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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Was Nuremberg a Kangaroo Court?
Comments
-
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