U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2011, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,878,157 times
Reputation: 32438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I agree that we are arguing semantics, sorry for that. I don't think Nuremberg approaches the level of a "Kangaroo Court' where the verdicts were pre-ordained. I, also don't believe that it was a shining example of blind justice and was a flawed proceeding for the reasons outlined in previous posts.
As was stated above, the use of the term "Kangaroo Court" implies something I did not mean to imply. However, I will standby the fact that they were flawed proceedings for the reasons outlined earlier. Flawed to the point that many of the convictions would have been overturned on appeal in a western court.
A trial had to happen. The Nazi's needed to be punished. Nuremberg accomplished that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing semantics; it sometimes serves to clarify things, and I believe that has happened in this case. Our positions are actually very close, and I certainly recognize you as an intelligent and well-informed poster. We probably differ some in how serious we think the flaws were, and on how much the unusual context mattered, but we agree on what the flaws were, and that they were, in fact, flaws.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:41 AM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,590,742 times
Reputation: 6775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
I recall reading the French judges were not proponents of the charge regarding waging aggressive war as waging war was seen as one of the rights of states.

Also, some of the defendents were not questionable regarding the place in the chain of decision making. I recall a junior Krupps man was charged because the senior when he might be considered responsible was too elderly to stand trial. I could find the exact citation, it has been a number of years since I read on the Nuremburg Trials.
I do not think any Krupps people were tried at Nuremburg. That tribunal was for the top Nazi officials, not industrialists.

There were other war crimes trials. For instance, the British held a Belsen trial, the Israelis tried Eichmann, and then West Germany conducted the Auschwitz trial.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:47 AM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,590,742 times
Reputation: 6775
Quote:
As was stated above, the use of the term "Kangaroo Court" implies something I did not mean to imply. However, I will standby the fact that they were flawed proceedings for the reasons outlined earlier. Flawed to the point that many of the convictions would have been overturned on appeal in a western court.

A trial had to happen. The Nazi's needed to be punished. Nuremberg accomplished that.
Well if you did not mean to imply it, perhaps you should not have implied it.

It was not a Western court. Goerring was not taken to the Eastern District of New York. Speer was not tried in London. It was a special tribunal set up for a special purpose.

I have hard time imagining any of them winning an appeal.

Nuremburg worked. Indeed it worked splendidly. A great moment for the Allies. And for the German people too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:55 AM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,510,710 times
Reputation: 14496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
I do not think any Krupps people were tried at Nuremburg. That tribunal was for the top Nazi officials, not industrialists.

There were other war crimes trials. For instance, the British held a Belsen trial, the Israelis tried Eichmann, and then West Germany conducted the Auschwitz trial.
Gustav Krupp was indicted at Nuremberg on three counts: planning and intiating wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was declared medically unfit for trial. The prosection attempted to substitute his son Alfried who had actually run Krupp A.G. during the war. However, the judges determined it was too close to trial to name Alfried. Alfried was tried separately and convicted of crimes against humanity for his companies use of slave labor. He received a 12 year sentence and was forced to forfeit all his property. The Americans reversed this sentence during the occupation after he served 3 years and restored his property.

Another economist/industrialist that was tried was Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. He was the head of the Reichsbank from 1923-1930 and again from 1933-1938 as well as serving as Economics Minister from 1934-1937. He was indicted on two counts: Participation in a conspiracy for a crime against peace and planning and intiating wars of aggression. He was acquitted of both charges, but did admit to violating the Treaty of Versailles.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:33 AM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,510,710 times
Reputation: 14496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Well if you did not mean to imply it, perhaps you should not have implied it.

It was not a Western court. Goerring was not taken to the Eastern District of New York. Speer was not tried in London. It was a special tribunal set up for a special purpose.

I have hard time imagining any of them winning an appeal.

Nuremburg worked. Indeed it worked splendidly. A great moment for the Allies. And for the German people too.
There were four main charges at Nuremberg, with evidence presented for each charge and the defendants responsibility for it. Not everyone was tried for crimes relating to the Holocaust. Several people were brought up on charges simply relating to the fact that there was a war. I said that many of the convictions for certain charges and some defendants all together would have had a solid appeal. As I stated earlier, the tu quoque defense was disallowed and evidentiary rules changed. Tu quoque alone would have meant most of the charges would be dismissed as the Allies committed the same crimes that they were trying the Germans for.

