Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research, Christoph Awender's WW2 day by dayand Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld.

Skip to content

If you found the forum useful please consider supporting us. You can also support us by buying books through the AHF Bookstore.

"Victor's Justice"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed.
Hosted by David Thompson.

"Victor's Justice"

Postby Roberto on 15 May 2002 10:41

I couldn´t finish my reply to Roberto´s statements on other thread...but he simply can´t believe that the Nuremberg trials were a lynch fairy tale, by any fairly reasonable jurist...it doesn´t take a top University Law degree to conclude that, man...


wrote “Victor’s Justice” on the thread

Soap …
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... b1ec0ec997

(which was closed due to personal insults, a policy I recommend the moderator to apply more moderately).

The answer to the above statement is: Seeing the Nuremberg trials as a “lynch fairy tale” takes no legal expertise indeed. Legal expertise in fact is likely to be a hindrance. What may help is blind Faith in the virtue of the Führer’s cause and the evil of his opponents, as I see it.

Mr. VJ is kindly invited to demonstrate otherwise. Here’s my assessment, which is based on the brilliant analyses that our fellow posters Stephen Healey and Walter Kaschner, both of them legal professionals, have provided on this forum:

“Revisionists” like to call the Nuremberg trial against the Major War Criminals a “show trial”.

First of all, what is a “show trial”?

As I see it, a show trial is a trial that

a) is held under a blaze of publicity to maximize its
propaganda effect;

b) does not involve an examination of the issues with a view to determining guilt, because the result of the trial has already been determined in advance. Indicative of this is usually the absence of defense attorneys, inability to call defense witnesses and the extreme brevity of the "trial".

A show trial is thus not a real trial in any sense, but a charade designed to have a certain effect.

The Nuremberg trials were not show trials because:

a) Some of the most distinguished judges and lawyers from the Allied countries participated either on the bench or as prosecutors (who presumably prostituted their talents and independence by pretending to hold a trial, if “Revisionists” are to be believed);

b) The defendants had their choice of defense attorneys, who included some of the most distinguished German attorneys;

c) The defendants could call witnesses;

d) The defendants were entitled to challenge the evidence produced by the prosecution, namely examine documents and cross-examine witnesses;

e) The proceedings took place over 403 sessions, all of which were open to the public and recorded for posterity

f) 33 witnesses were called for the prosecution

g) 19 defendants gave evidence

h) 61 defense witnesses gave oral evidence

i) 143 defense witnesses gave written evidence

j) Several thousand documents were tendered by the prosecution and defense. With very few exceptions the authenticity of these documents was not questioned by the defense

k) The judgment (parts of which the Soviet judge dissented from) carefully examined the guilt of the defendants in respect of each charge. For each charge the evidence in favor and against was described, the arguments of the prosecution and defense considered and a considered judgment reached.

l) There were 74 charges (divided into 4 general categories) brought against 22 defendants

m) 52 of these charges were found to be proven, 22 were dismissed. Three defendants were entirely acquitted. A number of defendants had their culpability in respect of proven charges reduced or eliminated because of extenuating circumstances.

As to the burden of proof, that is upon the defendant in a show trial. “Revisionists” like to make believe that this was so at Nuremberg as well. This is nonsense, as a reading of the Charter and Rules for Procedure make clear. The onus was on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant on each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some quotes from the judgment will illustrate how the judges approached their task (I have bolded some of the particularly interesting passages):

HESS:
There is evidence showing the participation of the Party Chancellery, under Hess, in the distribution of orders connected with the commission of war crimes; that Hess may have had knowledge of even if he did not participate in the crimes that were being committed in the East, and proposed laws discriminating against Jews and Poles; and that he signed decrees forcing certain groups of Poles to accept German citizenship. The Tribunal, however, does not find that the evidence sufficiently connects Hess with these crimes to sustain a finding of guilt.

KALTENBRUNNER:
The Anschluss, although it was an aggressive act, is not charged as an aggressive war, and the evidence against Kaltenbrunner under Count One does not in the opinion of the Tribunal , show his direct participation in any plan to wage such a war.

