The farce of Nuremberg trial.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

Well, since this old thread was just resurrected by poster Poznanczyk (above), I'll jump in. It seems to me that the two main objections to the Nuremberg trials, from a legal point of view, were the creation of ex-post-facto law and the disallowal of the tu quoque defense. The two defects mean that the justice meted out there was imperfect justice. I respond by saying the wrongs committed by the German defendants were so overwhelming and so horrible that imperfect justice was preferable to no attempt at justice at all.

Also, it's easy to forget that some defendants were acquitted and that a variety of sentences were meted out to those who were found guilty; some received death sentences while others received prison terms of various lengths. This bespeaks a genuine attempt at true justice, because a kangaroo court would have simply convicted everybody and hanged or shot them all, which is what Stalin wanted to do even without holding trials.

All in all, the Nuremberg trials were defensible and justifiable despite their imperfections.

This and the fact they were held in 1945-1946.

I wonder why people try to hold current standards to past events, and try to make some ethical linkage between them. People forget that there were different ethical and moral standards as time has progressed, and a person cannot judge a past event in present day context.

What the Nazi's did were of course horrific, but even as bad as it was, place them just 100 years earlier and even the death camps would have not been much cared about, even more so 1000 years earlier.

The US did horrific things as well in the expansion of this country, but are we suppose to now judge people like Andrew Jackson in present day context? If so he would rank up there with other mass murders because of the Indian Removal Act. Point is by moral and ethic standards at that time, it was controversial, but not on the level of Nazi death camps.

Look at Syria, everyone is in a hype over the killing of civilians, yet even 20 years ago no one would have really cared outside Cold War political motivation. Really, a government killing citizens in revolt is something appalling?

[NJGOAT]

I've posted just about anything I can say on Nuremberg in this thread, at least regarding the legal grounding and hypocrisy of the trial:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/histo...-executed.html

I do not disagree that something needed to be done to punish the Germans, but it does not change the fact that all sides had blood on their hands and outside of the charges relating to the Holocaust, there was nothing the Germans did that any other nation didn't do. There were deep objections by many in the Allied civilian government and military over holding the trial and the basis for many of the charges. boxus attempts to raise the point that people try to impose "modern ethical and moral standards" onto past events. However, at Nuremberg the Germans were tried and found guilty of acts that the Allied nations also committed. It is not a twisting of the then prevalent moral and ethical standards, it was the decision to decide that the losers actions warranted punishment and the victors actions did not that casts the pall of hypocrisy upon Nuremberg.

It is also right to recognize that the lasting impact and legacy of Nuremberg is not one held dear by the nations that created it. The Hague and International Criminal Court are rejected by the United States, Russia and several other nations such as India and China as having any valid say over their actions. Most likely, because those nations engage in acts that would be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity. The lasting impact and rememberance of Nuremberg is thus, don't lose and ensure that if you are going to engage in questionable acts, you are powerful enough so that no one can force you to be held accountable.

[Glucorious]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I've posted just about anything I can say on Nuremberg in this thread, at least regarding the legal grounding and hypocrisy of the trial:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/histo...-executed.html

I do not disagree that something needed to be done to punish the Germans, but it does not change the fact that all sides had blood on their hands and outside of the charges relating to the Holocaust, there was nothing the Germans did that any other nation didn't do. There were deep objections by many in the Allied civilian government and military over holding the trial and the basis for many of the charges. boxus attempts to raise the point that people try to impose "modern ethical and moral standards" onto past events. However, at Nuremberg the Germans were tried and found guilty of acts that the Allied nations also committed. It is not a twisting of the then prevalent moral and ethical standards, it was the decision to decide that the losers actions warranted punishment and the victors actions did not that casts the pall of hypocrisy upon Nuremberg.

It is also right to recognize that the lasting impact and legacy of Nuremberg is not one held dear by the nations that created it. The Hague and International Criminal Court are rejected by the United States, Russia and several other nations such as India and China as having any valid say over their actions. Most likely, because those nations engage in acts that would be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity. The lasting impact and rememberance of Nuremberg is thus, don't lose and ensure that if you are going to engage in questionable acts, you are powerful enough so that no one can force you to be held accountable.

It's not about punishing the Germans, it's about punishing Nazi war criminals. Many of whom were set free by us, or got a couple of years in jail.... Yeah, the Soviets might have done the same, but being at the same level as the Soviets is pretty sad.

[dude1984]

Originally Posted by markg91359

1. Germany and Japan initiated hostilities beginning World War II, not the Allied Powers.

USSR and Germany split up Poland before the Germans attacked the USSR (in Poland!!!) and the US baited Japan into war through economic warfare.

Originally Posted by markg91359

2. Germany's Holocaust of the Jews and other ethnic groups was unique and had to be dealt with not simply for our own sakes, but for the sake of future generations.

Holocaust was allowed to happen because of immigration policies of the west...

Originally Posted by markg91359

3. Unless leaders of nations and militaries are forced to accept some responsibility and bear the consequences for the actions of their country during armed conflict than there will always be indiscriminate murder of civilians, rape of women, and looting of private property. By imposing responsibility on leaders, we encourage them to keep their armed forces in check.

This doesn't explain how the Japanese and USSR got off the hook...

Originally Posted by markg91359

4. Allied bombing killed many innocent civilians, but was directed at military targets. if we had had a way to simply take out the targets (as we do today with precision guided bombs and missiles) we would have done that instead. The civilian loss of life from bombing was collateral, rather than intended damage.

Fire bombing was done to break the will of the people...they just happened to hit some factories.

Originally Posted by markg91359

5. Its true that there may not have been specific laws prohibiting war crimes before World War II occurred. However, most of the elements of war crimes were spelled out either in civilian laws or international treaties that pre-dated the war. In the most literal sense, these may have been "ex post facto laws", but you have to start somewhere.

Refer to questions #3...

Note- Germans got what they deserved, but nobody involved is innocent.