Snowball Keep. He has achieved world-wide notoriety. The rumored forthcoming Polish extradition for war crimes is the cherry on top. — The Anome (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:RUMOR, so far all we have is a tweet from the Polish education minister. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2/3 In 1985, Canada initiated an independent investigation and established The Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada (the Deschênes Commission). None of the members of the Division "Galicia" who had settled in Canada were found guilty of committing war crimes.
I knew they would use the commission which did actively walk back from the Nuremberg decision - based on a ton of evidence - to declare the (Waffen-)SS a criminal organization due to its part in the Holocaust and Shoa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palikrowy_massacre
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huta-Pieniacka-Massaker
To name just two.
The commission was a really fucked up thing, too. It didn't look into Nuremberg archives, didn't acknowledge scholarly work, it didn't ask neither Eastern Europe nor the Soviet Union for information or access to archives.
After the commission ended more empirical scholarly work was done which also strengthened the link between Galicia members (and sometimes even before they joined that unit) to war crimes and worse.
CW One of the commission consequences
As a result of the Deschenes commission, the Criminal Code was amended in mid-1987 to allow the trial of suspected Nazi war criminals living in Canada. In December of 1987, charges were laid against Imre Finta. (See also Finta Case.) Finta was the first Canadian to ever be prosecuted for war crimes under the new amended Criminal Code. He was accused of forcibly confining over 8,600 Jews in a brick factory located in Szeged, Hungary, in 1944, from which they would then be sent to the Nazi death camps at Auschwitz and Stasshof. Finta was ultimately found not guilty, and no further war crimes trials of Nazis or Nazi collaborators were ever held in Canada afterwards.
The jury was stacked and his involvement in the Holocaust clear: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/29656/1882524838/1882525145
Finta was accused of being in charge of bringing Jews from the ghettoes to the concentration centre in Szeged. He was allegedly in charge of the concentration centre and his responsibilities supposedly included making sure that the Jews were kept in the brickyard and could not escape. He also took charge of taking valuables from them and his trial counsel admitted that Finta made daily announcements demanding that the prisoners relinquish all valuables on pain of death. Finally, he allegedly supervised the loading of the prisoners onto boxcars which took the Jews to their deaths at Auschwitz or to forced labour in Strasshof.
The evidence against Finta is overwhelming and unanswered. Finta presented no evidence to answer the charges brought against him, either at his libel trials or at his criminal prosecution. When asked at his criminal trial if he wanted to call evidence on his own behalf, he declined. Yet, Finta was acquitted. How is it possible that Finta could win his case when he called no evidence on his own behalf and the evidence against him was overwhelming? The answer is that there was a stacked jury and an appeal to racial prejudice.
"Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed by the Court by a narrow margin of 4:3."
The Crown's case depended in large measure on the testimony of 19 witnesses who had been interned at Szeged and deported to the concentration camps. The evidence of these survivors fell into four general groups. Six witnesses who knew respondent before the events in issue testified as to things said and done by him at the brickyard and at the train station. A second group consisting of three witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand identified him as having said or done certain things at the brickyard and at the station. A third group consisting of three witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand also testified as to things said and done at the brickyard and at the station. However, this last group based their identification of respondent on statements made to them by others. The fourth group, consisting of eight witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand and did not identify him, gave evidence as to events at the brickyard and the train station. In addition to the evidence of the survivors, the Crown relied on photographs, handwriting and fingerprint evidence to identify respondent as a captain in the Gendarmerie at Szeged at the relevant time. Expert and documentary evidence was tendered to establish the historical context of the evidence, the relevant command structure in place in Hungary in 1944 and the state of international law in 1944.
and
Douglas Christie made the purport of these remarks quite dear later in the trial. He asked, “It is very difficult for a Jewish person to be unbiased about the subject of the Holocaust?” and “You [Randolph] advance the Jewish understanding of history?”36 This Holocaust denial-oriented questioning of Braham was prolonged and elaborate. Christie’s questioning of the witness Wolfgang Scheffler was similar. In one exchange, Christie tied together his themes of Holocaust denial and Jews as greedy people.
He suggested that Jews deny the Holocaust in order to make money through reparations. Douglas Christie asked, “Dr. Scheffler, the Holocaust is big business, isn’t it?”37 The Crown objected and Christie replied, “It is my intention to suggest that there is a motive on the part of many people who are Zionists to exaggerate these things [the Holocaust] to inflate their claims [for reparations].” The ruling of the judge was to “go ahead.”
CW
Canada did not even sentence people when there were 6-19 eye witnesses of their participation in the Shoa - without threat to their lives. Don't give a fuck about the commission.
revolutionary defeatism means critically supporting the opponents of your own side
Lenin didn't meant that the SPD has to gather money to send to the Tsarist army though.
May have a gun
Really US cop propagandists, really?
During discussing twitter in a pub a person was quite angry that I didn't refer to the bird site with the name 
likes so much. The same person sometimes argues that dead naming is not a problem, till the new name is accepted by the state in official registries and the person got an ID with that.
Who do you mean?
Regular prole scrollers
Will get it, since we are having enough critical points and mega threads as well as theory discussions.
That path is too easy to accidentally replicate and IT will be a negative effect for the working class on the net
Yeah I differ in that estimate. A variety of places for the working class will be more effective than small closed groups of critical school theory nerds (which had like 90 years to come up with functional organizing).
The groups I know which organize women workers are also the groups arguing for better language. The liberal groups I know who argue against inclusive language are not only seldom the groups which often are not in solidarity with women workers when there are strikes or conflicts between bosses and workers (and take any breach of protocol as the left being unreasonable the demands breaking civility). Of course the latter sentence doesn't have to be true for all, but it is a surprising amount.
The Comintern was in practice quite inclusive and also policed what kind of words could be used for certain ethnic groups. Unquestionably the Comintern did achieve a lot. Since they achieved a lot I don't give arguments about that you can do either support women workers or instead change language much credit. The last half century did show also that you can do more than two things at the same time.
but y'all seem borderline psychopathic.
Why do you feel the need to pathologize and medicalize? You are likely 27 years old, you had therefore time to reflect a bit about your ableism and neuro-normativity.
This is an honest question.
In communist Russia the state forbids internal travel for urgent medical care between federations for political reasons, targeting minorities state functionaries assign as enemies of state values or for personal grudges.
or
In communist Russia the state forbids internal travel between federations to control the bodies of its population.
For me there is this contradiction that libs say: "Trump bad, he was ableist and a trash human!" and then turn around and use slurs at our instance, then get those comments removed and then say we are worse than 4chan for defending our comrades against ableism and transphobia. I just don't buy it that most libs are actually allies and aren't actually conflating the form (Trump not being civil) with the content (him being ableist).
JuneFall
joined 4 years ago
Is shit I did hear too often.