any “victorious” European ruler before him. Which means that in terms of sheer conquest, Hitler outdid them all by leaps and bounds. So in this sense, he is a “victor” indeed – but the victory ended after he made the wrong enemies, e.g. Soviet Union and USA. This is a clear case of the victor being punished. The British did not have to fight the Germans – Hitler offered them a peace deal in 1940. If the British had taken the offer, the USA would not have entered the war – at least not in Europe. Where would the USA have sent its troops?

    The first comment is not wrong. Nobody knew the extent of what was happening until the Allies liberated the death camps.

    This is also not true. The German civilians were well aware of the Final Solution. They saw the ghetto’s, and knew the Jews were being deported. In fact, they knew about everything except the gas chambers.

    ———-

    “The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

    They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

    • “DJ’s point only appeals to weak minds that cannot conceive of history as a continuum.”

      Rubbish. This sort of wishy-washy vagueness is usually the argument of those who actually haven’t a defence but attempt to use vague generalisations. History may be a continuum, but WW2 wasn’t. There was never any pause in WW2, no ceasefire or other breaks. WW2 in Europe was from 1939 (the invasion of Poland) to 1945 (the fall of Berlin). At the end there was a clear victor (the Allies) and a clear loser (the Axis). Post WW2, there was no further hostilities between the warring parties in the form of guerrilla warfare or any other kind of warfare. End of story.

      “in fact, Hitler conquered far more territory – extending from Africa to Europe to Asia – than any “victorious” European ruler before him.”

      Again, rubbish. The British Empire extended from North America to the Far East, Australia, and the Pacific islands, and from Europe to South Africa and the Falklands over various periods. No other empire before or since has controlled so much territory or so many oceans and seas.

      “So in this sense, he is a “victor” indeed – but the victory ended after he made the wrong enemies”

      Again, nonsense. Victory doesn’t begin or end. It is a singular and final moment. Only victories can be ended or turned to defeat. In the latter context they are the equivalent of battles; victory is final, as in the victor of a war, which is what we’re talking about. Hitler invaded the USSR in 1940, one year into the war, so if his victories ended there, it wasn’t much of a victory. Again. I repeat, we’re discussing war and not the battles that comprise it.

      “This is a clear case of the victor being punished.”

      If you wish to think that Hitler was the victor of WW2, good for you 😀 There can’t be two victors from opposing sides lol.

      “The British did not have to fight the Germans – Hitler offered them a peace deal in 1940. If the British had taken the offer, the USA would not have entered the war – at least not in Europe.”

      More nonsense. Britain was obliged under its pact with Poland to go to war with Germany over the latter’s invasion. In addition, Germany had broken the Versailles Treaty and the Allies were had to act or lose credibility. It would have taken immense changes in Britain’s political and social structure to remain out of WW2, and even if it had by some huge stretch of reality, the USA would still have eventually entered the war over clashes in interests in the middle east.

      “This is also not true. The German civilians were well aware of the Final Solution. They saw the ghetto’s, and knew the Jews were being deported. In fact, they knew about everything except the gas chambers.”

      German civilians weren’t likely to have prosecuted their own leaders. The point is, if Germany hadn’t lost the war, the Nazi command would have been out of reach of Allied courts. It is this factor that is most important in the prosecution of war crimes in wars. The victors are never accessible, and sometimes (as in the Vietnam War) even the losers get off without punishment.

  • Heshan

    “But the only reason NATO attacked Yugoslavia is because of the Serbian aggression – in effect, genocide against the Albanians.”

    Then how come NATO did not attack Sri Lanka, given your belief of “genocide” against Tamils?

    It doesn’t matter if NATO didn’t attack Sri Lanka. It only takes one example to disprove DJ’s hypothesis, and the fact that NATO attacked Yugoslavia after the Serbs were victorious against the Albanians, proves my point.

    • That’s as ridiculous as saying that since the US entered WW2 only after Germany had defeated France that Germany was in fact the victors of WW2 😀 Or that since Germany defeated France in 1940, France was one of the losers of WW2. Victory isn’t declared until the war is over, something someone forgot to tell your pal George Dubbeyoo 😀 Also, regardless of the results of subsequent wars, the victors of the war in question are the actual victors. Under your “logic”, the US lost both WW2 and the Korean War since they eventually lost a war in Vietnam! Lol.

  • Heshan

    History may be a continuum, but WW2 wasn’t.

    There was never any pause in WW2,

    Contradicting yourself as usual. Try looking up words if you don’t know what they mean. A continuum would not have any pause in it.

    The British Empire extended from North America to the Far East, Australia,

    I didn’t know the British Empire was created by one person within a 13 year span, as was the territory captured by the Reich. Neither was I aware that it extended to any part of Europe other than the UK.

    Victory doesn’t begin or end. It is a singular and final moment.

    No victory is final because history is cyclical . Today’s winners are tomorrow’s losers , and vice-versa.

    Britain was obliged under its pact with Poland to go to war with Germany over the latter’s invasion.

    I said DJ appeals to weak minds – here we have a case of a mind that is irreparably weak, not sure what there is to appeal to, period.

    “> Did Hitler attempt to offer peace to Britain after the defeat of France?
    > And if so what were (would) have been the terms?

    Numerous times through various ways. Hitler could not be seen to back down in his eyes. Rudolph Hess even parachuted in to make peace.
    War with the UK was not a part of his plan. He wanted Germany to control the Continent, with conquered countries still ruling themselves, and the British to rule the rest via the Empire. This view was to counter the rapid economic growth of the USA. If the economic power of the USA declined, Hitler would have been quite happy to keep it as it was.

    http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/9387c04a6dc9a26f

    In fact, Hitler says a similar thing in Mein Kampf:

    “To achieve this expansion in the East and to win back land lost during the First World War, Hitler claimed that it might be necessary to form an alliance with Britain and Italy. An alliance with Britain was vitally important because it would prevent Germany fighting a war in the East and West at the same time.”

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmein.htm

    The opportunity was always there for Britain to form an alliance with Germany. The Polish invasion is only a superficial excuse for Britain’s entry into WWII (although I understand how such simplistic logic might appeal to weak minds). The British lost more than 80% of their battles against the Germans. If not for the Battle of Britain and its desire to hold on to its Empire – and the fact that appeasement was not working with Hitler – the British would have stayed out of WWII.

    The point is, if Germany hadn’t lost the war, the Nazi command would have been out of reach of Allied courts. It is this factor that is most important in the prosecution of war crimes in wars.

    The Nazis did not abide by any sort of international law so using them as a benchmark for judicial precedent is superfluous .

    • “Contradicting yourself as usual. Try looking up words if you don’t know what they mean. A continuum would not have any pause in it.”

      Nor would it have an end to it: Continuum (theory), anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes. Which is why history is a continuum, but WW2, which had a precise beginning and an abrupt end, wasn’t. [Edited out.]

      “I didn’t know the British Empire was created by one person within a 13 year span, as was the territory captured by the Reich. Neither was I aware that it extended to any part of Europe other than the UK.”

      Ah, I was wondering when the wheeled goalposts would start to roll 😀 I never claimed that the British Empire was created by one man; but what you DID claim was that “Hitler conquered far more territory – extending from Africa to Europe to Asia – than any “victorious” European ruler before him.” Clearly he didn’t. In fact, even Alexander the Great conquered more territory than Hitler 😀 And last time I checked, both Gibraltar and Malta are European. In addition, the Brit Empire lasted centuries and not a piddly 12 years (1933-45; 12 not 13 years). However, the Reich part of the Third Reich in fact covered a shorter period, because prior to the Austrian Anschluss in 1938, Germany didn’t move out of its borders; so the actual conquest lasted a mere seven years. Time to hit those history books, Prof, and actually get a clue.

      “No victory is final because history is cyclical . Today’s winners are tomorrow’s losers, and vice-versa.”

      More wishy-washy cliches 😀 We’re not talking about romance or soap operas here, but war. And as Martin Windrow says in The Last Valley, nothing is inevitable in war. Germany lost WW1, and then lost WW2 as well, and since has never won any other war. So they remain losers in war. You may generalise if you wish that some countries have both won and lost wars, but in the context of war crimes, we’re discussing the prosecution of criminals for their conduct in a war at the end of that particular war.

      “I said DJ appeals to weak minds – here we have a case of a mind that is irreparably weak, not sure what there is to appeal to, period.”

      Regardless of your personal attacks, your supposedly superior mind (which apparently cannot read a map) can find no satisfactory argument that would have kept Britain out of the war 😀

      “Numerous times through various ways. Hitler could not be seen to back down in his eyes. Rudolph Hess even parachuted in to make peace.”

