Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Was Nuremberg a Kangaroo Court?
Comments
-
No, I stand by my original statement that only legislatures can make laws in democracies. Your subsequent implication that Germany, having been forced to sign an unconditional surrender to avoid further killing and rape by Russian troops, somehow allowed the occupying countries to prosecute whomever they liked on trumped-up ex post facto laws is groundless.
Not really.
It can be found at pages 159 to 161 in The International Law of Occupation By Eyal Benvenisti0 -
The death of any civilian is abhorrent. Scale is irrelevant.Fair enough. So perhaps you can name the previous occasion in modern European history in which tens of millions of civilians were slaughtered in a campaign of genocide, many in concentration camps?
Most Nazis did go on to enjoy lucrative careers in West Germany.... 1) You accept that pre-war law did not suffice to judge the Nazis on. By your legalistic (to the point of apologistic) logic, no one should have been persecuted for the mass murder of civilians in WWII. Eichmann and co should have been allowed to retire in peace, with no ramifications for their role in genocide.
There was not such laws at the time but there are now.2) As if that wasn't abhorrent enough, you seem to be proposing some sort of return to a state of nature: civilians have always been ill-treated in war, this is the natural state of affairs, ergo there is no need for a law to prevent people being ill-treated in war.
On the contrary, international courts established to administer codified law are all we have to bring criminal government leaders to account.Oddly enough, both the above strains stand in sharp contrast to each other. Funny that. Is your objection to a system of international courts itself or the application of this to Nazi Germany?
They were guilty of similar actions as the Germans but they got off scott-free.... The idea that the Allies, for all their crimes, were morally as bankrupt as the Germans (and thus in no position to judge) is nonsense.
Scale is irrelevant; the life of a child in a Dresden basement is no less valuable that a million other innocent victims.... No one believes that the Allies had entirely clean hands but only a fool would suggest that theirs' was on a scale quantifiably or qualitatively worse than those of the Nazis.
The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230) The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289) the conditions that German POWs, many just kids, endured on the Eastern Front were beyond grim and did not follow any accepted protocol for treatment of captured soldiers. Under the provisions of the Yalta Agreement, the U.S. and U.K. had agreed to the use of German POWs in the Soviet Gulag as "reparations-in-kind," but comparatively few Germans were taken alive before Stalingrad. Most were shot and many were mutilated alive. Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned. (The Journal of History, Fall 2010)(As an aside, it is entirely false to assert that 90% of German POWs in Soviet captivity died. The actual figures, while hardly pretty, veer between 10-33%)0 -
... except when you're trying establish that the conditions post-WWII were unprecedented. Then scale becomes very much relevant. Or would you suggest that the carnage and political shock of that conflict was in effect indistinguishable from someone being knocked down by a bus?The death of any civilian is abhorrent. Scale is irrelevant.
All I'm getting from you is evasion, obfuscation and apologism. Either you can't or are unwilling to hold/follow a line of reasoning. Waste of time.
I like how you put the reference in there, as if to disguise the fact that you ripped that paragraph, word for word, from Wikipedia. Subtle.The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230). The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289)
I also like the fact that the paragraph, and indeed the article, contradicts your point: the highest estimate for German POWs who died in the USSR is around the one million mark, yet this is out of a prisoner population of almost three million. I'll leave you to do the maths but it's safe to say that your 90% death rate is about as plausible as your arguments on international law. That is, unfounded and skewed towards the Nazis.0 -
The wholesale slaughter of innocents by both the Allies and and Germans in WWII was not unrepresented throughout history. People have only become more efficient t killing over time.... except when you're trying establish that the conditions post-WWII were unprecedented. Then scale becomes very much relevant. Or would you suggest that the carnage and political shock of that conflict was in effect indistinguishable from someone being knocked down by a bus?
I cannot be persuaded that victors' justice is an any sense honorable.All I'm getting from you is evasion, obfuscation and apologism. Either you can't or are unwilling to hold/follow a line of reasoning. Waste of time.
What have I written that is incorrect?I like how you put the reference in there, as if to disguise the fact that you ripped that paragraph, word for word, from Wikipedia. Subtle.
Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned which is a 94.5% death rate.I also like the fact that the paragraph, and indeed the article, contradicts your point: the highest estimate for German POWs who died in the USSR is around the one million mark, yet this is out of a prisoner population of almost three million. I'll leave you to do the maths but it's safe to say that your 90% death rate is about as plausible as your arguments on international law. That is, unfounded and skewed towards the Nazis.0 -
The wholesale slaughter of innocents by both the Allies and and Germans in WWII was not unrepresented throughout history. People have only become more efficient t killing over time.
