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.
Too bad the evil Communists who killed way more than the Nazis were never brought to justice.
It were "evil communists" who insisted on trial at the first place ( the allies were initially not interested in it at all.)
Therefore when "evil communists" were insisting on objective trial, with involvement of international panel of judges, they knew why they wanted it for sure.
a. What documents were used in conducting the Nuremberg Trials?
b. How did things change in the world after the Nuremberg Trials?
c. How many German war criminals were executed at the end of the second world war?
d. Were the Nuremberg Trials controversial?
a) There was extensive documentary evidence presented. Much of this evidence is still preserved today. Many of the documents were siezed from the Nazi's. The Allies and Soviets also had extensively documented Nazi war crimes in their respective areas. The Soviets had been assembling their case from as early as 1942.
b) The world didn't really change after Nuremberg, but the trial was immensely important for shaping international law and defining war crimes. It was also critical in that established the precedent that individuals, not states, could be held responsible for such actions.
c) In the main Nuremberg Trial, 12 defendants were sentenced to death and 10 were executed. Goring committed suicide and Bormann was convicted in abstentia and presumed dead. In the western occupation zones between 1945 and 1949 many trails were carried out. A total of 5,025 Germans were convicted of war crimes, 806 were sentenced to death and of those 486 were executed. The remainder had their sentences commuted. There are no official figures for the Soviet zone, but it is estimated that tens of thousands of Germans were put on trial with most being sentenced to Soviet labor camps.
d) Of course they were controversial. Many consider them no better than "victor's justice". The legal principles employed at Nuremberg were generally suspect and convicted people of things that were only considered crimes ex post facto. There was also immense hypocrisy at Nuremberg as many of the crimes the Germans were accused of were also committed by the Allied powers. The Soviet Union in particular committed many of the same gross violations of human rights during the war that the Germans did and were just as involved as Germany in terms of starting the war with the invasion of Poland. However, they did serve a very valid purpose in bringing the Holocaust to light and beginning the healing process in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
I personally don't believe the Nuremberg Trials made the world a safer place, nor did they eradicate injustice, racial and religious persecution, enslavement, torture or genocide. However, the trials did establish a precedent for the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the sort of crimes that the international community considers intolerable.
After Nuremberg, no head of state could claim to be above the law and individuals could not evade their responsibilities by hiding behind the anonymity of the administration they had served.
We now have clear codes of conduct where once there was uncertainty and ambiguity. Military personal can no longer claim that they were forced to commit crimes under duress, nor can they fall back on the defence that they were duty bound to obey superior orders.
Trials laid the foundation for the international human rights laws, which entitle every human being to apply to the courts if they feel that their rights have been violated.
The irony is that the international laws and courts that grew out of Nuremberg only apply to nations that aren't powerful enough or who choose to abide by them. Many major nations states including the United States, Russia, China and India are not signatory members of the ICC and therefore reject that it has any sovereignty over their actions. Americans cannot be brought for trial at The Hague because America does not recognize that the ICC has jurisdiction over Americans. Of course, America is powerful enough to get its way.
As for the "following orders" defense it was not expressly banned at Nuremberg and has been used both before and after. The Rome Statute that established the ICC even allows it as a valid defense unless the order involves genocide or crimes against humanity. There are many cases where the "superior orders" defense has been succesfully used on things that many people would have considered a "war crime".
Ultimately the legacy of Nuremberg is the realization that there are in fact overarching principles that apply to all nations and people. We are not perfect in applying those principles and they are often only applied to those nations that are not strong enough to resist the application, but that they exist is generally recognized.
Too bad the evil Communists who killed way more than the Nazis were never brought to justice.
Considering Stalin and Mao, both killed as many of their own people as Germans they hold a special place in History. The Soviets and China were too big to go after. We did get Sadaam and Kadafi. Both, could have easily appeased the west and still been in power but thats another topic
I personally don't believe the Nuremberg Trials made the world a safer place, nor did they eradicate injustice, racial and religious persecution, enslavement, torture or genocide. However, the trials did establish a precedent for the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the sort of crimes that the international community considers intolerable.
After Nuremberg, no head of state could claim to be above the law and individuals could not evade their responsibilities by hiding behind the anonymity of the administration they had served.
We now have clear codes of conduct where once there was uncertainty and ambiguity. Military personal can no longer claim that they were forced to commit crimes under duress, nor can they fall back on the defence that they were duty bound to obey superior orders.
Trials laid the foundation for the international human rights laws, which entitle every human being to apply to the courts if they feel that their rights have been violated.
This is the most important thing about the Nuremberg Trials. Some got left out and the Japanese got largely given the rush treatment, but it made a statement that we as people say no to genocide and the denial of human rights, especially that of life itself.
Given that if you look at early known civilizations, genocide was the normal way of doing things this is a huge leap. In early biblical times, and under Greece and earlier empires, the simpliest way of insuring the enemy not attack you back was to eliminate them. No people, no villages, no leaders no worry. It was practiced by both the 'uncivilized' invaders and those who considered themselves to be like Athens. Troy was wiped off the map so fully we are still not sure we know where it was. The Mongols generally killed anything that was alive. Both for the same reason, nothing to get revenge.
