81–90 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weren't they in the process of committing some as these trials were ongoing? I don't think there's a reliable number, but certainly 6 figure and likely 7 figure death tolls for ethnic Germans due to postwar resettlements etc.
This sounds sorta lost-cause-y. 1,000,000 civilians killed in postwar orchestrations?
They had also accepted Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new court - otherwise the Soviet authorities would have been in the dock as well for carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/20...
again something nobody talks about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chomsky has proven to be a rather biased observer in the "yeahbutwhatabout" game. Which is saying something, considering his ethnic heritage and the fact that we're talking about Nazis. If he and Kissinger were on fire and I only had one glass of water, I'd drink it.
Everyone seems to hate Kissinger except my late ethnic german grandma who lived through WW2 in Berlin. What did he do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it actually ironic? Weren’t the soviets well-known for show trials? That is, were they arguing for a legal process or a legitimising one? I don’t know the reason for the British preference but I do feel there are arguments for it, e.g. if such a tribunal was expected to have predetermined results, why associate your legitimate legal system with it.
Not only that, there was agreement among the allies on which war criminals would be turned over to whom for punishment. So the USSR might have preferred a trial since those who committed the worst offenses in the USSR would be turned over to them instead of being shot by the British. A good example are the Cossacks that fought on the side of the Axis. Although they were taken as POWs by the US and UK, they were put o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what?
"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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's peobably worth noting Doenitz still spent 10 years in prison for crimes against peace. He didn't get out early because he wouldn't denounce his allegiance to Hitler, either.
you are saying that US military leaders should have served time too?
from the home page of the archive: > The IMT contributed to the definition of war crimes and the outlawing of wars of aggression. that hints at what really happened at the tribunal. chomsky has some details: https://chomsky.info/20070803/ The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. First of all, the Nuremberg trials—of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today—it is, I think, the most ser…
Chomsky has proven to be a rather biased observer in the "yeahbutwhatabout" game. Which is saying something, considering his ethnic heritage and the fact that we're talking about Nazis. If he and Kissinger were on fire and I only had one glass of water, I'd drink it.
[flagged]
Stanford has renamed campus spaces to stop honoring David Starr Jordan because of his eugenics advocacy and other bigoted views: https://news.stanford.edu/2020/10/07/jordan-agassiz/ You can read the report on him, commissioned and published by Stanford, that went into making this decision: "Reports Of The Advisory Committee On Renaming Jordan Hall And Removing The Statue Of Louis Agassiz" https://campusnames.stanford…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. Most of them weren't even tried . And of those that were, most of the ones who fought the charges weren't convicted, or were convicted of far lesser charges. Only a few got death sentences. ... For instance, the industrialists that bankrolled the Nazis, ran their factories with slave labour, and made posion gas for exterminating Jews and other victims of fascism got 2 to 7 years, with most of them being ac…
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.
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 boundaries. And this doesn't apply only to the manufacturing of something like Zyklon B nerve gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other interesting parts. > Everyone in the court was issued with headphones to allow them to hear the charges being read in their native language, but the accused showed little interest. They were probably already resigned to the idea that they would be executed and thought there was little point in trying to pay attention and defend themselves. Most of them wished they were already dead. > The British Government wan…
Is it actually ironic? Weren’t the soviets well-known for show trials? That is, were they arguing for a legal process or a legitimising one? I don’t know the reason for the British preference but I do feel there are arguments for it, e.g. if such a tribunal was expected to have predetermined results, why associate your legitimate legal system with it.