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.
Don't you think this trial was the most cynical and hypocritical process the mankind has expierenced?
I'm a lot more bothered by the Holocaust, the invasion of the Soviet Union and its wholesale murder, the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese biological weapon experiment program, the destruction of something like a quarter of the population of Poland, and numerous other atrocities than I am about whether a bunch of fascist leaders who oversaw those atrocities got a fair trial.
To call Nuremberg "the most cynical and hypocritical process the mankind has expierenced" is so over the top I could only define it as ultra-hyperbolic hyperbole. By that sort of logic, the cold symptoms I am currently experiencing in my sinuses might be "the most miserable affliction in the history of human suffering." My bad knee would rank as "the most agonizing disability humanity has ever known."
It's one thing to argue that a lot of other people deserved to be in the dock at Nuremberg, including some on the Allied side. It's another to suggest that it evidently outdoes the Inquisition, the Soviet purges and every other judicial miscarriage and abuse in the history of mankind. That's probably the most ridiculous idea I'll have the misfortune to read today.
I'm a lot more bothered by the Holocaust, the invasion of the Soviet Union and its wholesale murder, the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese biological weapon experiment program, the destruction of something like a quarter of the population of Poland, and numerous other atrocities than I am about whether a bunch of fascist leaders who oversaw those atrocities got a fair trial.
This thread isn't about wether fascist leaders got fair trial. It is about hypocrisy of this tribunal which was presented as enforcment of general and common justice but in reality it was victor's justice. Soviets weren't tried not because they were in any way better than nazis but because Stalin had better argument - an army of about 11 million well armed and trained men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
To call Nuremberg "the most cynical and hypocritical process the mankind has expierenced" is so over the top I could only define it as ultra-hyperbolic hyperbole.
Maybe there have been more hypocritical trials in the world history but the fact that one of the three main judges was a mass murderer himself sets the bar quite high by no means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
It's one thing to argue that a lot of other people deserved to be in the dock at Nuremberg, including some on the Allied side. It's another to suggest that it evidently outdoes the Inquisition, the Soviet purges and every other judicial miscarriage and abuse in the history of mankind. That's probably the most ridiculous idea I'll have the misfortune to read today.
Hypocritisy doesn't always mean abuse. This tribunal wasn't cynical because it tried anyone unfairlay but because it punished only the weakest criminal.
This thread isn't about wether fascist leaders got fair trial. It is about hypocrisy of this tribunal which was presented as enforcment of general and common justice but in reality it was victor's justice. Soviets weren't tried not because they were in any way better than nazis but because Stalin had better argument - an army of about 11 million well armed and trained men.
And I stubbed my toe this morning, but it isn't very important compared to someone being in a car wreck. My point is that you seem more bothered over the leaders' trial, because it was hypocritical, than over the victims of the leaders' actions (though they number in eight figures). I simply do not know what to make of a sense of proportion like that.
(Mod Cut) Read my original post which quite clearly orientates this thread towards discussing how hypocritical it was to try nazi regime and completely forget about soviets.
I truly believe that, although western allies were to some extent also guilty by their on the take actions in the past, they did everything more or less in a right way, at least what concerns WW2.
How is something impossible, hypocritical? Exactly what would have been your proposal for getting the Soviets to trial? Ask Stalin and remember to say "Pretty please?"
The notion of indicting members of your ally for war crimes is a non starter. We could have insisted on justice for Soviet atrocities, and they could have demanded that the crew of the Enola Gay be brought up on charges along with the scientists of the Manhattan Project. Should we have been trying ourselves for war crimes?
The reality is that only losers in wars are elligible to have war criminals...keep that in mind and you should be able to dampen your outrage over this supposed hypocrisy. Your current advocay makes little sense, more or less akin to arguing that we are hypocritical in trying our domestic murderers when we still haven't tried Osama bin laden.
How is something impossible, hypocritical? Exactly what would have been your proposal for getting the Soviets to trial? Ask Stalin and remember to say "Pretty please?"
The notion of indicting members of your ally for war crimes is a non starter. We could have insisted on justice for Soviet atrocities, and they could have demanded that the crew of the Enola Gay be brought up on charges along with the scientists of the Manhattan Project. Should we have been trying ourselves for war crimes?