      It has never been satisfactorily proven that that was why Hess parachuted in like a spy or fugitive. Nevertheless, the point is, after France had fallen, Hitler went ahead with plans for Operation Seelowe, the invasion of Britain. If he was serious about peace, he wouldn’t have, and if Churchill was serious too, that would’ve been it. But Hitler wasn’t interested in a neutral Britain, he wanted a subdued one.

      “An alliance with Britain was vitally important because it would prevent Germany fighting a war in the East and West at the same time.”

      Exactly. Unlike German’s alliance with Italy (bound by a common ideology), democratic Britain would be just an ally of convenience, like Hitler’s initial alliance with Stalin, which was torn up as soon as Poland had been conquered. Once the USSR was conquered, Britain would have lost its strategic trump card and been invaded and vanquished like the rest.

      “The opportunity was always there for Britain to form an alliance with Germany. The Polish invasion is only a superficial excuse for Britain’s entry into WWII.”

      Superficial or not, it was a valid enough excuse for Britain and France to go to war with Germany, and go they did.

      “The British lost more than 80% of their battles against the Germans.”

      But they managed to win the important ones, and that was enough for them to survive, and in the context of a conquered Europe, survival was the greatest victory. Without Britain, the US entry might have been delayed, and the war certainly longer. US troops would still have landed in North Africa and fought their way east to Italy. If there was to be a seaborne invasion of France, it would have then come across the Med into the south of France.

      While this is all very interesting, it is academic. The point is Britain went to war with Germany, and Hitler lost. And the losers were tried.

      “The Nazis did not abide by any sort of international law so using them as a benchmark for judicial precedent is superfluous .”

      Really? Then why did you bring up Nuremberg and the fact that the Nazi top command was tried for crimes they only gave the orders for? 🙂 It’s always amusing how you dismiss situations only when you lose the argument. The fact is that the Nuremberg trials have long stood as the benchmark for judicial prosecution of war criminals, and it is the learnings from these trials that resulted in the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the Rome Convention which resulted in the ICC.

  • Heshan

    *The Nazis did not abide by any sort of international law so using them as a benchmark for judicial precedent is superfluous .

    Assuming that they, Nazis, were the ones who initiated the process.

  • Dear Zorro,
    Since re-unification, votes gained by far-right (neo-Nazi) parties in Germany has increased. REP and NPD are significant far-right parties. In 2008, Austria’s far-right FPO got 857,028 (17.5% of the vote!).

    Unfortunately there are millions of Europeans who (despite the total defeat of European fascism) still subscribe to Nazi-type racial superiority theories and nonsense. Because of their growing strength, what they have to say is becoming accepted in the political arena. If you can bear the stench, look here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696620/

    Their cause is lost, yet they still believe. Sounds familiar?

    The pro-LTTE diaspora is strong in certain key countries like the UK, (less so in the US) strongly supported by vote dependent Labour MPs. That’s a fact.

    During the last UK elections, “Vote for Tamils, Vote for Labour” was London Labour’s slogan!
    http://thecarthaginiansolution.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/labour-poster.jpg

    Here’s Siobhain McDonagh (Labour MP) supporting an LTTE-inspired trade boycott of Sri Lanka:
    http://thecarthaginiansolution.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tgte_boycott.jpg

    She’s the LTTE’s ‘favourite’ MP, as admitted by the LTTE diaspora:
    http://thecarthaginiansolution.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/mcdonaugh-streatham.jpg

    Barry Gardiner Labour MP has publicly admitted to taking money from a LTTE front organisation.
    “A donation of £1000 (Feb 2001) was made to the Brent North Labour Party by the Association of Tamils.” http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10220

    The GoSL doesn’t need to make up fake stories about the influence of the pro-LTTE diaspora in the EU.

    • Zorro

      Mango,
      it was a temporary wave in Germany with NPD and REP. They do represent in some local govt. bodies but not in the central govt. I give you the actual numbers below: There is not a single extreme right parliamentarian in Bundestag.

      24 Überhangmandate für die CDU/CSU
      CDU/CSU 218 21 239
      SPD 64 82 146
      FDP 0 93 93
      DIE LINKE 16 60 76
      DIE GREEN 1 67 68
      Total 299 323 622

      There have been waves and sympathy for the fascistic parties like one of Le Pen in France or FPO in Austria or extreme right parties in Netherlands, Belgium and any of the EU nations. Le Pen is not strong in France and Austria had a big trouble with EC/EU because the FPO was in the govt coalition. There will always be a fascistic party in every country but the question is do they have a significant influence in the politics of the country?

      For the influence of diaspora in the British politics is not much bigger than the lobby the GoSL has in Britain. Definitely the number and noise what they make is higher but the impact is definitely not much.

  • Heshan

    the Serbs didn’t win the war; they won the first battles.

    The Serbs were ethnically cleansing Bosnia; if NATO had not intervened, there would hardly be any Muslims in Bosnia today.

    That is partly because, as the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek explained in a 2008 interview with Euronews in Sarajevo (above), international mediators handed victory to the extreme nationalists in Bosnia by essentially accepting their radical argument that the country’s three main communities, of Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims — which were so tightly interwoven before the war that about one-third of marriages were mixed — were so ethnically and culturally different that they could not possibly live together in peace.

    The Slovenian philosopher added:

    The true tragedy is that, as some intelligent Bosnian politicians pointed out, that Karadzic basically succeeded. His basic program was that a big part of Bosnia should be reserved — ethnically cleansed — for Serbs. This is what effectively happened, the Republika Srpska is 51 percent of the territory, they have less than 10 percent of others, non-Serbs. This was Karadzic’s program. So the irony is that — it’s like Caesar, you know: Caesar died, Caesarism won. For this, it’s too late. This is the hypocrisy: you condemn the guy, the project succeeded.

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/in-jail-or-on-the-run-karadzic-and-mladic-could-still-win-bosnias-war/

  • Heshan

    Which is why history is a continuum, but WW2, which had a precise beginning and an abrupt end, wasn’t.

    WWII was not a continuum, but it remains a fact that you contradicted yourself

    History may be a continuum, but WW2 wasn’t. There was never any pause in WW2

    In fact, WWII had many pauses . To claim WWII was not a continuum but had no pauses makes no sense, because a continuum has no pauses.

    I never claimed that the British Empire was created by one man;

    This is exactly what you said: “No other empire before or since has controlled so much territory or so many oceans and seas.”

    Such a comparison – between the Third Reich and the British Empire – is pure rubbish.

    Clearly he didn’t. In fact, even Alexander the Great conquered more territory than Hitler

    A difference of only two million square kilometers.

    http://socyberty.com/history/who-conquered-more-territories-napoleon-hitler-genghis-khan-or-alexander/

    And last time I checked, both Gibraltar and Malta are European.

    Last time I checked, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Algeria – all captured by the Germans – were part of Africa.

    http://warbirdsofww2.tripod.com/images/etomap.gif

    In addition, the Brit Empire lasted centuries and not a piddly 12 years (1933-45; 12 not 13 years).

    The British Empire took centuries to build, and was held together by trade and a military force that included loyal natives. Whereas the Nazi Blitzkreig was able to run over any country in Europe, in a matter of weeks except Britain (because of the Channel) and the Soviet Union (because of the Winter). By extension, the Nazi Blitzkreig could have run over any country in Asia or Africa (as was the case in North Africa). There is no comparison to the British Empire, no matter how desperately your puny intellect wishes there was.

    However, the Reich part of the Third Reich in fact covered a shorter period, because prior to the Austrian Anschluss in 1938

    More irrelevent dribble sputtering forth from nothing but a weak mind. The Nazi war machine existed well before 1938.

    But Hitler wasn’t interested in a neutral Britain, he wanted a subdued one.

    The point is that Hitler wanted an Alliance with Britain, because the British and the Germans are essentially the same, “racially” speaking, as Hitler explains in Mein Kamp.

    Superficial or not, it was a valid enough excuse for Britain and France to go to war with Germany, and go they did.

    For weak minds such as yourself, if that this is where the war begins, so be it.

    Really? Then why did you bring up Nuremberg and the fact that the Nazi top command was tried for crimes they only gave the orders for?

    You must have missed the part about initiating the process. Go back to building sandcastles in your imaginary sandbox – your knowledge of WWII is about as cohesive as quicksand.

    • “WWII was not a continuum, but it remains a fact that you contradicted yourself”

      And yet you brought up the continuum theory in regard to Germany’s defeat in WW2 😀 Why?

