tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335908177719535466.post2675553615289687941..comments2024-02-10T12:05:30.851-07:00Comments on Anti-Racist Canada: The ARC Collective: Revisionism: It Ain't Just For the Holocaust (Part II)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335908177719535466.post-24363371896565692122011-06-14T18:02:52.460-06:002011-06-14T18:02:52.460-06:00Fromm is such an idiot. Even a double facepalm ca...Fromm is such an idiot. Even a double facepalm can't express the amount of fail in his claims. <br /><br />I also love how he "blames the victims" for the massacres, a common tactic used by racists, and then tries to make Nazi Germany the victim by claiming that they were fighting back. <br /><br />Last time I checked, willfully targeting civilians was a war crime under international law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335908177719535466.post-21716784787609912012011-06-07T22:43:29.279-06:002011-06-07T22:43:29.279-06:00Two minor corrections. Firstly it's Section 4 ...Two minor corrections. Firstly it's Section 4 that of the Hague Convention of 1907 that contains the statutes used at Nuremberg, they're actually Articles 46 and 50, not actual sections. Secondly, in order to avoid accusations of twisting words Mr Fromm does not refer to Mr Ruthard as a "prominent researcher" but rather as an "accomplished researcher". He is accomplished at getting basic facts utterly wrong (ie his assertion that a 10:1 ratio of killing civilians as reprisal was enshrined anywhere in international convention) so I guess that description isn't totally wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335908177719535466.post-57112346650445947212011-06-07T22:14:44.570-06:002011-06-07T22:14:44.570-06:00In the interests of fairness it should be pointed ...In the interests of fairness it should be pointed out that most of the protections afforded to civilians you have cited came into being with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and not before. Thus many of the rules listed that are a part of international law today did not exist during World War 2 except as basic morality. <br /><br />That said Mr Fromm's "prominent researcher" has his head firmly planted between his buttocks. There have never been guidelines allowing ratios of how many civilians can be killed for each soldier killed by irregular forces. Even the most cursory search on the interwebs turns this up. <br /><br />Reprisals were allowed under international law prior to 1949 but only as punitive actions against another sovereign state who had broken international law. If you're occupying a country they cease to be sovereign. Thus the occupying nation loses any legitimate claim to armed reprisal as a response. Additionally at least two sections of the Hague Convention (S.46 and S.50) prohibit such reprisals and were used as the basis for prosecutions at Nuremberg. Even revisionist history sites like Furtherglory accept this as fact. <br /><br />I don't know why Mr Fromm would be using an individual who's stance would be disputed by other historical revisionists as his intellectual back-up. Not exactly doing wonders for his credibility there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com