FRANK:
The evidence has not satisfied the Tribunal that Frank was sufficiently connected with the common plan to wage aggressive war to allow the Tribunal to convict him on count one.

STREICHER:
Streicher was a staunch Nazi and supporter of Hitler's main policies. There is no evidence to show that he was ever within Hitler's inner circle advisers; nor during his career was he closely connected with the formulation of the policies which led to war. He was never present, for example, at any of the important conferences when Hitler explained his decisions to his leaders. Although he was a Gauleiter there is no evidence to prove that he had knowledge of those policies. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence fails to establish his connection with the conspiracy or common plan to wage aggressive war as that conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.

SCHACHT:
It is clear that Schacht was a central figure in Germany's rearmament programme, and the steps which he took, particularly in the early days of the Nazi regime, were responsible for Nazi Germany's rapid rise as a military power, But rearmament of itself is not criminal under the Charter. To be a crime against peace under Article 6 of the Charter it must be shown that Schacht carried out this rearmament as part of the Nazi plans to wage aggressive wars.....On this all important question evidence has been given for the prosecution, and a considerable volume of evidence for the defense. The Tribunal has considered the whole of this evidence with great care, and comes to the conclusion that this necessary inference has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

DOENITZ:
In the view of the Tribunal, the evidence shows that Doenitz was active in waging aggressive war.
It is also asserted that the German U-boat arm not only did not carry out the warning and rescue provisions of the Protocol but that Doenitz deliberately ordered the killing of survivors of shipwrecked vessels, whether enemy or neutral. The prosecution has introduced much evidence surrounding two orders of Doenitz, War Order No. 154, issued in 1939, and the so-called " Laconia " Order of 1942. The defense argues that these orders and the evidence supporting them do not show such a policy and introduced much evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence does not establish with the certainty required that Doenitz deliberately ordered the killing of shipwrecked survivors.

VON SCHIRACH:
Despite the warlike nature of the activities of the Hitler Jugend, however, it does not appear that von Schirach was involved in the development of Hitler's plan for territorial expansion by means of aggressive war, or that he participated in the planning or preparation of any of the wars of aggression.

SAUCKEL:
The evidence has not satisfied the Tribunal that Sauckel was sufficiently connected with the common plan to wage aggressive war or sufficiently involved in the planning or waging of the aggressive wars to allow the Tribunal to convict him on Counts One and Two.
The evidence shows that Sauckel was in charge of a programme which involved deportation for slave labour of more than 5,000,000 human beings, many of them under terrible conditions of cruelty and suffering.

VON PAPEN:
The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offences against political morality, however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war. There is no showing that he was a party to the plans under which the occupation of Austria was a step in the direction of further aggressive action, or even that he participated in plans to occupy Austria by aggressive war if necessary. But it is not established beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the purpose of his activity, and therefore the Tribunal cannot hold that he was a party to the common plan charged in Count One or participated in the planning of the aggressive wars charged under Count Two.

FRITZSCHE:
It appears that Fritzsche sometimes made strong statements of a propagandistic nature in his broadcasts. But the Tribunal is not prepared to hold that they were intended to incite the German people to commit atrocities on conquered peoples, and he cannot be held to have been a participant in the crimes charged. His aim was rather to arouse popular sentiment in support of Hitler and the German war effort.

BORMANN:
The evidence does not show that Bormann knew of Hitler's plans to prepare, initiate or wage aggressive wars. He attended none of the important conferences when Hitler revealed piece by piece these plans for aggression. Nor can knowledge be conclusively inferred from the positions he held. It was only when he became Head of the Party Chancellery in 1941, and later in 1943 secretary to the Fuehrer when he attended many of Hitler's conferences, that his positions gave him the necessary access. Under the view stated elsewhere which the Tribunal has taken of the conspiracy to wage aggressive war, there is not sufficient evidence to bring Bormann within the scope of Count One.


It is legitimate to debate the correctness of some of the individual verdicts, but to claim that the whole process was a charade and a fraud is just ridiculous.

People who are interested in the Nuremberg trials can find transcripts as well as copies of many of the important documents at:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm

“Revisionists” like to make a fuss about certain provisions of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which can be read under the following link:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm

One of the provisions targeted is Article 19:

Article 19.
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.