      “In fact, WWII had many pauses . To claim WWII was not a continuum but had no pauses makes no sense, because a continuum has no pauses.”

      WW2 didn’t have any real pauses; there was always fighting going on. There were certainly lulls as there are in any war when fighting is relatively less severe, but there were definitely no pauses. In the context of war, a pause is a ceasefire or truce; there were none of these. More to the point, the main characteristic of a continuum is its unending nature. WW2 definitely ended, so it’s not a continuum, regardless of the fact that it hadn’t pauses. Under “Heshan Logic” (also known as a lack of it), WW2 was an artillery war because there were artillery battles 😀

      “This is exactly what you said: “No other empire before or since has controlled so much territory or so many oceans and seas.”” Such a comparison – between the Third Reich and the British Empire – is pure rubbish. “

      It would be had I claimed such a comparison 🙂 My actual claim, evidenced by what you’ve quoted above, was that there was no comparison between an empire that spanned the globe over several centuries, and one that merely held parts of Europe, and had a toehold in Africa and Asia for a mere seven short years. It was in fact YOU, Heahan, who compared the two by saying that the Nazi empire held more terrritory than any other European one 😀 I merely proved you wrong by pointing to the Brit Empire.

      “A difference of only two million square kilometers. [Alexander’s conquests over Hitler’s]”

      Lol “only”? The point is Alexander conquered more territory than Hitler, rubbishing your claim. Quick, quick, Prof, call Alexander gay and claim that Hitler was the only straight European dictator to conquer so much territory! 😀

      “Last time I checked, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Algeria – all captured by the Germans – were part of Africa.”

      And? 😀

      “The British Empire took centuries to build, and was held together by trade and a military force that included loyal natives. Whereas the Nazi Blitzkreig was able to run over any country in Europe, in a matter of weeks”

      Again, and? 😀

      “except Britain (because of the Channel)”

      Actually, it was the RAF that stopped the Germans. Hitler had the barges to cross the Channel, he just needed air superiority, which was essential to the blitzkrieg tactics.

      “and the Soviet Union (because of the Winter).”

      Again, it was the Russians who beat the Germans. Barbarossa was supposed to reach Moscow and the Caucasus before winter, but the Soviet defences managed to slow the Germans down long enough until winter set in. The weather then bogged down the fighting units and their logistical tail. Stalin then rebuilt his factories beyond Hitler’s reach and proceeded to kick his Nazi arse all the way back to Berlin. The USSR won the war in Europe, and they’d have done it even without the west. It would just have taken longer and a few million more Russians. Hitler would’ve still lost.

      ” There is no comparison to the British Empire, no matter how desperately your puny intellect wishes there was.”

      But it was YOUR [Edited out.] intellect that made the comparison 😀

      More irrelevent dribble sputtering forth from nothing but a weak mind. The Nazi war machine existed well before 1938.”

      Nevertheless, its conquests didn’t. And just as the untermenschen beat the Aryan supermen, my weak mind has once again beaten your superior one 😀

      The point is that Hitler wanted an Alliance with Britain, because the British and the Germans are essentially the same, “racially” speaking, as Hitler explains in Mein Kamp.”

      But you claimed that Hitler wanted peace with Britain to avoid a two-front war in Europe, not because of racial similarities. On the other hand, Hitler invaded Holland, Denmark, and Norway, which were just as Aryan as Britain, and in fact more so. The acual point is that Hitler lost the war and his minions were prosecuted. Had you forgotten that in your frantic attempts to show Hitler as the true victor of WW2? Lol.

      “For weak minds such as yourself, if that this is where the war begins, so be it.”

      Weak minded or not, can your strong mind show any fighting between Germany, France and Britain prior to the invasion of Poland? 😀 In fact, Neville Chamberlaine’s government was reluctant to even see a threat in Hitler. The Polish invasion was what gave Churchill the excuse. Hitler’s ’30s strategy was to stall one threat while he dealt with his main objective. A pact with Stalin until Poland was conquered, an alliance with Britain until Stalin was defeated, peace with the US until Britain was conquered, and so on.

      “You must have missed the part about initiating the process.”

      Not at all. Processes can be initiated only by victors, if they choose to do so.

      “Go back to building sandcastles in your imaginary sandbox – your knowledge of WWII is about as cohesive as quicksand.”

      Quicksand that has buried your pathetic and uninformed theories. [Edited out.] 😀 Back to school, little boy.

  • Dear David,
    According to the Oxford dictionary in quotations, on the 6th November 1605, Guy Fawkes is reputed to have said
    “The desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy”… which is very similar to “extremis malis extrema remedia”.
    It was not little boys or little girls who executed Premadasa, Rajiv G and tried to execute Chandrika, Fonseka and Gotabaya…better to die on your feet than live on your knees, like what is happening today in the North and East. If there is no credible solution put forward by Rajapaksa for the Tamils, it will be only a matter of time…before things start hotting up. All it takes is one person to place a bomb or throw a grenade. The Sinhalese never ever learn. They are cock a hoop now after the defeat of the LTTE, just like they were turning summersaults after the Cricket World Cup victory in 1996. Ha..ha.. ha..but in 1999 they fell flat on their faces when their team was eliminated in the 1st round in England. To rephrase Sun Tzu, “Winning the war and losing the peace is NOT the acme of skill.”

    ps. Please do enlighten us on cluster bombs and bombing of areas inhabited by Tamil civilians (pronounced ‘NO fire zones’) during the HOOmanitarian operation. Also David I am not a Tamil, but I sympathise with minorities anywhere and everywhere who fight for their rights against racist majorities who try to impose their language, culture, religion etc on these minorities. Don’t you think it’s time for some soft power to win over the Tamils? See how America has gone about it with Hollywood movies, McDonalds, KFC etc…India with Bollywood movies…and England with British Councils all over the world? Trying to colonise Tamil areas with Sinhalese from the South and building Temples all around the north east is never going to work!

    • “It was not little boys or little girls who executed Premadasa, Rajiv G and tried to execute Chandrika, Fonseka and Gotabaya…”

      It was certainly a young woman who assassinated Gandhi (why don’t you look up the word ‘execution’ in that dictionary of yours), and it was a pregnant young woman who tried to assassinate SF. And it was little boys and girls who ran in through our minefields at Elephant Pass to die in front of our machine-guns, sent forward by the adults with the naïve hope that they could kill us, while the adults waited for them to blow gaps in the minefields with their little bodies. I was there, Dunce, I saw the bodies. Your cause was led by the scum of the earth, dear Dunce, corrupt men who had to force women and children to fight because your men had all run away to foreign countries or to the south so that they wouldn’t have to fight. Men like you, Dunce, who call for more war, more death, more children and pregnant women to be sent forth to die while you skulk anonymously behind a keyboard and make bombastic threats. When I saw those children lying there in the dirt of the Saltern Siding, I knew that whatever our failings, we were not evil, we didn’t send our innocents to be killed and maimed for our cause; instead, we fought to protect our loved ones, sacrificing ourselves instead. It was at that moment that I knew that the Tigers would never win; such absolute rottenness cannot be sustained. While you sit there and salivate over the thought of more blood, I thank God that people like you and TT and Heshan are a minority, anonymous cowards who will never have the courage to fight for your beliefs. Victory requires courage, and the men of your cause have little of it.

      “better to die on your feet than live on your knees”

      But you will neither die on your feet nor live on your knees, will you, Dunce? All you will ever do is make Dunce-like comments on the net. “What did you do in the war, Daddy Dunce, did you fight for our cause?” “No, Little Dunce, I hid behind my PC and laughed while women and children were forced to die for my cause.”

      “All it takes is one person to place a bomb or throw a grenade.”

      Or strap on a bomb and die futily for a pie-in-the-sky dream that you have used to no avail. One more bomb or one more grenade will mean just one more dead Tamil to follow the thousands before, killed for the dreams of an Asian Hitler who you still follow even after he’s dead. Bring it on, Dunce; we have more bullets than you have fighters.

      “The Sinhalese never ever learn.”

      First take the plank out of your own eye, before you try to remove the splinter from someone else’s.

      “Please do enlighten us on cluster bombs and bombing of areas inhabited by Tamil civilians (pronounced ‘NO fire zones’)”

      Please do enlighten us yourself on these cluster bombs, dear Dunce. Got any pictures? Any first hand descriptions? [Edited out.] And while you’re about it, why don’t you elighten us on the Tiger artillery and armour using the NFZs to fire on the Army. Or how about the valiant freedom fighters who gunned down old men and women, mothers and babies, who just wanted to flee from their protectors to the safety of the Army. And what about the Sole Representatives of the Tamil people who took young children, old men, and women, gave them a T56 and a few hours training and sent them at gunpoint to die in front of tanks, while their own families were well cared for and sent to safety. Why don’t you tell us about all that, dear Dunce.