I cannot be persuaded that victors' justice is an any sense honorable.
What have I written that is incorrect?
All of it. The author himself - as quoted by you - admitted the figures and the calculations were speculative.......The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230). The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289)
He offers an opinion, but it is just that an opinion. And as expert and all as it might be, earlier in the thread you seemed to have problems with ad verecundiam arguments - not so much in this case though?
So-called 'victors' justice' is what the Germans signed up for when they unconditionally surrendered - if they didn't want it then they could have opted to negotiate an armistice earlier. It's not like they offered one and were rebuffed by the Allies - it was their decision to fight to the death.0 -
There are two possibilities here.Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned which is a 94.5% death rate.
1) You are genuinely incapable of telling the difference between a subset and the whole. The Stalingrad figures do not make the statement that "only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived" any less false.
To illustrate: 'Arsenal were beaten 6-0 at the weekend' is a fundamentally different statement from 'Arsenal have been beaten 6-0 in every game this season'. The first statement is correct but the second is entirely false.
But, really, I shouldn't have to explain anything this simple to anyone over the age of six. Which leads us to...
2) You are so desperate to draw moral equivalence between the warring powers that you're happy to gloss over realities such as this. Hence your references to "wholesale slaughter" and the bizarre assertion that scale is irrelevant. As if the party that didn't commit genocide has no right to pass judgement on the party that did.
Which makes me wonder why someone would try so hard to deny the unprecedented nature of the Nazi genocide, blindly equate the crimes of the Allies and Germans (playing up the former and down the latter) and argue that Nazi war criminals should have simply been set free without punishment.0 -
Because the Russians could not be believed, the figures must be speculative, in particular, before Stalingrad, the Russians tended to take no prisoners but shot, tortured, and mutilated captured Germans who were subsequently classified as "missing in action".All of it. The author himself - as quoted by you - admitted the figures and the calculations were speculative.......
The authority of modern historians is based on research, unlike canonized medieval philosophers.He offers an opinion, but it is just that an opinion. And as expert and all as it might be, earlier in the thread you seemed to have problems with ad verecundiam arguments - not so much in this case though?
Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.So-called 'victors' justice' is what the Germans signed up for when they unconditionally surrendered - if they didn't want it then they could have opted to negotiate an armistice earlier. It's not like they offered one and were rebuffed by the Allies - it was their decision to fight to the death.
I refer you to my comment about Russian conduct toward prisoners as stated aboveThere are two possibilities here.
1) You are genuinely incapable of telling the difference between a subset and the whole. The Stalingrad figures do not make the statement that "only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived" any less false.
You are mistaken in your belief that the Allies, including the Russians, were morally superior to the Germans.2) You are so desperate to draw moral equivalence between the warring powers that you're happy to gloss over realities such as this.
There was nothing unprecedented in the German genocidal actions throughout history into modern times.Which makes me wonder why someone would try so hard to deny the unprecedented nature of the Nazi genocide, blindly equate the crimes of the Allies and Germans (playing up the former and down the latter) and argue that Nazi war criminals should have simply been set free without punishment.0 -
Because the Russians could not be believed, the figures must be speculative, in particular, before Stalingrad, the Russians tended to take no prisoners but shot, tortured, and mutilated captured Germans who were subsequently classified as "missing in action".
Ah, I think we're getting to the nub of your beliefs now....
Why couldn't or shouldn't the Soviets be believed? And the figures are always going to speculativeThe authority of modern historians is based on research, unlike canonized medieval philosophers.
Comparing philosophers, medieval or otherwise, to historians is not even comparing apples and oranges - it's comparing apples and seagulls. The two are wildly different disciplines and from what I understand of philosophy you can't 'research' it. You research what others have said, but concepts such as 'truth,' 'knowledge' and even 'history' are subject to never ending debate and discussion.Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.
I think if you familiarise yourself with the discussion leading up to the Allied you'll see that the war aims were directed at the leaders. The Casablanca Conference, at which the policy was formally articulated, concluded.....To these panicky attempts to escape the consequences of their crimes we say-all the United Nations say-that the only terms on which we shall deal with an Axis government or any Axis factions are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "Unconditional Surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders...
