The Nuremberg Trials

[Xarpho's Return]

I'm interested in learning more about the Nuremberg Trials. It seems that most of the Holocaust stuff stems from it, but I also don't know how compromised the trials were. Even if the United States was interested in giving the defendants a fair trial, Soviet Union just wanted show trials and the UK executions, and with that in mind, I have big questions.

- Nazis and German soldiers tried and punished for the same sorts of things that America and the Soviets got away with scot-free
- Any attempt at keeping the trials fair was hijacked by the Soviets et. al.
- Rampant use of ex post facto laws
- Evidence for the defendants denied/destroyed
- Never about justice--just a humiliation ritual for a defeated country
- No true acquittals, the Nuremberg Trials acquitted Hans Fritzsche, Franz von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht, but further denazification courts sentenced them to hard labor anyway.

 

[herefortheactualthreads]

there was nothing fair to begin with, the big boys got killed and the scientists worked later in america.

 

[babyDunk]

I dont know much about it, but i DO know drumf and ICE WILL stand trial and be hanged or something.

 

[Nero Fiddled]

I think something worth remembering here is that we're talking about 80+ years ago.
All countries had the death penalty and there was no real legal framework that united the UK, USA and USSR.

As for fairness, I'd argue that the west has become far more forgiving than is sensible in the intervening years.

 

[synthetic_glazer]

As for fairness, I'd argue that the west has become far more forgiving than is sensible in the intervening years.

Considering German courts tracked down a 97 year old woman (who was a teenage typist during ww2) to charge her with ~10,000 counts of accessory to murder, I'm gonna argue the opposite.

More on topic, there's some cases where ambiguity exists within a trial/punishment, whether it's solely for justice vs. to make a statement. I'm not an expert on post ww2 Germany or anything, but considering how even today "we're sorry for the holocaust" is a large part of their national identity, I wouldn't be surprised if the Nuremberg trials leaned far more towards "making a statement" to punish Germany as opposed to being a good faith effort to try to right wrongs. Could've also served as a sort of show of force for the burgeoning international governance that was emerging in that era

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It might as well be the thousandth thread in this subforum about the Holocaust. Same song and dance about it not happening so the trial is a sham.

 

[Nero Fiddled]

Considering German courts tracked down a 97 year old woman (who was a teenage typist during ww2) to charge her with ~10,000 counts of accessory to murder, I'm gonna argue the opposite.

I'm guessing they didn't hang her though?

 

[herefortheactualthreads]

Considering German courts tracked down a 97 year old woman (who was a teenage typist during ww2) to charge her with ~10,000 counts of accessory to murder, I'm gonna argue the opposite.

More on topic, there's some cases where ambiguity exists within a trial/punishment, whether it's solely for justice vs. to make a statement. I'm not an expert on post ww2 Germany or anything, but considering how even today "we're sorry for the holocaust" is a large part of their national identity, I wouldn't be surprised if the Nuremberg trials leaned far more towards "making a statement" to punish Germany as opposed to being a good faith effort to try to right wrongs. Could've also served as a sort of show of force for the burgeoning international governance that was emerging in that era

according to "Deutsche Welle" she only got 2 years as probation, so i guess even if she got punished, there isnt much to punish her for nowadays.

sauce: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-upholds-sentence-of-former-nazi-camp-secretary/a-69986542

 

[Xarpho's Return]

It might as well be the thousandth thread in this subforum about the Holocaust. Same song and dance about it not happening so the trial is a sham.

Well no, that's not the question. The first question is due process--and throwing out the Nuremberg Trials doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen, just like how it doesn't change the fact of what Bill Cosby (or George Stinney Jr.) actually did.

The second question is where was the defense? Where was the evidence in their defense? The Allies confiscated a lot of things the Nazis had, stuff like the Nazi exercise regimen has never been released. It would be a stretch to say that most of the Holocaust evidence was fabricated, but what would be their defense? About 1,800 people died in Japanese-American internment camps (mostly from disease) and no one was charged with a war crime there, and why was that? Is that an "acceptable" number when at war? Was it just because they were never charged with a war crime and thus no wrongdoing was committed?

 

[Bonesjones]

It might as well be the thousandth thread in this subforum about the Holocaust. Same song and dance about it not happening so the trial is a sham.

Jews mad their sacred cow is attacked.

You can tell its a shame just by reading confessions and transcripts. First confession is how the camp operated fine until supply lines were destroyed and the failing eastern front caused overcrowding, disease, and starvation. Confession the next day is suddenly how they hate all kikes and went out of their way to glue pennies to the ground so they would die from the struggle of picking them up.

Churchill was being honest when he said he would side with the devil to defeat the Nazis, because he did.