“Revisionists” try to make believe that an assessment of evidence without technical rules of evidence is not a proper assessment of evidence. This is nonsense, of course. No rules of evidence means only that the judges were free in how to assess the various elements of evidence and what elements of evidence to base their verdict upon, instead of being obliged to give certain elements of evidence priority over others, like a document over a testimonial or a sworn testimonial over one not sworn. This is quite a reasonable principle, in my opinion, because it doesn’t force the judge to give preference to an element he considers less credible over one he sees as more so just because the former ranges higher in the hierarchy of evidence. It is actually applied in a number of continental European legal systems, including those of France and Germany. As half the members of the tribunal were continental lawyers, and as as none of the defense lawyers were familiar with the highly technical evidentiary rules that are applied in the US, this concession to the legal systems of continental Europe can even be said to have benefited the defense at the Nuremberg trials. I’m told that even in the US, in cases where a judge, rather than a jury is the trier of fact, evidentiary rules are often ignored and the judge is allowed to give the evidence whatever weight he deems it’s worthy of.

Article 21.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.


“Revisionists” pretend that this provision allowed the Tribunal to take in as evidence claims made in newspapers, rumors and propaganda, whatever. That is also nonsense. Article 21 contains nothing unusual in criminal justice, and the Revisionist reading of it is just laughable. “Facts of common knowledge” are not whatever the newspapers say, but ancillary occurrences outside the subject matter of the tribunal’s investigation that are part of the (cultivated) public’s common information background at the time – like the death of Julius Cesar, the coronation of the Queen of England, the Zeppelin disaster at Lakehurst or the fact that the sky is blue, grass is green, water flows, dogs bark and babies cry. It is understood that the term never applies to such facts that are the subject of the tribunal’s investigation. As to taking judicial notice of governmental documents, that is current practice in many legal systems (including that of the US)in regard to documents that have been prepared in the ordinary course of business or purport to reflect official acts or decisions.

Last but not least, “Revisionists” kick up a row about certain somewhat less than reliable elements of evidence that were offered at or introduced into the procedures, as if such would put in question the legitimacy of the trials as a whole. Such contentions not only reveal a standard that would leave hardly a single judicial decision in human history standing if it were to be applied, but also an utter lack of knowledge of the duration and dimensions of the Nuremberg trials. OF COURSE you will find confusing, contradictory, self serving, biased, muddled and purely erroneous testimony in those trials. They lasted 10 months. Feelings were high. Thousands of documents were offered into evidence, and as to the eyewitness testimonials, see above. There was BOUND to be some chaff with the wheat. Any lawyer who has engaged in trial work will testify to that. To expect perfection in the workings of any system of justice is simply to blink at reality. And the fact that testimony is entered or a document is presented in evidence doesn't mean its veracity or authenticity is accepted, nor does it indicate that the trier of fact gave it any weight whatsoever. So an attempt to vitiate the legitimacy of the entire trial process by picking at a few isolated examples of phony-baloney testimony suggests a sophomoric idealism or - as is rather obvious in the case of the “Revisionists” – some ulterior motive. It has nothing to do with the real world.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Victor´s Justice? on 15 May 2002 18:01

Well, man, first of all I would like to thank you for the hommage paid by posting a thread with my name on it, I am flattered...

Secondly, the moderator´s policy is right, in the sense that any personal insult is useless and out of focus here. This includes Gottfriedjosef´s offensive comments toward your person, and many of your offensive comments against other participants, an issue I have already pointed out before.

In fact, Gottfriedjosef showed us some perceptions of that time about Nuremberg trials, and I can add that most Law professors and scholars, in an almost unanymous fashion, teach that those trials were a joke, "legal procedures-wise", and a bad example of an ad-hoc military tribunal.

It was simply an inquisitory one, where the principles of contradictory and full defense were thrown down the litter, with lots of forged documents, testimonials obtained under torture, coertion or similar methods.

