Posted on 12/12/2002 4:11:02 PM PST by vooch
No paralles here?
'Mistreated Sudetendeutschen same same Mistreaded Kosovo-Albanians'
'Agree or get bombed'
What about the War-crime of all War-crimes: waging a war of agression against a souvereign state 1939 vs. 1999?
KOCTA what's your take on this historical 'parallel'?
Obviously it's either diminishing Hitler, or exaggerating Miloshevich. In both, there is no "parallel." What most people suggest is "similarity" if not "equivalency" between the two, which is nonsense.
The State Department and western liberal media, aided by some special-interest groups, repeatedly likened Serbs (in general) to Nazis, and Miloshevich to Hitler. They have forced the Nazification of Serbs through manipulation of facts (fabrication of lies), such as the Omarska "death camp," the Trepcha mine, and other frauds that are still being regurgitated in such high places as ICTY as "evidence."
At issue is the so-called "command responsability," which the Croats so readily dismissed in the case of Gen. Bobetko, and ICTY somehow decided to ignore. Bobetko was indicted on grounds that, under his command, alleged war crimes were committed. He probably never gave the orders for such crimes to be committed, but he also failed to prevent them, which is negligence.
Legally, any person can be held accountable for negliglent wrongdoing, whether that person was aware that he or she is being negligent or not. An unsuspecting store clerk who sells you a defective battery that exlpodes in your face is liable to be sued for negligence as much as the manufacturer.
Clearly, this legalistic logic (if one can call it that) stipulates that anyone can be negligent and therefore liable for any harm resulting form such negligence, whether voluntary or involuntary.
The only problem with that is that, technically at least, every commander-in-chief, and every president is therefore liable for the wrongdoing of every one of his or her soldiers' conduct. If Miloshevich is responsable for the wrongdoings of Serb military formations in Bosnia, or Kosovo, whether he issued a direct order or not, then by the same logic Lyndon B. Johnson is responsible for the Mi Lai massacre.
The question is: where do you draw the line? At the company level? At the battallion level; brigade; division; corps; army, etc? If soemthing happens on your watch, you are expected to take the responsability for that (whatever that means), byt an apology is a good start. We all know this doesn't happen because of human nature and because of different perceptions of responsability and negligence.
The idea behind the witchhunt on Miloshevich is to scare other (non-Western) heads of state into being more forceful in exerting their control over their junior ranks by knowing that they will be heald accuntable, and on their ability to provide leadership by preventing rogue units from commiting war crimes, instead of simply saying "it wasn't me."
Is this just? Of course not? Mkaing an example of Miloshevich is neither unbiased nor just. He is the one who got caught when Djindjich pulled a Milosh Obilich trick of delivering Karadjordje's head to the Turkish Sultan.
KOCTA
VRN
Put your money where your mouth is, then.
Tie Hitler to Truskolasy or Babi Yar through a direct order.
Have fun, Balto - and yes, given it's come to this you may have to wait forever.
As to Milosevic being used, I suppose you're crying over the way Plavsic was used in exactly the same manner to counter Bosnian Serb hardliners? Nah, doubt it.
You're analogy is 180 degrees out of phase with reality - Hitler was given free reign in Czechoslovakia whereas Milosevic wasn't given the same in Kosovo.
The analogy is only good to a point, however - there are parallels, but Milosevic was no Hitler. The National Socialist Party and the Serbian Socialist Party aren't the same vulture by any stretch of the imagination, but they're still both carrion eaters.
With all due respect, Kosta, this is simply wrong.
The United States had prohibitions against what Calley did, Officers of the United States Army acted upon those prohibitions during Calley's killing spree in Mi Lai, and Calley was ultimately held accountable - though his sentence cannot in any way be construed as being sufficient to address his crime. In short, he is an object of contempt in today's Army and the part of apologist for Calley is played by the likes of fringe groups like the John Birchers, not mainstream American political groups.
You may compare and contrast Calley to Mladic in any way you see fit - for that is where the ultimate command responsibility on the military side for both sides of this equation lie.
I would also add that our purpose in Viet Nam was to save the villagers from communism, not drive them out of our area of operations, which was the obvious purpose of Milosevic's actions in regards to Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
In summation, the Milosevic-Johnson analogy is simply wrong both in fact and context.
NATO together with the muslim albanian terrorists of the KLA were given free reign in Kosovo. Therefore my analogy is correct in comparing NATO to Hitler in regard of the ultimatum Munich1938 vs. Rambouillet1999. But NATO failed in achiving access to the whole of Yugoslavia as envisaged in Appendix B, whereas Hitler successfully conquered all of Czechoslowakia and not only the Sudetenland.