The reality is that only losers in wars are elligible to have war criminals...keep that in mind and you should be able to dampen your outrage over this supposed hypocrisy. Your current advocay makes little sense, more or less akin to arguing that we are hypocritical in trying our domestic murderers when we still haven't tried Osama bin laden.
I'm not saying that Western allies had any liabilities or possibilities to try soviets. But criminals are criminals no matter which side they take. It is simple question of morals - is it ok that criminals become judges when the war is over? No it isn't. They should be tried. But unfortunately western powers weren't powerful enough to enforce this simple justice, unless they didn't want to start another, even more disastrous war. They had to play hypocrites.
I'm not saying that Western allies had any liabilities or possibilities to try soviets. But criminals are criminals no matter which side they take. It is simple question of morals - is it ok that criminals become judges when the war is over? No it isn't. They should be tried. But unfortunately western powers weren't powerful enough to enforce this simple justice, unless they didn't want to start another, even more disastrous war. They had to play hypocrites.
So, since they avoided another war and all the death and suffering it would surely bring, they were hypocrites. Good for them. If I could find a form of hypocrisy to espouse that would prevent all future wars, I would not only rush to espouse it, but have the word 'hypocrite' tattooed on my forehead and buns in flaming letters.
Wrong. USSR invaded five countries(Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) before WW2 was started. And the fact that Hitler attacked first was rather coincidence than obligatory course of events.
My reply is:
That didn't start World War II. While the actions of the Soviet Union in invading these countries was clearly wrong they didn't pose a danger to the western countries in the same way that an attack on Poland, France or Pearl Harbor did. Hitler also attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 without issuing a prior declaration of war. Its pretty certain due to the surprise he achieved and the capturing of well over 1 million POWs during the first week or so of conflict that the Soviet Union was obviously not preparing an invasion of Germany.
You wrote:
Soviet Union's genocide against its citizens was even more unique because the main purpose of it wasn't to exterminate certain groups of people. Yes, there occured some "reasoned" assassinations targeting ethnic minorities(Stalin believed that Soviet people should be melted in a uniform Russian-speaking nation) and those who opposed communism or Stalin himself. But all the evidence show that the main motive was to impose massive and unseen terror on huge masses to create unconditional docility and fear to even think about doubting the regime. Administrative regions were given so called quotas that meant that certain percentage of population had to be exterminated. Anyone could be accused for anything. Quotas had to be fulfiled. That is why Stalin exceeded Hitler in terms of amount of killed people.
My reply is:
Have you ever heard two wrongs don't make a right? I have never said and would never say anything condoning Stalin's slaughter of his own people. However, do you believe that the fact that one occurred precludes us from doing anything about another? If so, this is strange logic indeed. I will say that you pinpointed exactly what made Hitler a greater threat to the West than Stalin. That is Stalin's abuses were directed at his own people. They were not directed at the people in the Western countries.
You wrote:
No, this tribunal showed that winner takes it all and if you're stronger and bigger, you can do whatever you want.
My reply is:
According to your logic, war crimes trials could never be pursued against any country because back somewhere in our own history we have something to be ashamed about. I say its better to start somewhere and work towards fixing things across the board gradually. We may get the accusation "hypocrite" once in awhile, but at least we get an important process rolling.
You wrote:
Wrong again. Soviet army's actions regularly were turned against civilian population, sometimes even if it wasn't too smart from war tactics perspective and gave Germans some short-term advantages.[/quote]
My reply is:
I didn't even mention the Soviet Army. I was talking about saturation bombing and use of the atomic bomb by America. Obviously, you have this thing about the Soviets on the brain.
I say despite what Stalin did the Russians had a right to be at the war crimes trial and I'll tell you why. The Germans invaded their country in 1941 and killed approximately 20 million soldiers and civilians in the process. They carted off a couple of million civilians to work in the most brutal slave labor conditions in Germany. They treated Russian POWs so badly that its estimated about 2 million died. Than there was the German Einsatzgruppen. Their job was to round up Jewish Russians and slaughter every man, woman, and child. Does the name Babi Yar mean anything to you? If not, I suggest you google it and prepare for some awfully sickening reading.
Whether "hypocrisy" was involved or not, the Nuremberg War Crimes trials were an important start at building better a world. The precedents established at Nuremberg are making it possible for us to hold the likes of Razdic and the other Serbian leadership responsible for massacres like Sbrenica. The same is true for those who instigated and carried out the Rwandan Genocide.