I never argued that the trial wasn't necessary or that it didn't serve it's intended purpose. However, that doesn't change the fact that the trial was simply a form of cleaner "victor's justice" than just taking the Nazi's out to the alley and shooting them. As such the precedent it set has become embodied in the "Hague" and the International Criminal Court. It is no surprise that major nations including the United States, Russia, China and India as well as others like Israel have rejected such a court. The reason why, those states engage in actions that could be defined as criminal.

Essentially planning and waging war with all the things that means are fine as long as you don't lose, or the most powerful nations support or ignore your actions.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 8,431,351 times
Reputation: 6650
I believe also Adml. Doenitz received favorable testimony from the Americans (Nimitz I recall reading) regarding the charge of waging unrestricted submarine warfare. The Americans did the same against the Japanese. I believe he received prison time for the "Triton Null" command and as political fallout for being the titular head of the Third Reich after the death of Hitler.

It would be interesting to know if Doenitz was made aware in those final days when he was Fuherer regarding the death camps and if he took any action. I presume some were still in operation in German held portions.

NJGOAT's post above reminds me of words attributed to LeMay regarding the fire bombing that it was a good thing the Allies won or war crime charges would be levied for the fire bombings of cities. Paraphrasing the actual saying.

NJGOAT do you own a GTO?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 11:52 AM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,510,710 times
Reputation: 14496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
NJGOAT do you own a GTO?
I did. I had a 2004 and my dad still owns a 1967. Mine was pretty heavily modded; heads, cam, exhaust, nitrous and suspension work. I used to do a lot of racing and there was a long line of cars before that one. Kids and a mortgage ended all that, lol.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:34 PM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,590,742 times
Reputation: 6775
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Gustav Krupp was indicted at Nuremberg on three counts: planning and intiating wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was declared medically unfit for trial. The prosection attempted to substitute his son Alfried who had actually run Krupp A.G. during the war. However, the judges determined it was too close to trial to name Alfried. Alfried was tried separately and convicted of crimes against humanity for his companies use of slave labor. He received a 12 year sentence and was forced to forfeit all his property. The Americans reversed this sentence during the occupation after he served 3 years and restored his property.

Another economist/industrialist that was tried was Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. He was the head of the Reichsbank from 1923-1930 and again from 1933-1938 as well as serving as Economics Minister from 1934-1937. He was indicted on two counts: Participation in a conspiracy for a crime against peace and planning and intiating wars of aggression. He was acquitted of both charges, but did admit to violating the Treaty of Versailles.
Focus on:

"Alfried was tried separately"

That is what I said. He was not tried at the main trial. I clearly stated he may have been dealt with at another trial.

Not much disagreement here.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:38 PM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,590,742 times
Reputation: 6775
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
There were four main charges at Nuremberg, with evidence presented for each charge and the defendants responsibility for it. Not everyone was tried for crimes relating to the Holocaust. Several people were brought up on charges simply relating to the fact that there was a war. I said that many of the convictions for certain charges and some defendants all together would have had a solid appeal. As I stated earlier, the tu quoque defense was disallowed and evidentiary rules changed. Tu quoque alone would have meant most of the charges would be dismissed as the Allies committed the same crimes that they were trying the Germans for.

I never argued that the trial wasn't necessary or that it didn't serve it's intended purpose. However, that doesn't change the fact that the trial was simply a form of cleaner "victor's justice" than just taking the Nazi's out to the alley and shooting them. As such the precedent it set has become embodied in the "Hague" and the International Criminal Court. It is no surprise that major nations including the United States, Russia, China and India as well as others like Israel have rejected such a court. The reason why, those states engage in actions that could be defined as criminal.

Essentially planning and waging war with all the things that means are fine as long as you don't lose, or the most powerful nations support or ignore your actions.
I never said it focused soley on the Holocaust.

As the Germans would say, you are very 'streitlustig'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 01:10 PM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,510,710 times
Reputation: 14496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
I never said it focused soley on the Holocaust.

As the Germans would say, you are very 'streitlustig'.
I fail to see how having a healthy discussion about a topic makes me belligerent. I am merely replying to your statements that seemed to counter my position. I did think about not doing it as your position seems to solely be that Nuremberg was good, period. You haven't really presented anything to flesh out that position or counter the points we were discussing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top