That was in 1943 - that mean prior to that they had 4 years to negotiate and armistice with the British / Commonwealth, 2 years to negotiate with the Soviets and about 18 months to negotiate with the US - they didn't and to quote Arthur Harris - the sowed the wind, and inherited the whirlwind.
Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure the people knew they were beaten - to ensure there would be no 'stab-in-the-back' mythology, as developed in the wake of WW1. In the same way Slim made Japanese officers snap their swords over their knees in front of their men to demonstrate their utter defeat, the previous institutions and laws at the core at the Reich had to be obliterated and rebuilt on Allied terms.
That's what 'unconditional' means - and in that situation you place yourself at the mercy of the victors.
What was the alternative? Issue a general amnesty? Hold no one to account? Put them on trial using the courts, laws and system of the Nazi State?
Finally, I can't comment on all fronts - but in Italy and the West the Germans initiated the surrender negotiations - they were not imposed on threat of civilians being targeted - although it was self-evident that a failure to agree would have lead to continued fighting which have lead to further civilian deaths.0 -
Because they were liars.Why couldn't or shouldn't the Soviets be believed? And the figures are always going to speculative
I do not share your belief that historical truth cannot be known.Comparing philosophers, medieval or otherwise, to historians is not even comparing apples and oranges - it's comparing apples and seagulls. The two are wildly different disciplines and from what I understand of philosophy you can't 'research' it. You research what others have said, but concepts such as 'truth,' 'knowledge' and even 'history' are subject to never ending debate and discussion.
They must have been planning for their pound of flesh early.I think if you familiarise yourself with the discussion leading up to the Allied you'll see that the war aims were directed at the leaders. The Casablanca Conference, at which the policy was formally articulated, concluded.....
German offers to surrender to the Anglo-Americans were rebuffed.That was in 1943 - that mean prior to that they had 4 years to negotiate and armistice with the British / Commonwealth, 2 years to negotiate with the Soviets and about 18 months to negotiate with the US - they didn't and to quote Arthur Harris - the sowed the wind, and inherited the whirlwind.
I see it differently, as the same type of humiliation that the victors used at Versailles, and in no way did this give authority to the Russians and Anglo-Americans to make up laws and dress-up the Nürnberg Military Tribunal as a real court.Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure the people knew they were beaten - to ensure there would be no 'stab-in-the-back' mythology, as developed in the wake of WW1.
Military occupation. Martial law. Education and nation-building.What was the alternative? Issue a general amnesty? Hold no one to account? Put them on trial using the courts, laws and system of the Nazi State?
Units also surrendered on the Eastern Front but only 1 in 10 Germans survived Russian captivity.Finally, I can't comment on all fronts - but in Italy and the West the Germans initiated the surrender negotiations - they were not imposed on threat of civilians being targeted - although it was self-evident that a failure to agree would have lead to continued fighting which have lead to further civilian deaths.0 -
Advertisement
-
So wait, now the figures that you presented above (eg Maschke) are incorrect? In fact, far from a ceiling of 1.1 million POW deaths the Soviets actually killed an additional 1.6 million. That is, the increase needed to reach a 90% death rate from 3 million POWs.I refer you to my comment about Russian conduct toward prisoners as stated above
This difference is flatly contradicted by the actual historians (whose estimates are far lower than your's) but you've continued with a blunt assumption. Moreover, it's an assumption that's undermined by the Wikipedia page that you've quoted from, which notes that "As the desperate economic situation in the Soviet Union eased in 1943, the mortality rate in the POW camps sank drastically". Funny how you didn't mention that.
I'm not actually particularly fussed by people making stupid assumptions and then blindly ignoring the evidence that contradicts them. That's the internet for you. What does baffle/amuse me is how you can be so inconsistent in your line of argument - presenting evidence that flatly contradicts your assertion and then defending it even while baldly stating the opposite. Very strange.
"Trumped-up charges"? You don't believe that the Nazi leadership was guilty of war crimes? Of genocide?Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.
The masks slips. You're moving from legalism to outright apologism. Careful, now0 -
Reekwind: "So wait, now the figures that you presented above (eg Maschke) are incorrect? In fact, far from a ceiling of 1.1 million POW deaths the Soviets actually killed an additional 1.6 million. That is, the increase needed to reach a 90% death rate from 3 million POWs."