Think about this: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Wrong. USSR invaded five countries(Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) before WW2 was started. And the fact that Hitler attacked first was rather coincidence than obligatory course of events.
My reply is:
That didn't start World War II. While the actions of the Soviet Union in invading these countries was clearly wrong they didn't pose a danger to the western countries in the same way that an attack on Poland, France or Pearl Harbor did. Hitler also attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 without issuing a prior declaration of war. Its pretty certain due to the surprise he achieved and the capturing of well over 1 million POWs during the first week or so of conflict that the Soviet Union was obviously not preparing an invasion of Germany.
You wrote:
Soviet Union's genocide against its citizens was even more unique because the main purpose of it wasn't to exterminate certain groups of people. Yes, there occured some "reasoned" assassinations targeting ethnic minorities(Stalin believed that Soviet people should be melted in a uniform Russian-speaking nation) and those who opposed communism or Stalin himself. But all the evidence show that the main motive was to impose massive and unseen terror on huge masses to create unconditional docility and fear to even think about doubting the regime. Administrative regions were given so called quotas that meant that certain percentage of population had to be exterminated. Anyone could be accused for anything. Quotas had to be fulfiled. That is why Stalin exceeded Hitler in terms of amount of killed people.
My reply is:
Have you ever heard two wrongs don't make a right? I have never said and would never say anything condoning Stalin's slaughter of his own people. However, do you believe that the fact that one occurred precludes us from doing anything about another? If so, this is strange logic indeed. I will say that you pinpointed exactly what made Hitler a greater threat to the West than Stalin. That is Stalin's abuses were directed at his own people. They were not directed at the people in the Western countries.
You wrote:
No, this tribunal showed that winner takes it all and if you're stronger and bigger, you can do whatever you want.
My reply is:
According to your logic, war crimes trials could never be pursued against any country because back somewhere in our own history we have something to be ashamed about. I say its better to start somewhere and work towards fixing things across the board gradually. We may get the accusation "hypocrite" once in awhile, but at least we get an important process rolling.
You wrote:
Wrong again. Soviet army's actions regularly were turned against civilian population, sometimes even if it wasn't too smart from war tactics perspective and gave Germans some short-term advantages.
My reply is:
I didn't even mention the Soviet Army. I was talking about saturation bombing and use of the atomic bomb by America. Obviously, you have this thing about the Soviets on the brain.
I say despite what Stalin did the Russians had a right to be at the war crimes trial and I'll tell you why. The Germans invaded their country in 1941 and killed approximately 20 million soldiers and civilians in the process. They carted off a couple of million civilians to work in the most brutal slave labor conditions in Germany. They treated Russian POWs so badly that its estimated about 2 million died. Than there was the German Einsatzgruppen. Their job was to round up Jewish Russians and slaughter every man, woman, and child. Does the name Babi Yar mean anything to you? If not, I suggest you google it and prepare for some awfully sickening reading.
Whether "hypocrisy" was involved or not, the Nuremberg War Crimes trials were an important start at building better a world. The precedents established at Nuremberg are making it possible for us to hold the likes of Razdic and the other Serbian leadership responsible for massacres like Sbrenica. The same is true for those who instigated and carried out the Rwandan Genocide.
Think about this: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.[/quote]
The Soviets did not view their advance into the Baltic states and eastern Poland in 1939 as an invasion of foreign territory but the return of territory that had been part of the Russian empire and occupied by Germany in the First World War. These territories were under German occupation after the Brest-Litvosk treaty which ended the war between Germany and the Russian Provisional Government. When the First World War was settled at Versailles the Russian Provisional (Soviet) Government was not allowed to participate and these Russian territories were taken from Germany but not returned to Russia. The new Baltic states and Poland were created and given these territories. The Soviets didn't accept this result. They got the Germans who were planning on reoccupying Polish territory that had been German before 1918 to agree to Soviet desires to retake the Baltic states and eastern Poland. Interestingly after Germany was beaten in 1945, the Soviets kept every acre of territory taken by Russia according to the Mototov-von Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. The western powers apparently accepted this result at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945.
Wrong. USSR invaded five countries(Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) before WW2 was started.
