Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

library.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#121

Post by sorokod »

lostlogin wrote: post #115
sorokod wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?

It's not exactly what you are asking, but the tribunal wasn't even internally consistent. Look at Albert Speer. He wasn't executed and was about as high in the Nazi organisation as one could rise. Uniquely, he accepted (some) responsibility but other than that, the ruling is not very consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer

Thanks, for reference, the list of defendents

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_In...

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#122

Post by rightbyte »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #101
rightbyte wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being a warmonger is a bad thing? The real nightmare is if the US deny you your right to lose. Like Vietnam.

He was very much a warmonger, he just favored fomenting war by parties which might be inclined to fight.

Oh, ye, well I need to read up on political history.

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#123

Post by lostlogin »

sillywalk wrote: post #36
eschulz wrote: post #10

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reac…

Not to mention all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts, and they all were racing to collect Nazi/Japanese scientists.

> all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts

The Soviets for sure, but are you really arguing that the US and UK (and Empire) were operating on the same industrial level? Incidents that come to mind for me would include the Bengal famine, and it was terrible, but it wasn't the systematic and controlled killing at which the Soviets and Nazis became so expert.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#124

Post by KRAKRISMOTT »

oezi wrote: post #89
goodSteveramos wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not incorrect. The idea that people working for companies making basic supplies are guilty of murder for what their own government did with said supplies without their knowledge is so absurd that by your own admission they were not even tried. But that makes the trials of people who were fair? How about you directly enumerate the rights they were or were not afforded to determine if their trials were fair.

> without their knowledge I would beg to differ. The industrial magnates of this German era where all well aware of what their supplies were going towards: A 'total war' that didn't stop at exterminating anybody considered inferior. Each individual case is certainly difficult but there is a line where you can and should be tried as an employee for participating in something which violates laws and or ethical boundari…

Do you expect the executives of Raytheon and Lockheed to be put on trial if they lose a war too? You don't want to open that can of worms. Living by the sword is for soldiers and military, not for the civilian government. In the past, royalty who lost a battle were treated well and ransomed precisely to prevent blowback when the shoe is on the other foot.

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#125

Post by kashunstva »

sorokod wrote: post #110
eschulz wrote: post #10

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reac…

"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?

Where it suited the U.S. Cold War objectives, they turned a blind eye to certain individuals, notably scientists. Hoping to deprive the Soviets of scientific expertise in rocket design and various topics related to nuclear weapons, the U.S. created an extra-judicial pathway that bypassed prosecution for some.

SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past.

The book “Operation Paperclip” delved into this and other examples.

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#126

Post by refurb »

doctor_eval wrote: post #60
refurb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It questions the commonly held belief that the Allies wanted to avoid the war at all costs but were forced into action by Adolf Hitler's aggression. It consists largely of official government transcripts, newspaper articles, and other documents from the time, with Baker only occasionally interjecting commentary. Baker cites documents that suggest that the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were prov…

I honestly thought it was well known that the US in particular wanted a war with Japan but domestic politics prevented outright aggression. Instead, IIRC, the US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan to the extent that the Japanese economy was within a month or so of collapsing. The Japanese - who had been invading other asian countries - were left with little choice but to attack the US to stop the blockades. My underst…

The US didn't want a war with Japan, but also didn't want Japan to control the entire Pacific.

The US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan in response to their invasion of Manchuria, and was willing to remove the blockade if Japan withdrew.

I'm not sure you could say the US "wanted" war any more than you could say Ukraine "wanted" war with Russia.

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#127

Post by pseudo0 »

sorokod wrote: post #110
eschulz wrote: post #10

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reac…

"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?

The Nuremberg Charter effectively admits this:

> The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

You can't have a fair trial when the prosecution gets to admit whatever evidence it wants, including evidence that would normally be inadmissable (eg. Hearsay, admissions made through coercion or torture, etc). The tribunal was effectively a show trial, and in my opinion they should have just dispensed with the theater and carried out the predetermined punishments.

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/2749

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#128

Post by rich_sasha »

sorokod wrote: post #110
eschulz wrote: post #10

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reac…

"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?

Another example is that the crimes for which various Nazis were tried were not codified to be crimes in any legal document at the tim. Bombing civilians etc was not, as such, banned by any international law, nor were genocide, concentration camps etc, and indeed the Allies did at times similar things themselves.

So although the Nuremberg trials were fashioned as a court of law and followed legal-esque principles, there was no written law or could follow; it simply didn't exist.

Hence, the tribunal was considered by some lawyers to be a mockery of court. The verdicts were effectively known ahead of time and no laws could really be cited, no legal process to follow.

That said, I'm not sure what would be a better alternative.

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#129

Post by hn976827 »

lostlogin wrote: post #123
sillywalk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts, and they all were racing to collect Nazi/Japanese scientists.

> all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts The Soviets for sure, but are you really arguing that the US and UK (and Empire) were operating on the same industrial level? Incidents that come to mind for me would include the Bengal famine, and it was terrible, but it wasn't the systematic and controlled killing at which the Soviets and Nazis became so expert. https://www.theguardian.com/w…

[flagged]

Re: Archive of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1945-46

#130

Post by doctor_eval »

refurb wrote: post #126
doctor_eval wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly thought it was well known that the US in particular wanted a war with Japan but domestic politics prevented outright aggression. Instead, IIRC, the US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan to the extent that the Japanese economy was within a month or so of collapsing. The Japanese - who had been invading other asian countries - were left with little choice but to attack the US to stop the blockades. My underst…

The US didn't want a war with Japan, but also didn't want Japan to control the entire Pacific. The US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan in response to their invasion of Manchuria, and was willing to remove the blockade if Japan withdrew. I'm not sure you could say the US "wanted" war any more than you could say Ukraine "wanted" war with Russia.

My understanding was that there was a strong appetite to attack Japan in the US government, but that there was no domestic support, so US goals had to be achieved using other means. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I recall.

As far as I can see, there is very little to compare that situation and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Post reply on HN