Yes, the estimates of German POWs who were summarily tortured and murdered by the Russians is conservatively underestimated for the reasons I stated above. The Russians initially did not take prisoners and later, at Stalingrad, for example, the death rate of prisoners was over 90%.
Reekwind: ... What does baffle/amuse me is how you can be so inconsistent in your line of argument - presenting evidence that flatly contradicts your assertion and then defending it even while baldly stating the opposite.
I stand by all my statements and their consistency. The concept of hypocritical ex post facto laws and how they were applied in Nürnberg is indefensible.0 -
Right, you're in fantasy-land. We've established that. What interests me though is why present figures that flatly contradict your (incorrect) assertion? What was going through your mind at that point?Yes, the estimates of German POWs who were summarily tortured and murdered by the Russians is conservatively underestimated for the reasons I stated above.
Entirely false. If the Russians weren't capturing huge numbers of POWs in the first years of the war then it was because they were retreating en masse. Yet despite this, by the end 1941 there were over 25k German soldiers in Soviet captivity. This is using the same source (Overmans) that you earlier (bizarrely) quoted to support your claim.The Russians initially did not take prisoners...
I think we can say at this point that you're simply trolling. You've produced no evidence whatever so support your POW claims - or at least you've produced nothing that supports your claim - and you persist with disingenuous statements like "... and later, at Stalingrad, for example, the death rate of prisoners was over 90%". Your errors have been explained and yet you continue to regurgitate clearly false statements.
And this particular thread of discussion is just a microcosm of the wider inconsistency, evasion and apologism that you've employed in this thread as a whole.0 -
You must be one of the few who believe statements of the Russians who minimized the numbers they took as prisoners as the tide of war turned to their favor. They refused access to the Red Cross. Until 1943, most Germans were shot on the spot and later prisoners were used for slave labor, worked to death. Yet, the Anglo-Americans, having immolated German children and civilians in their fire-bombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden sat with these Communists as judges of the Germans at Nürnberg. This was brazen hypocrisy.... You've produced no evidence whatever so support your POW claims - or at least you've produced nothing that supports your claim - and you persist with disingenuous statements like "... and later, at Stalingrad, for example, the death rate of prisoners was over 90%".0 -
Because they were liars.
Really, I presume your assertion that the Soviets / Russians were liars has some foundation in fact especially as you go on to say.....I do not share your belief that historical truth cannot be known.
So if you do not share my belief that the historical truth cannot be known - what evidence can you offer to support your above mentioned statement that the Russians were liars - and note your use of the word 'liars' - not that they were wrong, misinformed or mistaken but that they lied about the PoWs?
Where would I find the information that proves they lied?
If truths are things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered - how did you discover the Russians lied?They must have been planning for their pound of flesh early.
So what if they were? I believe, for example, the Germans were also great one for planning in advance, as Eichmann's list from Wannsee demonstrated, which mentions 4,000 Irish citizens / residents they had particular plans for.......German offers to surrender to the Anglo-Americans were rebuffed.
No, again you need to read up a bit more. They asked for terms and they were offered terms - there's a difference between being offered terms and being rebuffed.I see it differently, as the same type of humiliation that the victors used at Versailles, and in no way did this give authority to the Russians and Anglo-Americans to make up laws and dress-up the Nürnberg Military Tribunal as a real court.
You are of course entitled to your view, but as has been pointed out they didn't 'dress up' the tribunal and it was a real court, and better legal minds than anyone posting here or reading this have laid out the basis and authority.
You are of course free to hold a different opinion - but if the Nuremberg Tribunal was essentially illegal (which is what you seem to be suggesting) how come West Germany once it regained its sovereignty didn't act against anyone involved with it? Or sue? Or seek some kind of declaration regarding its invalidity?Military occupation. Martial law. Education and nation-building.
All of which the Allies did. In addition to the Tribunal they ran the de-Nazification programme and, in the case of the US, introduced the Marshall Plan. And they (Germany) pretty much were excused reparations - or discharged their obligations through the transfer on non-cash reparations. Unlike some of the Allies were still paying their war debts into the 1990s.
Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread, and I'll just leave you with this thought......
"History.....is an interpretation of the past in which a serious effort has been made to filter out myth and fable"
I think you need to apply one of those filters......0 -
You must be one of the few who believe statements of the Russians who minimized the numbers they took as prisoners as the tide of war turned to their favor. They refused access to the Red Cross. Until 1943, most Germans were shot on the spot and later prisoners were used for slave labor, worked to death. Yet, the Anglo-Americans, having immolated German children and civilians in their fire-bombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden sat with these Communists as judges of the Germans at Nürnberg. This was brazen hypocrisy.