That urge is still in the psyche, and will not go away, but in the world making this statement we established it is not acceptable now. It will not stop it from ever happening again, but it gives a start and recognition to a higher standard even if we may not ever fully meet that. You need something to aim at.
I have always had a big problem with the aspect at Nuremberg where the Allies took the easy route and declared every one who was a member of several German and German supported organizations to be an automatic criminal and made it the accused person's responsibility to prove their innocence. It is like looking at Detroit (just an example) and all the crime and saying lets declare everyone who lives there or is a member of some specific group or race is now to be considered a criminal and wait and see who can prove otherwise..
Not a supporter of any of the the bad Nazi stuff of course, but I know that the victors of any conflict get to write the rules and in the case of Nuremberg, there were many bad decisions in the name of "justice".
terrorist dont deserve due process. they believe in no due process for their victims of torture.
would the world be safer if ben laden was tried at a Nuremberg trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokiddin
Saddam Hussein was an interesting case where an Iraqi High Tribunal was establish by the new government after US invasion and his capture. Through his 2 year trial he was held by US authorities and till he exhausted his appeals and was sentenced to death by hanging. He was hung immediately upon his release by the US authorities to the Iraqi government. Hung, 12/30/06.
Was that a Nuremberg Trial? MNF Coalitions supported the Iraqi High Tribunal.... but the United Nations didn't run the show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47
This is the most important thing about the Nuremberg Trials. Some got left out and the Japanese got largely given the rush treatment, but it made a statement that we as people say no to genocide and the denial of human rights, especially that of life itself.
Given that if you look at early known civilizations, genocide was the normal way of doing things this is a huge leap. In early biblical times, and under Greece and earlier empires, the simpliest way of insuring the enemy not attack you back was to eliminate them. No people, no villages, no leaders no worry. It was practiced by both the 'uncivilized' invaders and those who considered themselves to be like Athens. Troy was wiped off the map so fully we are still not sure we know where it was. The Mongols generally killed anything was alive. Both for the same reason, nothing to get revenge.
That urge is still in the psyche, and will not go away, but in the world making this statement we established it is not acceptable now. It will not stop it from ever happening again, but it gives a start and recognition to a higher standard even if we may not ever fully meet that. You need something to aim at.
Thank you both for your replies.
Actually, without the Nuremberg Trials there would have been no legal framework on which to base the prosecution of those individuals who were responsible for the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone. Also, the trials of tyrants such as Saddam Hussein would never have taken place.
The trials also gave those who had suffered and survived the opportunity to have their experiences recorded for posterity.
After pushing the adoption of the Nuremberg Doctrine as International Law the United States turned their backs on it by waging aggressive warfare against Iraq
d) Of course they were controversial. Many consider them no better than "victor's justice". The legal principles employed at Nuremberg were generally suspect and convicted people of things that were only considered crimes ex post facto. There was also immense hypocrisy at Nuremberg as many of the crimes the Germans were accused of were also committed by the Allied powers. The Soviet Union in particular committed many of the same gross violations of human rights during the war that the Germans did and were just as involved as Germany in terms of starting the war with the invasion of Poland. However, they did serve a very valid purpose in bringing the Holocaust to light and beginning the healing process in Europe.
Ultimately the legacy of Nuremberg is the realization that there are in fact overarching principles that apply to all nations and people. We are not perfect in applying those principles and they are often only applied to those nations that are not strong enough to resist the application, but that they exist is generally recognized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryCarr
I have always had a big problem with the aspect at Nuremberg where the Allies took the easy route and declared every one who was a member of several German and German supported organizations to be an automatic criminal and made it the accused person's responsibility to prove their innocence. It is like looking at Detroit (just an example) and all the crime and saying lets declare everyone who lives there or is a member of some specific group or race is now to be considered a criminal and wait and see who can prove otherwise..
Not a supporter of any of the the bad Nazi stuff of course, but I know that the victors of any conflict get to write the rules and in the case of Nuremberg, there were many bad decisions in the name of "justice".
Thank you both for your replies.
The allied troops were exhausted after five long years of war and they just wanted to put the horrors behind them.
It was well known that Churchill favored the immediate execution of the captured Nazi leaders to prevent the tangles of legal procedure, and certain elements within the American administration felt the same.
After all the Nazis had denied their victims a fair trial so why should they deserve a hearing? Besides, there was the very real worry that the accused might use their day in court as a public forum, so they could pollute the air with their racist propaganda. And what if the prosecutors failed to secure a conviction? The prospect of an acquittal for any of these "monsters" was just too hideous to contemplate.
Too bad the evil Communists who killed way more than the Nazis were never brought to justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
Considering Stalin and Mao, both killed as many of their own people as Germans they hold a special place in History. The Soviets and China were too big to go after. We did get Sadaam and Kadafi. Both, could have easily appeased the west and still been in power but thats another topic
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.
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.