It's an interessting view on history though.
By the way, why should someone give free reign to Milosevic in Kosovo? At that time, Kosovo was legally part of the souvereign state of Serbia/Yugoslavia.
How could you offer someone free reign in his own land? Should I offer George W. Bush free reign in California? We could do it together Hoplite, and let's see what George is going to tell us.
Yes, it is, because Johnson was Calley's commander in chief and Karadzic, not Milosevic, was Mladic's commander in chief. You see, we can also agree sometimes. ;)
I see your point, but I also must respectfully disagre, in principle, not in context or fact. The purpose should not jusitfy or lessen a war crime. The whole idea behind holding people in charge responsable for their subordinates' actions is in the concept of negligence (mismanagement, lack of control where there should be one, etc.), and not whether the nature of the operation was noble or henious.
The Croatians used the same argument in the case of General Bobetko: the people under his command were doing 'their constiututional duty' when the alleged war cimes in the Medak Pocket occurred, so the general could not possibly be responsable for them. How does that follow? Maybe I am missing something?
I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that holding those in charge responsable is a matter of principle and not of aim. The way I see it: police are doing a good thing, but are not allowed or justified in committing a crime while fighting crime.
A goal does not justify the means.
A goal does not justify the means.
I concur with these statements, and think our difference lies in the relationship between the actors (Calley and Medina) and those ultimately responsible (Westmoreland and Johnson) in the American side of this equation vs. those on the Serbian side.
I contend that direct responsibility (commission) and negligence in addressing those crimes of comission (omission) do not extend up to the pinnacle of power as they do in the case of Milosevic and his forces in the Balkans.
I find this to be an edifying read on the matter, though it is still disturbing and shameful to see just how far up the chain of command the negligence extended.
As to Bobetko, given the failure of the local judiciary to take the matter up, he has a date with the ICTY, and I look forward to his appearance.
End of discussion.
End of discussion.
You have no arguments, or what? I pointed out some interesting historical parallels to you. Everything you can come up with, is this Hitleresque talk about nationalist views, race, ethnicity, blahblah....! I thought I have seen you already reaching your lowest points on FR. You are always good for a negative surprise, Hoplite.
That Hitler ordered brutal campaigns, especially against Slavs and Jews, is so well documented that I find it hard to believe you need proof of that. That Hitler isn't recorded as saying "When you get to Babi Yar, commit this list of atrocities" doesn't refute this.
Have fun, Balto - and yes, given it's come to this you may have to wait forever.
Come to what? You needing proof that Hitler ordered atrocities against Jews and Slavs?
As to Milosevic being used, I suppose you're crying over the way Plavsic was used in exactly the same manner to counter Bosnian Serb hardliners?
Nope, nor do I cry for the Guarantor. Just stating the facts.
So now there weren't direct orders from Hitler?
Wow, there was no direct orders from Milosevic for any of his forces' atrocities that we're aware of either, just the same pervasive culture of non-accountability and goal of an ethnically pure state in the conquered territories.
Imagine that.
Given Milosevic's control over the Tigers, as I pointed out earlier, do you still need a written piece of paper with Milosevic's signature on it before you concede his responsibility in the matter of warcrimes committed in his wars?
You're going around in circles. You'll find my response to this here.
Hoplite is no idiot, but unscruppleless in that he stays at the 'paid' job of defending the indefensible.
You can tell by his retorts that he's stressed out. He's being tortured by his controllers to the point that all he does is 'babble'.
Are you talking about these "conquered" territories that belonged to the bosnian serbs in the first place?
Compare this to the dayton-borders of Republika Srpska.
And as I said, Karadzic was Mladic's commander in chief, not Milosevic.
Private ownership of land of those households whose head of the family is of Serbian nationality in percents in Bosnia and Herzegovina (according to settlements) according to the population census on March 31, 1981 (click on the image for full size) 
Yeah, all circly and stuff.
The position is this - either you concede that Hitler did not need to issue direct orders for the massacres perpetrated by his troops, thus also conceding that Milosevic need not have issued direct orders to be culpable for the massacres perpetrated by his troops, or you hold to the position that direct orders are needed for culpability, whereupon I will apply your position back to Babi Yar, etc.
This particular point has been won - it's just a question of how long it takes for you to see it, Balto.
End of discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.