Do you actually have anything apart from Wikipedia to back up any of this?
Just out of interest, how do you think the Allies should've fought Germany?
Do you have a list of things they could've done rather than a list of things they shouldn't have done.
....and to quote Clausewitz, (Vom Kriege was included on the list of the first hundred books for Nazi bookstores)......Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst.
As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed, must obtain a superiority if his adversary does not act likewise. By such means the former dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side.
What the Allies did was simply a natural extension of what Germany initiated.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Katyn Massacre is but one example. Not until recently did the Russians admit they were responsible after decades of lies.Really, I presume your assertion that the Soviets / Russians were liars has some foundation in fact especially as you go on to say.....
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/katyn_wood_massacre.htmWhere would I find the information that proves they lied?
"Who committed the murders remained a mystery until 1990 when the Russian authorities admitted that it was the Russian Secret police (NKVD), that then spent much time and effort in attaching blame on the Germans."
Reading history over the years.If truths are things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered - how did you discover the Russians lied?
Anyone who claims that the Nürnberg Military Tribunal was anything other than a show trial is wrong.You are of course entitled to your view, but as has been pointed out they didn't 'dress up' the tribunal and it was a real court, and better legal minds than anyone posting here or reading this have laid out the basis and authority.
The Nürnberg Military Tribunal need not have been a kangaroo court as it turned out to be had it charged the accused with crimes already recognized in international law instead of making up four new ones. Subsequent trials held by the West German legal authorities were far more lenient on the accused.You are of course free to hold a different opinion - but if the Nuremberg Tribunal was essentially illegal (which is what you seem to be suggesting) how come West Germany once it regained its sovereignty didn't act against anyone involved with it? Or sue? Or seek some kind of declaration regarding its invalidity?0 -
The Katyn Massacre is but one example. Not until recently did the Russians admit they were responsible after decades of lies.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/katyn_wood_massacre.htm
"Who committed the murders remained a mystery until 1990 when the Russian authorities admitted that it was the Russian Secret police (NKVD), that then spent much time and effort in attaching blame on the Germans."
Hold on thar, Bald Eagle.........we were discussing death and mortality rates among GERMAN PoWs, and I believe you were disputing Soviet figures, and promoting German figures (from Wikipedia) - in doing so were asserting that the Soviets lied - now you bring up Katyn!!!Reading history over the years.
Such as......?Anyone who claims that the Nürnberg Military Tribunal was anything other than a show trial is wrong.
Why?
I've read dozens of journal articles setting out the authority, etc for the Court, written by some fairly learned people. I wouldn't agree with everything they've written, but at least they offer reasoned arguments.
You have an opinion, completely unsubstantiated - have the good grace to admit or post up something reasonably serious that supports that view.The Nürnberg Military Tribunal need not have been a kangaroo court as it turned out to be had it charged the accused with crimes already recognized in international law instead of making up four new ones. Subsequent trials held by the West German legal authorities were far more lenient on the accused.
I think all the crimes were recognised in international law. 'Crimes against humanity' was conceptualised in the mid-19th century; 'war crimes' were defined by the Hague Conventions and Regulations (which Germany signed up to); 'wars of aggression' were defined in the various disarmament initiatives that cropped up during the 1920s and early 1930s, as did the idea of 'crimes against peace.'
Which new offences did the Court make up?
The leniency or otherwise of the West German courts is a matter for them - precedent doesn't operate retrospectively......0 -
Actually, this thread is about the Nürnberg Military Tribunal which had a "judge" on the panel from a mendacious Communist dictatorship.Hold on thar, Bald Eagle.........we were discussing death and mortality rates among GERMAN PoWs, and I believe you were disputing Soviet figures, and promoting German figures (from Wikipedia) - in doing so were asserting that the Soviets lied - now you bring up Katyn!!!
Scores of books, articles, and documentaries.Such as......?
It is difficult to get anything in English which criticizes the Nürnberg Military Tribunal. What does that tell you?Why?
I've read dozens of journal articles setting out the authority, etc for the Court, written by some fairly learned people. I wouldn't agree with everything they've written, but at least they offer reasoned arguments.