      Also David I am not a Tamil, but I sympathise with minorities anywhere and everywhere who fight for their rights against racist majorities who try to impose their language, culture, religion etc on these minorities.”

      And neither am I a Sinhalese, dear Dunce; in fact I’m half Tamil. If you really care for minorities so much, why don’t you stop calling for them to kill themselves again, and actually stand up to the TTs here on this forum who advocate Sinhala Only and colonisation of the NE? Even here, where you have no danger of you losing your life in the fight for freedom, you’re nothing but a coward.

      “Don’t you think it’s time for some soft power to win over the Tamils? See how America has gone about it with Hollywood movies, McDonalds, KFC etc…India with Bollywood movies…and England with British Councils all over the world?”

      McDonalds and British Councils haven’t won the Americans and Brits any friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s where it counts. Is Dunce your real name? 😀

      “Trying to colonise Tamil areas with Sinhalese from the South and building Temples all around the north east is never going to work!”

      Well why don’t you speak out against it here in this forum to the people advocating it, instead of choosing only to make dunce-like comments to me?

  • wijayapala

    Dear Dunce,

    Ever heard of The Hundred Years’ War?

    Prof Heshan has insisted that no ANCIENT history be brought up in this forum, thank you very much. Also Prof Heshan was highly offended that the war you mention involved massive white Christian vs white Christian violence, damaging his argument that white Christianity was a civilising influence in history.

    As long as human beings value their freedoms, they will continue to fight.

    And as long as you are typing away at your keyboard instead of fighting and putting your own life on the line, then the war will remain over.

  • Here’s Robert McNamara who with Gen Curtis LeMay was intimately involved in the USAF’s firebombing of Japanese cities and later was SecDef during Vietnam admitting with brutal honesty why victors don’t face war crimes trials.

    McNamara on Gen LeMay: ” if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. He… and I’d say I… were behaving as war criminals…”

    No doubt [Edited out] Heshan will disagree 🙂

  • Heshan

    PresBean:

    I personally believe that the war did not end in Nandikadaal.It was just the ending of another phase in the struggle for independence of the Tamils from the Sinhalese. As long as human beings value their freedoms, they will continue to fight. Remember that their is NO victory until you have subjugated the minds of your enemies.

    Exactly right. If the next age of guerilla/terrorist warfare involves chemical/biological weapons, there will be no winners or losers period – it will be a case of mutual annihilation. This is kind of on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it is, nevertheless, a plausible scenario (certainly far more plausible than the UFO nonsense which appeals to many weak minds).

  • wijayapala

    Dear Zorro,

    The diaspora does lobbying just like the GoSL does and the other nations have wide important matters take care of than pleasing the diaspora.

    There’s one key difference. The diaspora comprises a vote bank. The GoSL does not.

  • Heshan

    white Christian vs white Christian violence, damaging his argument that white Christianity was a civilising influence in history.

    It seems that you are upset that Christianity has achieved far more than Sinhala-Buddhism… if the Christian Isaac Newton had not invented Calculus, and the Christian Alan Turing had not invented the Turing machine, and the Christian Thomas Edison had not invented the electric light bulb, you would probably be sitting in your thatched hat playing karam with the light from the coconut oil lamp.

    http://www.tamildaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SriLankaWarCrimesEvidence11.jpg

  • Heshan

    By the way, above photo depicts SL Army engaged in a war crime. Here is another one:

    http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ecW1Zt0qS01E/610x.jpg

    They have no respect for the dead. You can imagine how they treat the living.

    In an earlier thread, I mentioned how the SLA destroyed LTTE cemeteries.

    Now the latest incident, according to tamilnet, is desecration of the ashes of Prabhakaran’s mother.

    If NATO treated dead bodies of Muslim fighters in a similar way, you would see people in Afghanistan and Iraq rioting.

  • Heshan

    Here’s Robert McNamara who with Gen Curtis LeMay was intimately involved in the USAF’s firebombing of Japanese cities and later was SecDef during Vietnam admitting with brutal honesty why victors don’t face war crimes trials.

    In fact, war crimes committed by US soldiers during Vietnam were discussed extensively in the US Congress.

    Getting back to WWII, the Western Allies did commit a few war crimes, but nothing on the scale of what the Axis committed. The vast majority of Allied war crimes were committed by the psychopath Stalin, who was responsible for the murder of 50-60 million people (ten times the figure given for the Holocaust) in his lifetime . On the other hand, do you think the remote possibility existed of bringing Stalin to trial?

    At leas the Western Allies acknowledged their mistakes. Can the Rajapakse’s and their DJ-type sycophants acknowledge that a single Tamil civilian was killed in cold blood? Why didn’t the Americans and the British call the firebombing of Dresden a “humanitarian operation?” 🙂

    • “In fact, war crimes committed by US soldiers during Vietnam were discussed extensively in the US Congress.”

      Discussed and then pointedly ignored. William Calley, the convicted mass murderer of My Lai, never saw a day of prison, and was in fact pardoned by Nixon. In his detailed look at American war crimes in Vietnam, War Without Fronts, Bernd Greiner claims that for every reported US atrocity, at least three more went unreported. Four My Lai-type massacres requires a bit more than a senate discussion in my book. The documents recording these senate discussions were briefly declassified in the ’90s, but quickly reclassified by the Bush administration just after the Afghan invasion. Any guesses why?

      “Getting back to WWII”

      Yes, let’s not dwell too long on American crimes when there are so many convenient WW2 scapegoats, eh?

      “the Western Allies did commit a few war crimes, but nothing on the scale of what the Axis committed.”

      Saying others were worse than us is a favourite defence of the MR administration. I’m glad to see you subscribing to it, Heshan.

      “The vast majority of Allied war crimes were committed by the psychopath Stalin, who was responsible for the murder of 50-60 million people (ten times the figure given for the Holocaust) in his lifetime .”

      Lol the most reliable sources put Stalin’s killings at no more than 20 million, perhaps less, and Hitler’s at between 11 and 14 million, including the 6 million Jews. So at best Stalin killed twice as many as Hitler, not ten times as many as you amusingly claim. Try not to massage the figures, prof, it makes you look like a fool. In my view, once you top the million mark (the US score for civilians killed in WW2 is about 1.3 million), it’s a bit pointless trying to point fingers. It’s just pretty bad anyway.

      “On the other hand, do you think the remote possibility existed of bringing Stalin to trial?”

      Since he won the war, no. If he’d lost and survived, it would have been quite likely. But as we all know, only losers get tried.

      “At leas the Western Allies acknowledged their mistakes. Can the Rajapakse’s and their DJ-type sycophants acknowledge that a single Tamil civilian was killed in cold blood?”

      It pretty easy to shrug and say vut too doo when there’s no chance of being tried, isn’t it?

      “Why didn’t the Americans and the British call the firebombing of Dresden a “humanitarian operation?””

      Because they weren’t trying to rescue the German population, they were trying to kill as many as they could. At Mullaitivu, the SL Army was trying to get the Tigers who were using the Tamils as shields, and rescue the civilians. And we were largely successful. In contrast, Bomber Harris (who has been in fact described as a psychopath, and was actually known as Killer Harris in the RAF) when he was stopped by a policeman for speeding and let off with the warning that he “might kill somebody”, laughed and said “Constable, I kill thousands of people every night!” ?

      ?

  • Heshan

    Discussed and then pointedly ignored.

    Calley escaped life imprisonment only because Nixon pardoned him.

    And it still doesn’t explain why human rights abuses by the SLA were never discussed in the Sri Lankan Parliament.

    Six months later, Tom Glen, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, wrote a letter to General Creighton Abrams, the new overall commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military) of routine and pervasive brutality against Vietnamese civilians. The letter was detailed and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Cover-up_and_investigations

    The point remains: the SLA has no morals; show me a letter from any soldier complaining about human rights abuses.

    Because they weren’t trying to rescue the German population, they were trying to kill as many as they could.

    Hahaha, nice try but they were trying to bomb German industrial complexes. But that still doesn’t answer the question as to why the British and Americans didn’t call it a humanitarian operation.

    30 to 40K Tamils perished in Rajapakse’s “humanitarian operation”, and he did not admit that a single civilian casualty occurred.

    • “Calley escaped life imprisonment only because Nixon pardoned him.”

