French block airlift of British troops to Basra

Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

snip


Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
tended to get rather less gentle treatment.



Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

--

Brian



And the reverse would have happened if the Brits had won. Basically put
a civil war is not based on kindness to an enemy and the victors, as in
all wars, get to do what they please with the defeated. Times have
changed but not a lot.

George

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

Keith Willshaw wrote:


"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Nothing in this article invalidates my point , having served in the
German armed forces was specifically made a punishable act.

After they lost. Its no trick to make an act a crime after it occurs.
it is of course unconstituional in the USA (ex post facto) etc.



Only if you accept the war time Danish Government as a
legitmate one operating of its own free will, I do not.

Had a portion of the US been invaded and subject to
a puppet regime I rather doubt that US citizens whoi
joined the SS would have escaped punishment based
on a plea that the aforementioned regime had sanctioned
their acts.

Keith



You are of course free to doubt as you will,
seeing as you are proposing a hypothetical.
However let's look at what happenned in the US Civil war.
Were the citizens of states occupied by the Southern
Confederacy who joined the Confederate army, later
prosecuted and punished by the winning Northern states,
after they won the war, for having joined the
Confederate army?


Nope and this is to the credit of those in the US Government.
Such an attitude is atypical, those who fight on the wrong side of
a civil war arent usually treated so well.


The war which is still refered to by some southerners
as 'The war of northern aggression'


You may wish to review what happened to those
who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865

Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. But it was
only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
to those people after I moved to the USA :|

But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.

You may also wish to review the treatment of those US
citizens suspected of having links with Al Qaeda or the
Taliban. John Walker Lindh got 20 years if I recall
correctly for offences commmitted outside the USA
and for belonging to an organisation which he joined before
it came into conflict with the USA.

Keith

William Black wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...


And we're talking about British servicemen joining the SS here, not

Germans

going home to fight...


And the Soviets were are discussing were those who had
joined the German armed forces too.


Exactly.

NOpe! That was not the content ot the posting to which
Keith made his comment.

William Black wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

Keith Willshaw wrote:


There is a world of difference between these people and
the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
hatred of ones father.


I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
Army when they changed sides.

That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.

So far I see nothing wrong here.

--
William Black

I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
Finns).

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

Keith Willshaw wrote:


There is a world of difference between these people and
the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
hatred of ones father.


I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
Army when they changed sides.

That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.

So far I see nothing wrong here.

--
William Black

I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
Finns).


None of whom, with the possible exception of some
of the Balts, were citizens of the USSR and they were
not repatriated to Russia after the war which is the
context of the discussion.

Keith

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...


You may wish to review what happened to those
who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865

Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. But it was
only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
to those people after I moved to the USA :|

But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.

Once more with feeling.

I have not , will not and do not ever intend to defend
Stalin or his regime. However I believe its fair to point
out that joining the forces of the enemy in wartime
has always been a very dangerous option. If that enemy loses
the results are dire and usually fatal for those concerned.

The USA no different and regards such acts as treason,
you may recall its definition.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.


They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
debated to today.

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.


They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
debated to today.

Vince

As to their guilt, you must have missed the more recent books that
verify their espionage activities, from both former KGB sources and
western sources (ISTR that one of the latest also identified A gent
named Greenglass as being intimately involved in their little spy
ring). And BTW, KGB files also verified that Alger Hiss was indeed a
Soviet agent (knowing how you never miss an opportunity to bash the
US).

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Keith Willshaw wrote:

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.


They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy, but that
was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial the cold
war had begun. Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
debated to today.

Vince


As to their guilt,

I said debated, not what I believed.

you must have missed the more recent books that
verify their espionage activities, from both former KGB sources and
western sources (ISTR that one of the latest also identified A gent
named Greenglass as being intimately involved in their little spy
ring). And BTW, KGB files also verified that Alger Hiss was indeed a
Soviet agent (knowing how you never miss an opportunity to bash the
US).

Brooks

The evidence against Ethel Rosenberg is still a very mixed bag. That is
why they were only charged with conspiring to commit espionage, not with
passing information to a foreign power. I personally beieve taht Julius
Rosenberg was a an ineffective russian agent, that his wife was a nitwit
and the whole group was simply blown off by the russians

FWIW I always thought Alger Hiss was a spy.


Howver, the behavior of Judge Irving Kaufman is considered by many to be
a complte disgrace.

"To this latter end, an extract of the Gordon Dean diary reveals that
Assistant Attorney General McInerney spoke to the judge less than a
month prior to the time of the trial who in turn indicated that the
death sentence would be imposed "if the evidence warranted it ". During
the course of the trial the representative of the Department of Justice
advised the FBI that Judge Kaufman would impose the death sentence "if
he doesn't change his mind". (Document No. 894 dated March 16, 1951) The
record further reveals that on April 3, 1951, two days prior to
sentencing, Roy Cohn secretly spoke to Judge Kaufman, advising him he
personally favored sentencing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death with a
prison term for Morton Sobell. Cohn further advised the FBI that Judge
Frank opposed any death sentence, but that Judge Weinfeld favored the
death sentence to be imposed upon Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg and
Morton Sobell. At Cohn's suggestion, Saypol, the U.S. Attorney, was to
go to Washington and confer with the Attorney General and J. Edgar
Hoover as to the proposed sentence. Hoover recommended that Julius
Rosenberg and Morton Sobell should be executed."

Saypol learned that there was division within the Department of Justice
as to whether or not a death sentence should be imposed and transmitted
that information secretly to Judge Kaufman who in turn asked him to
stand silent and to make no recommendation as to sentencing. FBI
documents further reveal that the trial judge interfered with the
appellate process on appeals from his decisions, denying habeas corpus
relief without hearing, by communicating secretly with members of the
prosecution staff, the FBI and through them, with the Department of
Justice. The record reveals that the last application of the Rosenbergs
to set aside their sentences was made in June, 1953. It came on to be
heard before Judge Kaufman and was summarily denied without affording
any evidentiary hearing. The record also reveals that prior to the time
the motion was even filed the subject matter of the motion was secretly
discussed at a meeting between Hoover and Judge Kaufman in May of 1953.

Washington, D.C. December 16, 1982
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL PERLIN
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY



vince

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

William Black wrote:


"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...


Keith Willshaw wrote:


There is a world of difference between these people and
the handfull of British traitors. I do not know the motivations
of the Britishers, but am guessing that they must have been
ideological and not something as crass as financial or the
hatred of ones father.


I seem to remember that Vlasov and his men were actually part of the Red
Army when they changed sides.

That's treason, they got caught, they got shot.

So far I see nothing wrong here.

--
William Black

I was not thinking of, and don't know much about Vlasov.
or the French, Hungarian, of other western volunteers in the
armies of the 3'rd Reich (except for possibly the Balts and
Finns).



None of whom, with the possible exception of some
of the Balts, were citizens of the USSR and they were
not repatriated to Russia after the war which is the
context of the discussion.

Keith


What happenned to any Balts or Finns whom the Russians
managed to get into their clutches?