My opinion that ex post facto laws are indefensible is serious and just. Prosecuting prisoners for acts which were not crimes at the time are not allowed in free countries and should not have been permitted at Nürnberg.You have an opinion, completely unsubstantiated - have the good grace to admit or post up something reasonably serious that supports that view.
1. Crimes against humanity did not exist in international law during WWII. I do not know what you mean by conceptualizations.I think all the crimes were recognised in international law. 'Crimes against humanity' was conceptualised in the mid-19th century; 'war crimes' were defined by the Hague Conventions and Regulations (which Germany signed up to); 'wars of aggression' were defined in the various disarmament initiatives that cropped up during the 1920s and early 1930s, as did the idea of 'crimes against peace.'
2. The crime against peace did not exist until it was made up at Nürnberg.
3. The Hague Conventions concerning war crimes could have and probably should have been used to bring charges against German leaders but they were considered in need of new war crimes laws. It must be noted that the Allies were guilty of these crimes too.
4. Although the definition of waging aggressive war was known before WWII, it was not considered a crime when the Military Tribunal charged German prisoners. For this reason, Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nürnberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.", he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." (Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal, H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, Torrance, Calif.: 1983).0 -
Actually, this thread is about the Nürnberg Military Tribunal which had a "judge" on the panel from a mendacious Communist dictatorship.
Interesting - your problem seems to lie with the 'Communist dictatorship' not with DeGaulle's dictatorial Provisional Government of the French Republic? It appointed a judge (and alternate).Scores of books, articles, and documentaries.
.......and yet you seem unable or unwilling to name one......It is difficult to get anything in English which criticizes the Nürnberg Military Tribunal. What does that tell you?
That common law jurisdictions don't have a problem with the Tribunal - what does it tell you?
.....and feel free to post up links to the sources not in English - I've a decent working knowledge of one continental language, passable knowledge of another and access to Google Translate....My opinion that ex post facto laws are indefensible is serious and just. Prosecuting prisoners for acts which were not crimes at the time are not allowed in free countries and should not have been permitted at Nürnberg.
Fair enough - but it's just your opinion - acknowledge it and move on.1. Crimes against humanity did not exist in international law during WWII. I do not know what you mean by conceptualizations.
2. The crime against peace did not exist until it was made up at Nürnberg.
3. The Hague Conventions concerning war crimes could have and probably should have been used to bring charges against German leaders but they were considered in need of new war crimes laws. It must be noted that the Allies were guilty of these crimes too.
4. Although the definition of waging aggressive war was known before WWII, it was not considered a crime when the Military Tribunal charged German prisoners. For this reason, Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nürnberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.", he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." (Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal, H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, Torrance, Calif.: 1983).
Can you do yourself a favour and stop quoting wikipedia or least get some non-wikipedia sources? - if I were you I'd take the time to learn how to use Google Scholar (the internet is your friend).
Interesting, though, that you cited the doctrinaire Douglas in support of your argument - just some advice but I'd have gone with deVabres (the French judge on the Tribunal) - his position on the prosecution of professional soldiers was used in the exoneration of Jodl in the 1950s.
Or even the British judge, Lord Lawrence - he does an excellent job at reviewing the operation of the Tribunal, where it was strong, where it was questionable and where it was weak. Why certain people were convicted and why others were acquitted - why the Court declined to categorise certain Nazi institutions are criminal etc....etc .....etc
As he points out, there was going to be punishment - there was no way the Soviets were going to not punish the Germans so in his view...."The only question is whether you want the matter to be decided by law or by power."
Anyway it seems I've now resorted to arguing both sides of the case, so I think it's time for me to bow out of this thread.......0 -
Scores of books, articles, and documentaries.
If you are using items as a source you should mention them to allow analysis or criticism of same- the above comment is not sufficient. This is specifically mentioned in the forum charter.In subjects that generally arise tensions between the forum users (discussing Nationalist or Unionist subjects for example) opinions should be backed up by a verifiable source when possible. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055234973
Moderator.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was asked how I came to have the my opinion, principally that ex post facto laws as applied to those charged at Nürnberg as well as the hypocrisy of those who were doing the judging represented countries which were guilty of similar actions. I gave so many citations that a poster complained of my use of Wikipedia. In particular, I cited Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas referenced in Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal by H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz. I can hardly remember all the history books I have read over the years.jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you are using items as a source you should mention them to allow analysis or criticism of same- the above comment is not sufficient. This is specifically mentioned in the forum charter.