      More ignorant rubbish from Prof Heahan’s superior mind 😀 The day after his sentencing to life imprisonment under hard labour at Ft Leavenworth, Calley was transferred to his own home under house arrest. The American public was outraged at the conviction (not so much at the actual crime) and the White House received over 5,000 letters and telegrams at a ratio of 100 to 1 demanding clemency for Calley. In a nationwide telephone survey 79% of Americans disagreed with the verdict, 81% believed that the sentence was too stiff, and 69% that Calley had been made a scapegoat. The Governor of Georgia, born-again Christian Jimmy Carter instituted American Fighting Man’s Day in honour of Calley, and asked Georgians to drive with their headlights on for a week. Indiana’s governer ordered all state flags to be flown at half mast in honour of Calley, and the governors of Utah and Mississipi also publicly disagreed with the verdict. The legislatures of Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, New Jersey, and South Carolina demanded clemency for Calley. Alabama governor George Wallace visited Calley and personally asked Nixon to pardon him. Five months later, the commanding general of Ft Benning reduced his sentence to 20 years. The Secretary of the Army then further reduced the sentence to 10 years. Calley then remained in his own home for the next three years until Nixon pardoned him in 1974. He nevers spent a day in prison even after being convicted on eight counts of premeditated murder of 104 people out of over 500 murdered at My Lai.

      “And it still doesn’t explain why human rights abuses by the SLA were never discussed in the Sri Lankan Parliament.”

      Most of the discussions by the US senate wasn’t to find the guilty parties and prosecute them, but more as part of a national query into why the war had been lost. American atrocities were being pointed to as part of the reason, not just by the media, but by Vietnam veterans in the Winter Soldier hearings and those in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. None of this would have happened if there was more public support for the war and if the US had actually won. In SL there was and is huge support for the way the war was conducted in the final years, conduct that resulted in victory. Similarly there were no such US senate discussions on crimes committed in WW2 such as the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, the atom bombs, the large scale sinking of merchant shipping, and the death of as many as 71,000 German prisoners under US guard in the winter of 1945-46 of starvation and exposure.

      “Six months later, Tom Glen, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, wrote a letter to General Creighton Abrams, the new overall commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military) of routine and pervasive brutality against Vietnamese civilians.
      The point remains: the SLA has no morals; show me a letter from any soldier complaining about human rights abuses.”

      I’m glad to see you finally acknowledging the routine and pervasive brutality the US military is known for; a fact you previously denied. If there are no such letters from SL soldiers, perhaps you should consider that this is because the average SL soldier didn’t oppose the war, wasn’t compelled by law to fight and, perhaps most important, that SL Army atrocities are relatively negligible in comparison to those of the US in Vietnam.

      “Hahaha, nice try but they were trying to bomb German industrial complexes.”

      More ignorant idiocy from Prof Heshan’s vast knowledge of WW2 😀 In 1943, Bomber Harris reported to Churchill that RAF Bomber Command’s night targeting of German factories was largely inaccurate and a failure, and this failure was bad for morale. He then suggested that instead they should broaden the target to include the populations of the target cities so that by killing them the RAF could reduce the workers available to the factories and thereby be said to be achieving its target of destroying German industry. Neat, no? 😀 When the British secretary for war protested this targeting of civilians, Churchill said “Never let it be said that I served the enemy a half-measure,” and gave Harris permission to go ahead.

      “But that still doesn’t answer the question as to why the British and Americans didn’t call it a humanitarian operation.”

      Because it wasn’t one. But on that note, perhaps you could tell us why the invasion of Iraq which has killed a 100,000 civilians and counting was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    • “During WWII he encouraged tactics which led to the deaths of about 8,000,000 of his own soldiers.”

      But the link you provide says: Poor military tactics are usually put in a different category. After all, it is not common to regard the generals of World War 1 as mass murderers on the grounds that they lacked the imagination to break out of trench warfare. One’s own losses in war aren’t considered war crimes, Prof, cos in that case all the Allied commanders on the Western Front in WW1 were genocidal maniacs; just the civilians you target and kill. So we can disregard that 8 million 😀

      “Additionally about 2,800,000 German, Hungarian, Romanian, and Finnish troops were killed by his armies.”

      Killing the enemy’s soldiers in battle isn’t a war crime either, so we can scratch that 2.8 million too.

      “Stalin’s policies meant no mercy to prisoners, and huge numbers died after being taken captive during the war. Perhaps 30,000,000 persons of various nations died.”

      But the link you provide says: At the upper end one gets estimates ranging from about 40-60 million or even 100 million, at the lower end about 10-20 million. Clearly, there’s ideological ‘monkey business’ at work. It also says According to the documentary; Stalin, Portrait of a Monster in Blood he is estimated to have been responsible for possibly 60 Million Deaths. This is likely an exaggeration. So let’s halve your massaged figure to be fair: 15 million prisoners then.

      “Following WWII, Stalin instigated a policy of terror on the German people. This led to about 2,000,000 German civilians being murdered outright and thousands more committing suicide. German POWs were kept in horrible conditions for as long as ten years after the war, leading to the deaths of at least 1,000,000.”

      Since you already suggested a figure for prisoners killed the 1 million German POWs would be part of that figure, so we shouldn’t count them twice 😉

      “In 1945 he launched an unprovoked war with Japan, killing many tens of thousands of Japanese troops and capturing many others.”

      As I said, killing enemy soldiers in battle isn’t a war crime so we can disregard these Japanese troops.

      “8 mill + 2,8,00,000 + 30 million + 2 million + 1 million + 50,000 Japanese = ~45 million”

      So the actual sum is 15 million + 2 million = 17 million 😀 But just to be fair let’s throw in a few million that might have been missed. Say 3 million. So 17 million + 3 million = 20 million, the figure that the link you provided in fact says is “the most accepted figure” 😀

      “I’m well aware of your difficulties with history, but did you fail arithmetic as well, Blacker?

      Actually I got a fairly average maths pass and very good history, analysis and logic passes. Clearly you didn’t 😀 Try again, Prof; take as many shots as you like. There’ll never be any danger of you using those areas ha ha ha.

      As I said, once you top the million mark and buy membership in the Genocide Sports Club (as the US did so ably), arguing about who’s worse is academic; everyone’s a card-carrying member.

  • Heshan

    Lol the most reliable sources put Stalin’s killings at no more than 20 million, perhaps less, and Hitler’s at between 11 and 14 million, including the 6 million Jews. So at best Stalin killed twice as many as Hitler, not ten times as many as you amusingly claim.

    Reliable sources, aka Dayan Jayatillake who quotes Stalin in all of his articles.

    “Answer:
    During WWII he encouraged tactics which led to the deaths of about 8,000,000 of his own soldiers. Additionally about 2,800,000 German, Hungarian, Romanian, and Finnish troops were killed by his armies. Stalin’s policies meant no mercy to prisoners, and huge numbers died after being taken captive during the war. Perhaps 30,000,000 persons of various nations died. Following WWII, Stalin instigated a policy of terror on the German people. This led to about 2,000,000 German civilians being murdered outright and thousands more committing suicide. Stalin enforced brutal police states on all the peoples of eastern Europe which he overran with his armies. Tens of thousands died in these takeovers. German POWs were kept in horrible conditions for as long as ten years after the war, leading to the deaths of at least 1,000,000. In 1945 he launched an unprovoked war with Japan, killing many tens of thousands of Japanese troops and capturing many others.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_did_Stalin_kill#ixzz1F6r81m9K

    8 mill + 2,8,00,000 + 30 million + 2 million + 1 million + 50,000 Japanese = ~45 million

    I’m well aware of your difficulties with history, but did you fail arithmetic as well, Blacker? 🙂

  • Heshan

    The 20 million figure is for weak minds… I bet you also believe that Stalin killed exactly 20 million, and that 20 million + 1 is an exaggeration.

    May Day is coming up, which used to be a day of celebration in the Soviet Union with an impressive show of weapons and infinitely long parade of soldiers. Perhaps, then, it would be appropriate to pay special attention on this day to the human cost of communism in this symbolic home of Marxism, and worldwide. This blog is on Stalin and the Soviet Union. I will post one on the overall cost of communism next week.

    By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000. You probably have come across this many times. Just to see how numerous this total is, look up “Stalin” and “20 million” in Google, and you will get 38,800 links. Not all settle just on the 20,000,000. Some links will make this the upper and some the lower limit in a range. Yet, virtually no one who uses this estimate has gone to the source, for if they did and knew something about Soviet history, they would realize that the 20,000,000 is a gross under estimate of what is likely the true human toll.