The Soviets launched their offensive,the Winter War on Finland,November 30,1939,three months after the start of World War II.This act was condemned by the League of Nations,and the USSR was expelled from the League.They invaded Poland on September 17,1941,16 days after the start of the German invasion that started the war.The Soviet invasion of the Baltic nations did not occur until June 1940.The anexation of these states in 1939 was not accepted or recognized by the Baltic States.All of these aggressive USSR actions happened after the September 1,1939 invasion of Poland by German forces that started the war.
Have you ever heard two wrongs don't make a right? I have never said and would never say anything condoning Stalin's slaughter of his own people. However, do you believe that the fact that one occurred precludes us from doing anything about another?
As history has shown - no it doesn't. For example, you can go and invade Iraq because of non-existent mass-killing weapons and liberate Iraqi people from "gruesome dictatorship" but can't do anything when China or Russia does something bad again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
If so, this is strange logic indeed. I will say that you pinpointed exactly what made Hitler a greater threat to the West than Stalin. That is Stalin's abuses were directed at his own people. They were not directed at the people in the Western countries.
And your point is?
First of all, not exactly his own people. He attacked other nations as well.
Secondly, the fact that instead of Western Europeans Stalin killed Eastern and Central Europeans doesn't make him morally blameless. He still WAS murderer.
But as I previously said - Americans are not obligated to save Eastern Europeans from Russians or save Russians from themselves. I'm talking about simple morals(criminals became judges), not what Americans should or shouldn't do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
According to your logic, war crimes trials could never be pursued against any country because back somewhere in our own history we have something to be ashamed about. I say its better to start somewhere and work towards fixing things across the board gradually. We may get the accusation "hypocrite" once in awhile, but at least we get an important process rolling.
You're right but this doesn't change the fact that Nuremberg tribunal was hypocritical. It wasn't your free will to play hypocrites at the time. Simply USSR was too big and strong, so you had to lick Stalin's ass for good purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I didn't even mention the Soviet Army. I was talking about saturation bombing and use of the atomic bomb by America. Obviously, you have this thing about the Soviets on the brain.
Well, yeah - they displaced many of my relatives to Siberia were some of them died from hunger and cold. The same fate expierenced many citizens of my country. And when about quarter of my country's population was either killed or changed location to other countries we were pronounced as victors, can you believe it! Oh, and we had this amazing chance to live behind the iron curtain for 50 years and listen to moving speeches of gonzo cummunists! And I, in my ungratefulness, have this "thing on the brain".
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I say despite what Stalin did the Russians had a right to be at the war crimes trial and I'll tell you why. The Germans invaded their country in 1941 and killed approximately 20 million soldiers and civilians in the process. They carted off a couple of million civilians to work in the most brutal slave labor conditions in Germany. They treated Russian POWs so badly that its estimated about 2 million died. Than there was the German Einsatzgruppen. Their job was to round up Jewish Russians and slaughter every man, woman, and child. Does the name Babi Yar mean anything to you? If not, I suggest you google it and prepare for some awfully sickening reading.
Yes, but Russians attacked other countries or ethnicities as well. In some occasions whole nations expierenced "forced replacement" to Siberia that basically was equivalent of nazi death camps. Where was their right to be at Nuremberg trial?
Oh, I forgot - in this un-hypocritical world small nations don't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Whether "hypocrisy" was involved or not, the Nuremberg War Crimes trials were an important start at building better a world. The precedents established at Nuremberg are making it possible for us to hold the likes of Razdic and the other Serbian leadership responsible for massacres like Sbrenica. The same is true for those who instigated and carried out the Rwandan Genocide.
The precedents established at Nuremberg clearly say - if you wanna be a dictator and do some evil stuff, then establish your dictatorship in a big and powerful country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Think about this: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
It seems world hasn't learned from its moral dirt. Some criminals get punished, but the ones from powerful countries never will. And important processes keep rolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
The Soviets launched their offensive,the Winter War on Finland,November 30,1939,three months after the start of World War II.This act was condemned by the League of Nations,and the USSR was expelled from the League.They invaded Poland on September 17,1941,16 days after the start of the German invasion that started the war.The Soviet invasion of the Baltic nations did not occur until June 1940.The anexation of these states in 1939 was not accepted or recognized by the Baltic States.All of these aggressive USSR actions happened after the September 1,1939 invasion of Poland by German forces that started the war.
You should bear in mind that the date that is proclaimed as the beggining of WW2 is varying in different countries. For instance, in Russia it is June 22, 1941.
Last edited by paparaciii; 11-24-2009 at 10:22 PM..
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.