I answered every question put to me as best I could.0 -
The reality is that the Allies faced an unprecedented (that is, without legal precedent) scenario in which Nazi aggression had consumed a continent and millions of lives.
It wasn't unprecedented.
Look at the genocide committed by European states in the Americas and Australia. The only thing that was different was the method, the Germans mindset was no different to some other European (and US) leaders in the past.0 -
It wasn't unprecedented.
Look at the genocide committed by European states in the Americas and Australia. The only thing that was different was the method, the Germans mindset was no different to some other European (and US) leaders in the past.
You can't compare greed with pure evil.0 -
It wasn't unprecedented.
Look at the genocide committed by European states in the Americas and Australia. The only thing that was different was the method, the Germans mindset was no different to some other European (and US) leaders in the past.
It was unprecedented in its scale & execution within the era it occurred.0 -
Just to add my two cents addressing the OP, something I read recently that would suggest Nuremburg (or at least parts of it) was a kangaroo court is how'the sentence of Dönitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare'
because'In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war,'
link
Not enforcing certain laws because that would require you to prosecute your own side doesn't sound so legitimate. Depending on what you read something similar happened to Skorzeny at a different trial, but it's not so clear cut in that case.0 -
Do you actually have anything apart from Wikipedia to back up any of this?
Just out of interest, how do you think the Allies should've fought Germany?
Do you have a list of things they could've done rather than a list of things they shouldn't have done.
....and to quote Clausewitz, (Vom Kriege was included on the list of the first hundred books for Nazi bookstores)......
What the Allies did was simply a natural extension of what Germany initiated.
The British were slaughtering civilians from the air before they were at war with Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%9339_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#Role_of_the_Royal_Air_Force0 -
The British were slaughtering civilians from the air before they were at war with Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%9339_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#Role_of_the_Royal_Air_Force
Point being? (btw - 'air policing' goes back to the early 1920s and was Tenchard's idea. His way of cementing the independence of the RAF)
The Germans bombed Guernica and along with the Italians ('the falcons of Balearics') attacked Barcelona and Valencia over 100 times.
The first bombs dropped from an aircraft in an action against ground forces were dropped by Italian aviators, who also were the first to bomb civilians.
And I believe the Germans inaugurated strategic bombing before anyone else did in WW10 -
Point being? (btw - 'air policing' goes back to the early 1920s and was Tenchard's idea. His way of cementing the independence of the RAF)
The Germans bombed Guernica and along with the Italians ('the falcons of Balearics') attacked Barcelona and Valencia over 100 times.
The first bombs dropped from an aircraft in an action against ground forces were dropped by Italian aviators, who also were the first to bomb civilians.
And I believe the Germans inaugurated strategic bombing before anyone else did in WW1
The point is about how it was a kangaroo court.
Certain (losing) countries had their military and political leaders tried for a selected number of crimes.
Certain (victorious) countries didn't.
Why were the political and military leaders of the USSR and the British Empire not tried for their invasion of Iran?
Why were the political and military leaders of the USSR not also tried for their aggressive wars on Finland and Poland?
Why were no American leaders (past or present) charged with genocide against the Native Americans?0 -
The point is about how it was a kangaroo court.
Certain (losing) countries had their military and political leaders tried for a selected number of crimes.
Certain (victorious) countries didn't.
Why were the political and military leaders of the USSR and the British Empire not tried for their invasion of Iran?
Why were the political and military leaders of the USSR not also tried for their aggressive wars on Finland and Poland?
Why were no American leaders (past or present) charged with genocide against the Native Americans?
Germany surrendered unconditionally - other countries didn't or were victors.
I'm loathe to use Wikipedia, but for the sake of convenience I'll quote their definition of a kangaroo court.....A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted"
The NMT was constituted officially and to accepted standards of law (as they then applied) and it had official standing in Germany - ergo, it was a kangaroo court - if you think it was lash up a definition from a semi-reputable source and we'll compare the NMT against it.
Genocide as a criminal concept only gained traction after WW1 - yes there were genocides before that but the 'crime' did not exist so people could not be charged with it - plus the authorities at the time didn't realise that what they were doing (in the case of the Native American genocide) would be later be defined as criminal - you might as well ask why no Turkish leaders have been put on trial for the Armenian genocide, or why no one has been prosecute from Belgium over what happened in the Congo, or from Britain over Zululand etc etc
Maybe there is something to be said that at least on this occasion there was a reckoning for some of those involved in perpetrating crimes against humanity.0
Advertisement