    (Snip)

    I did a comprehensive overview of available estimates, including those by Conquest, and wrote a book, Lethal Politics, on Soviet democide to provide understanding and context for my figures. I calculate that the Communist regime, 1917-1987, murdered about 62,000,000 people, around 55,000,000 of them citizens (see Table 1.1 for a periodization of the deaths).

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF

    As for Stalin, when the holes in Conquest’s estimates are filled in, I calculate that Stalin murdered about 43,000,000 citizens and foreigners, over twice Conquest’s total. Therefore, the usual estimate of 20 million killed in Soviet democide is far off for the Soviet Union per se, and even less than half of the total Stalin alone murdered.

    http://www.4forums.com/political/history-debates/4965-how-many-people-did-stalin-murder.html

    • “The 20 million figure is for weak minds… I bet you also believe that Stalin killed exactly 20 million, and that 20 million + 1 is an exaggeration.”

      But it was YOU, Prof Heshan, with your extensive skills of research and analysis that provided us with a link that says upfront that 20 million is the most accepted figure. Is your mind therefore weak? Or is it that accusing others of having weak minds is all that’s left to you when you’ve placed your foot very firmly (and not at all weakly) in your mouth? 😀 I never said that 20 million was the exact figure, and in fact, by your own insightful and in-depth calculations, we arrived at the figure of 17 million lol.

      The Wiki article on Stalin, which quotes a wide number of sources (not just one convenient one, as you do, Heshan, in your more unique approach to research) puts the death toll at 15-17 million, minus POW deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims). So as you can see, Heshan, almost all evidence indicates that Stalin didn’t kill more than 20 million.

      “Now state your qualifications, Blacker.:) In particular, I want to know the number of papers you’ve submitted to academic journals and how many times you were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.”

      But I’m not quoting my own statistics, Heshan, I’m quoting what’s on the net, just as you are. And FYI, Wiki’s Nobel page says “Over time many individuals have become known as “Nobel Peace Prize Nominees”, but this designation has no official standing.” In other words, it’s just a bullshit claim by people who like to sound important.

      Would you like to compare penises next? 😀 I believe the original discussion was about whether war victors have faced war crimes prosecutions in the past, and whether Hitler was in fact a loser in WW2. I think it has been clearly established by now that no victor has ever been even charged, and in fact on occasion even the loser (such as the US in Vietnam) has avoided prosecution. Also, after great deliberation, I think it’s fair to say that Hitler in fact lost WW2, contrary to your claim 😉

    • “The 20 million figure is for weak minds… I bet you also believe that Stalin killed exactly 20 million, and that 20 million + 1 is an exaggeration.”

      But the 20 million figure is suggested to be the “most accepted” by the site YOU yourself linked to Prof Heshan, after (I assume) widespread and indepth research 😀 Are you confirming what we’ve all known to be true? Or are you accusing me of weak-mindedness because you’ve very firmly (and not at all weakly) placed your foot in your mouth? I never claimed that 20 million was an exact figure, and in fact according to your well-researched figures, the total on Stalin’s scoresheet was 17 million. I graciously allowed you another 3 million.

      Stalin’s Wiki page quotes a wide number of sources (and not just one convenient source) to come up with a figure of 15-17 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims). So you will see, Heshan, that the 20 million figure is in fact generous in the light of notable evidence.

      In your frantic attempts to show that Hitler wasn’t really that bad, you seem to have lost track of the original subject of debate, which was that victors of wars have never faced prosecution for their war crimes, something that has now been overwhelmingly proven to you, along with the fact that on occasion even the losers avoid prosecution (eg: the US in Vietnam). Also, in spite of all your efforts to show the contrary, I can say, after great deliberation, that it is quite clear that Hitler did in fact lose WW2. 😀

  • Heshan

    I should also mention the qualifications of R.J Rummel, who wrote “Lethal Politics”, which gives the 43 million figure:

    RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959, 1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963); Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa. Taught at Indiana University (1963), Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); now Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii. Received numerous grants from NSF, ARPA, and the United States Peace Research Institute. Frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (see here).

    Now state your qualifications, Blacker.:) In particular, I want to know the number of papers you’ve submitted to academic journals and how many times you were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    • “Now state your qualifications, Blacker.:) In particular, I want to know the number of papers you’ve submitted to academic journals and how many times you were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.”

      But I am not relying on my own facts or figures anymore than you are, Prof Heshan; I am relying, like you, on information available on the net, including a site you yourself have linked to in your extensive and insightful analysis. So you and I comparing our academic qualifications is as useful as you and I comparing our penises 😉

      Also, FYI, Wiki’s Nobel page says, “Over time many individuals have become known as “Nobel Peace Prize Nominees”, but this designation has no official standing. Since nomination requires only support from a qualified person, nominations do not represent the opinion of the Nobel committee itself” So just because someone tells you they have a big penis, don’t believe ’em ’til you’ve had a look. Also FYFI, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini have all been nominated for the prize 😀 What an elite club that is.

  • Heshan

    … with your extensive skills of research and analysis that provided us with a link that says upfront that 20 million is the most accepted figure.

    Most accepted by weak minds who can’t see the trees from the forest. Your vehement defense of the 20 million figure proves your inability to grasp even the simplest of nuances, thereby rendering your puny rebuttals, excuses, and denials entirely irrelevant.

    But I am not relying on my own facts or figures anymore than you are,

    I’m relying on someone who has spent more than 50 years studying political science (which includes the study of the dynamics of mass dictatorships such as the USSR) and is world-famous- whereas you’re relying on Wikipedia. I asked you to state your credentials, but you have not done so, therefore consider your alternative opinion on the matter ENTIRELY NEGLIGIBLE.

    I believe the original discussion was about whether war victors have faced war crimes prosecutions in the past, and whether Hitler was in fact a loser in WW2. I think it has been clearly established by now that no victor has ever been even charged,

    As usual, you have failed to establish zilch, despite your usual line-up of incorrect statistics, third-rate sources, obscene irrelevant fantasies, and elementary knowledge of history.

    and in fact on occasion even the loser (such as the US in Vietnam) has avoided prosecution. Also, after great deliberation, I think it’s fair to say that Hitler in fact lost WW2, contrary to your claim 😉

    Except that you have admitted elsewhere that Calley was convicted, which contradicts your above rubbish hypothesis entirely. The fact that Calley was pardoned is irrelevant. Obviously, the Americans learned from their mistakes, considering the number of prison sentences dealt out at Abu Grahib.

    You have also failed to explain why the victorious empires of Nazi Germany and Japan did not last, despite their overwhelming victories that tower high and above many other so-called “victories” throughout history. As I’ve pointed out, your theory is fundamentally flawed because you assume every victory is final , when in fact, history is cyclical , and virtually so-called victory is ultimately superfluous.

    The only thing I gleaned from this thread was DJ’s ability to spin the facts… the man is truly a modern-day Goebbels. A few more of this type in SL’s civil service, and the country might actually pose some kind of threat (to someone besides Tamils). It’s a good thing Rajapaksa stuffed the civil service with military buffoons.

    • “Most accepted by weak minds who can’t see the trees from the forest. Your vehement defense of the 20 million figure proves your inability to grasp even the simplest of nuances, thereby rendering your puny rebuttals, excuses, and denials entirely irrelevant.”

      😀 What rebuttals or denials? The site your weak-minded (your words not mine) research provided claims that most accepted figure is 20 million. This is confirmed by Wiki too lol. So isn’t it you that’s denying the credibility of the site that you yourself linked to? Ha ha ha. Too bad, Prof. Looks like you’re too smart for your own good 😀

      “I’m relying on someone who has spent more than 50 years studying political science (which includes the study of the dynamics of mass dictatorships such as the USSR) and is world-famous- whereas you’re relying on Wikipedia. I asked you to state your credentials, but you have not done so, therefore consider your alternative opinion on the matter ENTIRELY NEGLIGIBLE. “

      Actually, you relied on a an online debate between people called “Missouri Mule” and “Diogenes99” 😀 Whether Rummel is actually “world famous” as you claim is arguable. What he is well known for, though is publicly claiming to be a Nobel Peace Prize “finalist”; a claim he later retracted. It’s pointless for me to debunk Rummel, as his figure is his opinion. However, the alternate opinion you claim is “entirely negligible”, is not my opinion (since Wiki hasn’t cited me as a source) but the opinion of these people that Wiki does cite:

      Stephen G. Wheatcroft‘s Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Wheatcroft is professor of the School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne. His research interest include Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet social, economic and demographic history , as well as famine and food supply problems in modern world history, the impact of media on history, and in recent developments in Russian and Ukrainian society.

      Simon Sebag-Montefiore‘s Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar,/em>. A British historian and writer, he’s also the author of Monsters – History’s most evil men and women, Young Stalin, Catherine the Great and Potemkin and many others that are world best-sellers and have been translated into 33 languages.

      Eric D. Weitz‘s A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation. Weitz is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of History at the University of Minnesota. He is also the author of Creating German Communism, 1890-1990, and many other publications.

      Antony Beevor and Dr Luba Vinogradova, who translated A Writer at War: Vasily Grossman With the Red Army, 1941-1945. Beevor is probably the most famous living British military historian, and a visiting professor at the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at Birkbeck, University of London. His works include Stalingrad, Berlin — the Downfall 1945, The Battle for Spain, and Crete: the Battle and the Resistance among many more. dr Vinogradova is a researcher and translator. Grossman, one of the former USSR’s greatest writers and journalists has been compared to Tolstoy. His two biggest literary works, Life and Fate and Forever Flowing were censored by the Khrushchev administration for being anti-Soviet.

      Geoffrey RobertsStalin’s Wars: from World War to Cold War, 1939–1953. Roberts is a professor of modern history at University College Cork in Ireland and is currently head of the School of History at UCC.

      Dr Michael Ellman‘s Soviet Repression Statistics, The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931–1934, and Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited. Ellman is emeritus professor of economics at the University of Amsterdam. He has written extensively on the economics of the Soviet Union, transition economics, Russia and comparative economic systems.

      Robert Gellately‘s ,em>Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. Gellately is one of the leading historians of modern Europe, particularly during World War II and the Cold War era. He is presently Earl Ray Beck Professor of History at Florida State University. His other works include Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945, Accusatory Practices: Denunciation in Modern European History, 1789-1989, Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany, and The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, amongst many more.

      Norman M. Naimark‘s Stalin’s Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Naimark is a historian and acclaimed author, specialising in modern East European history, genocide and ethnic cleansing. He taught at Boston University and was a fellow at Harvard University’s Russian Research Center before returning to Stanford as a member of the faculty. He also wrote The History Of The “Proletariat”: The Emergence Of Marxism In The Kingdom Of Poland, 1870–1887, Terrorists And Social Democrats: The Russian Revolutionary Movement Under Alexander III, Fires Of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing In 20th Century Europe, and The Russians In Germany: The History Of The Soviet Zone Of Occupation, 1945–1949. In addition, he is on the editorial board of The American Historical Review, The Journal Of Contemporary History, and The Journal Of Cold War Studies.

      Steven Rosefielde‘s Red Holocaust and Documented Homicides and Excess Deaths: New Insights into the Scale of Killing in the USSR during the 1930s. Rosefielde is a leading expert on Russian, Soviet and Communist studies, comparative economic systems and international security, and author of several books. His research has focused on Soviet and Russian economy, welfare and military, and excess deaths in the Soviet Union. He is Professor of Comparative Economic Systems at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

      Timothy Snyder‘s Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University, specializing in the history of the Holocaust and Eastern Europe. He also co-authored Stalinism in Europe: War, Terror, Domination.

      R. W. Davies‘s and Stephen G. Wheatcroft‘s The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933. Davies is professor emeritus of Soviet Economic Studies, University of Birmingham, and is the author of many works on the USSR, including Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev, Crisis and Progress in the Soviet Economy (1931–1933), and The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture.

      >Robert Conquest‘s The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Conquest is a British historian, former intelligence officer, and one-time member of the British Communist Party. He has written extensively on the USSR, including The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Nation Killers: Soviet Deportation of Nationalities, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties and dozens more.

      And last but not least, your own pal, R.J. Rummel‘s How Many Did Stalin Really Murder?

      [Edited out.] Any further questions on the reliability of the Wiki article?

      “As usual, you have failed to establish zilch, despite your usual line-up of incorrect statistics, third-rate sources, obscene irrelevant fantasies, and elementary knowledge of history.”

      So you agree that there’s no evidence of a war victor ever being charged with war crimes 😀 Good boy.

      “Except that you have admitted elsewhere that Calley was convicted, which contradicts your above rubbish hypothesis entirely.”

      How does the complete pardoning of the only US soldier ever charged with war crimes contradict my claim that the US has committed war crimes and never been penalised for them; especially since Calley’s sentence of life was commuted first to 20 and then 10 years and finally to mere house arrest until his pardoning?

      “The fact that Calley was pardoned is irrelevant.”

      How is the presidential pardoning of a convicted war criminal, guilty on eight counts of premeditated murder of 104 men, women, and children, and the instituting of a national day in his honour irrelevant to the fact that the US is uninterested in punishing its war criminals?

      “Obviously, the Americans learned from their mistakes, considering the number of prison sentences dealt out at Abu Grahib.”

      Really? But there were only a handful of prison convictions, none over ten years, and all meted out to the most junior of prison guards. No one senior was ever convicted, in spite of the evidence of murder, torture, rape, and pedophilia. I gave you the links before, [Edited out.] I can give them to you again, if you like 😉

      “You have also failed to explain why the victorious empires of Nazi Germany and Japan did not last, despite their overwhelming victories that tower high and above many other so-called “victories” throughout history.”

      Oh, but I have explained several times over, Heshan, but you are unable to understand long words, so I’ll use small ones now: Heap big Japan and Germany win first. Heap bigger Allies with Great White Father win later. Win last win all. Aka who laughs last, laughs longest. Understand now? You don’t win until you’ve won the war.

      “As I’ve pointed out, your theory is fundamentally flawed because you assume every victory is final , when in fact, history is cyclical , and virtually so-called victory is ultimately superfluous.”

      History, and even war per se, may be cyclical, but A WAR isn’t cyclical after it is over. Once it’s considered over, it’s over. When Berlin fell and Japan was nuked, the war was over. Once the US was kicked out of Vietnam, the war was over for them. When VP kicked the bucket at Nandikadal, the war in SL was over. There was no cycle, bi-, tri, or uni- after that. So while every victory is not final (and I never said it was, though you claim I did), the final victory certainly is; which is what I said. If you disagree, I urge you to show evidence of WW2 continuing after the surrenders of Germany and Japan, the continuance of the Vietnam War into another US war, or a return to war between the Tigers and the GoSL.

      “The only thing I gleaned from this thread was DJ’s ability to spin the facts”

      Since you seem intellectually incapable of gleaning anything whatsoever from your self-acclaimed education, far-reaching research, and extensive and indepth analysis of history, geography, politics, and current affairs (except that there was never an SL general election in 2001, that N Korea isn’t a member of the UN, that SL was created by God for the Portuguese to invade, that Hitler in fact won WW2, that the atom bombs were dropped on Japan by European Jewish scientists, etc), why are you surprised that you’re unable to glean anything of worth from an online debate?

      “It’s a good thing Rajapaksa stuffed the civil service with military buffoons.”

      Going on your record on GV, I’d say that the military doesn’t hold the sole rights on bufoonery 😀

  • Heshan

    *and virtually every so-called victory is ultimately superfluous.

  • wijayapala

    Prof Heshan

    whereas you’re relying on Wikipedia.

    Does that mean you won’t cite Wikipedia anymore to back your own claims?

  • Heshan

    The site your weak-minded (your words not mine) research provided claims that most accepted figure is 20 million.

    No historian worth his meat will actually believe Stalin killed just 20 million. 20 million is a conservative estimate.

    Whether Rummel is actually “world famous” as you claim is arguable.

    It’s only arguable for second-rate minds that think Wikipedia can take the place of professional expertise.

    About the Author
    R.J. Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced), four novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He was a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize finalist.

    http://www.amazon.com/War-Democide-Never-Again-Book/dp/product-description/1595263004/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

    As I said, if you DISAGREE with Rummel, show your credentials. How many peer-reviewed papers have you submitted? Zero.

    I see you’ve provided a list of historians, none of whom actually explicitly state that Stalin killed 20 million. Even Conquest agrees that his total is too low:

    Thus we get a figure of 20 million dead, which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so, as the debit balance of the Stalin regime for twenty-three years.

    http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

    Since you have severe reading comprehension difficulties, suffice it to say that I’m not quoting from some random blog, I’m quoting Conquest’s actual words . If you still don’t understand, what I’m saying is that when you OPEN a book written by Robert Conquest, you’ll find those exact words. If you STILL don’t understand, I’ll be happy to mail you a copy of the book.

    So you agree that there’s no evidence of a war victor ever being charged with war crimes

    Spin-doctor DJ was most likely referring to a victorious regime not being punished. Unfortunately, it looks as if his far less enlightened followers have taken this to mean that even individual soldiers are immune from prosecution, which is clearly not the case. Do you see NATO raping and pillaging on any extensive scale in Afghanistan and Iraq? This is not the Iliad – times have changed. No one is immune from the Geneva Conventions:

    ——–

    The United States Army carried out 141 executions over a three year period from 1942 to 1945, and a further six executions were conducted during the postwar period, for a known total of 147.

    70 of these 141 wartime executions were carried out in the European Theatre, 27 in the Mediterranean Theatre, 21 in the Southwest Pacific Area, 19 in the continental United States, two in Hawaii, one in Guadacanal and one in India; of the six postwar executions, one took place in Hawaii, one in Japan, two in France and two in the Philippines. An execution was also carried out by the United States Air Force in Japan in 1950.

    All executions carried out by the Army during 1942 to 1948 were performed under the authority of the Articles of War of June 4, 1920, an Act of Congress which governed military justice between 1920 and 1948.

    With the exception of Eddie Slovik, who was shot for desertion, all of these soldiers were executed for murder and/or rape. —–

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_executed_by_the_United_States_military

    141 executions in 3 years for murder and rape. Still believe victors aren’t guilty of war crimes? Spin-doctor DJ could probably care less, as his concern is with theories, not trivial statistics.

    How does the complete pardoning of the only US soldier ever charged with war crimes contradict my claim that the US has committed war crimes

    Well, now I’ve proved the limitations of your knowledge beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even the spin-doctor can’t save you – in his defense, he was intentionally vague on his little quote, which you then totally misinterpreted.

    History, and even war per se, may be cyclical, but A WAR isn’t cyclical after it is over.

    A war may not be cyclical, but the various political motivations certainly are. In laymen’s terms, “what goes around, comes around.” Repressive regimes always have a discernible tipping point. Where is the Soviet Union today? Where is the 1000-year Reich? Where is the Japanese Empire? All three of these were victorious at some point, probably more victorious than anyone else will ever be, but they disappeared into the annals of history having become the villains of the world. All three of them were repressive, while two of them embodied a type of virulent fascism that thrived on war and violence. The wars that they engaged in were highly successful, but the victory was hollow at the end of the day.

    Since you seem intellectually incapable of gleaning anything whatsoever from your self-acclaimed education, far-reaching research, and extensive and indepth analysis of history, geography, politics, and current affairs (except that there was never an SL general election in 2001, that N Korea isn’t a member of the UN, that SL was created by God for the Portuguese to invade, that Hitler in fact won WW2, that the atom bombs were dropped on Japan by European Jewish scientists, etc), why are you surprised that you’re unable to glean anything of worth from an online debate?

    I never made any of those claims. It’s simply your inability to grasp any sort of complex nuance. Regarding the atom bomb, the work of Jewish scientists was well-known:

    Otto Robert Frisch, who with Rudolf Peierls first calculated the critical mass of U-235 needed for an explosive , was also a Jewish refugee.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

    If your knowledge of science is anything like your knowledge of history, I doubt you’d grasp the implications of the above, so let me explain. The atom bomb grew out of discoveries in physics. It was directly related to quantum theory , which was just beginning at that time. Many Jewish scientists who worked on the A-bomb also made significant contributions to quantum theory: e.g. Oppenheimer (who was the head of the Manhatten project), Richard Feynman, Einstein, Hans Bethe, and quite a few more. The Americans did not simply go to Cargills and order an A-bomb, as you’re probably thinking.

    • “No historian worth his meat will actually believe Stalin killed just 20 million. 20 million is a conservative estimate.”

      Belief is for religion, not for history. Facts are determined on evidence, not belief. Whether the 20 mil figure is conservative or an exaggeration is a subjective opinion; again something that has no place in determining fact.

      “It’s only arguable for second-rate minds that think Wikipedia can take the place of professional expertise.”

      But Wiki uses Rummel as a source, amongst the many I’ve listed out above 🙂

      “As I said, if you DISAGREE with Rummel, show your credentials. How many peer-reviewed papers have you submitted? Zero.”

      But I haven’t disagreed with Rummel; I simply quoted an article which, after relying on Rummel and many other historians, settles on 20 million as the figure. Obviously they decided Rummel wasn’t as reliable as you think he is. So if we’re to take your word that Rummel is in fact more reliable than any of the dozen historians cited by Wiki as sources, you need to show us your credentials. C’mon now, Prof Heshan, how many peer-reviewed papers have you submitted? 😀

      “I see you’ve provided a list of historians, none of whom actually explicitly state that Stalin killed 20 million.”

      I never said they did; however Wiki uses their estimates as a whole (which is the scientific method, unlike yours of picking the one that best suits your own figure) to deduce the estimate of 20 million.

      “Even Conquest agrees that his total is too low:”

      He doesn’t “agree”, he claims it 🙂

      “Since you have severe reading comprehension difficulties, suffice it to say that I’m not quoting from some random blog, I’m quoting Conquest’s actual words . If you still don’t understand, what I’m saying is that when you OPEN a book written by Robert Conquest, you’ll find those exact words. If you STILL don’t understand, I’ll be happy to mail you a copy of the book.”

      Well, those words might be in Conquest’s book, but since you quoted verbatim the exact portion in its entirety as it appears in that blog, with nothing more than what appeared in the blog, I think it’s fair to judge that you have never actually read anything of Conquest’s but merely googled for “number of people killed by Stalin” and picked the one that looked good to you 😀

      “Spin-doctor DJ was most likely referring to a victorious regime not being punished. Unfortunately, it looks as if his far less enlightened followers have taken this to mean that even individual soldiers are immune from prosecution, which is clearly not the case. Do you see NATO raping and pillaging on any extensive scale in Afghanistan and Iraq? This is not the Iliad – times have changed. No one is immune from the Geneva Conventions”

      First of all, NATO isn’t even in Iraq, and never was 🙂 Secondly, no one suggested that they were carrying out extensive rapes anywhere. Not that rape is the only war crime. However, my question to you was to provide evidence of a victorious regime being brought to task for its policies of war crimes and atrocities. Individual soldiers are neither victors nor losers; they are members of armies that are. So. Got any evidence? No?

      ——–

      “The United States Army carried out 141 executions over a three year period from 1942 to 1945”

      “141 executions in 3 years for murder and rape. Still believe victors aren’t guilty of war crimes?”

      Murder and rape aren’t necessarily war crimes. Often they are acts by common criminals. You remember how you once listed names of convicted soldiers who you claimed were American war criminals, most of whom (the ones who were actually American) were convicted of raping and/or murdering fellow Americans. A war crime is a crime that is committed as an integral part of wartime action — shooting POWs, massacring villages, raping the female population, etc.

      And where did I say that victors aren’t guilty of war crimes? 😀

      I said : How does the complete pardoning of the only US soldier ever charged with war crimes contradict my claim that the US has committed war crimes?

      And you responded: “Well, now I’ve proved the limitations of your knowledge beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even the spin-doctor can’t save you – in his defense, he was intentionally vague on his little quote, which you then totally misinterpreted.”

      Can you make any sense of your own response? 😀

      “A war may not be cyclical, but the various political motivations certainly are blah blah”

      But we’re discussing war and war crimes, Prof Heshan, not politics or any other nonsense you’d rather discuss instead.

      “I never made any of those claims. It’s simply your inability to grasp any sort of complex nuance. Regarding the atom bomb, the work of Jewish scientists was well-known:”

      Oh, c’mon, Heshan, you claim to be a Christian. Why are you lying? How will Jesus want you for a sunbeam now?

      Otto Robert Frisch, who with Rudolf Peierls first calculated the critical mass of U-235 needed for an explosive , was also a Jewish refugee.”

      So you’re saying that the US, didn’t gather these scientists together, they didn’t fund their research and development of the bomb, they didn’t create the bombs that would carry the nuclear material, they didn’t test the weapons, they didn’t load them onto USAAF bombers, they didn’t fly those bombers to Japan, and they didn’t nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Instead, are you suggesting that these Jewish scientists one day got together in the desert and said “bros, let’s build a bomb and drop it on those Nips”?

      “The Americans did not simply go to Cargills and order an A-bomb, as you’re probably thinking.”

      But that’s not what I’m thinking. What I said in my last para is what I’m thinking, lol.

  • Heshan

    I just glanced through your post, and the reasoning is so poor, I see zero reason to respond. Pardon me if I ignore any number of your of your poorly-worded arguments from now on. In regards to the above, however, let me just point out that Conquest explicitly states this figures are off by at least 50%. That puts his 20 million figure at 40 million.

  • Heshan

    *any number of your