The number of testimonies is irrelevant if the acquisition of evidence is flawed in advance. Quite a few quotes shown by you on the last thread, related to "respectable lawyers and jurists", only corroborate what I assert. It´s not about whether a Tribunal should be created for war crimes, but simply the deeds committed, the double standards always used in wars, and the "rotten fruits" legal theory just put into practice.

If you are not a Law graduate, you should study more, and understand why the Nuremberg trials were a joke, technically speaking; they were a show created to legitimate very excessive punishments, in many cases. Of course there were crimes, of course there was a need for punishment, but not in the way it was done. The "nulla poena sine lege" principle is just a slight part of that.

Unfortunately, I don´t have the same time that you have to reply and post lengthy quotes like you love to do; but this is a hint of a more complete answer to come, when possible.

Once again, I ask you: which developed, "democratic", anti-terrorist country recently denounced the treaty for creation of a Permanent Military Tribunal, justifying that "our Military cannot suffer the risks of undeserved penalties for their actions"..???

Which other developed country uses torture and illegal coertions and prisons to obtain confessions from "suspects"? Any hint? Do you smell war crimes around?

NOW THAT´S DOUBLE STANDARD, AND THAT´S VICTOR´S JUSTICE...

p.s.: I didn´t label you, so I ask you not to label me or call me names, please...behave yourself, and we will be all right here.
User avatar
Victor´s Justice?
Member
Brazil
 
Posts: 67
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 04:02
Location: Brasil

Postby Roberto on 15 May 2002 19:02

Well, man, first of all I would like to thank you for the hommage paid by posting a thread with my name on it, I am flattered...


There's no reason for that. I just like to take a conversation to the end.

Secondly, the moderator´s policy is right, in the sense that any personal insult is useless and out of focus here. This includes Gottfriedjosef´s offensive comments toward your person, and many of your offensive comments against other participants, an issue I have already pointed out before.


I have this unfortunate habit of calling things by the name I think they deserve. Better get used to it.

In fact, Gottfriedjosef showed us some perceptions of that time about Nuremberg trials, and I can add that most Law professors and scholars, in an almost unanymous fashion, teach that those trials were a joke, "legal procedures-wise", and a bad example of an ad-hoc military tribunal.


Gottfriedjosef showed nothing. See my posts of Tue May 14, 2002 3:36 pm and Tue May 14, 2002 4:29 pm on the thread

Soap …
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 33a6640eb4

As to your own assertion, it is also reduced to thin air and wishful thinking if you look at the former of those posts. The quote at the end thereof I’ll repeat:

The Nuremberg trials were more controversial when they happened then they are today. It was a new idea and new procedures had to be established. Some were uncomfortable with the idea of trying men for starting the war when there had never been a trial like this before. Others have been bothered by the death sentence given to Julius Streicher and the light sentence given to Albert Speer. Today there are very few legal scholars who accept the technical arguments about whether the trial should have been held. Even those reputable scholars who disagree base their objections on their legal philosophy. All agree that the Tribunal took its job seriously and gave the defendants a fair trial.


Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short- ... berg.shtml

Besides, I don’t want to know what one or the other legal scholar or politician said in his eagerness to indulge in polemics, voice some personal or professional grudge or draw attention to his own person. I’m interested in Mr. VJ’s comments to the assessment of the Nuremberg trial in my first post on this thread, if he has any.

It was simply an inquisitory one, where the principles of contradictory and full defense were thrown down the litter, with lots of forged documents, testimonials obtained under torture, coertion or similar methods.


I strongly doubt that my friend is able to demonstrate the accuracy of a single one of his above assertions, but he is welcome to try. I would especially be interested in evidence that there were “lots of forged documents” and “testimonials obtained under torture, coertion or similar methods”. I haven’t yet seen proof of a single such case.

The number of testimonies is irrelevant if the acquisition of evidence is flawed in advance.


Was that so? What exactly are those flaws supposed to have been?

Quite a few quotes shown by you on the last thread, related to "respectable lawyers and jurists", only corroborate what I assert.


I strongly doubt that my friend even knows what the contents of his assertion are supposed to be, let alone that he understood much of what those “respectable lawyers” stated beyond it sounding like what he would like to hear. But he’s welcome to submit the statements of those “respectable lawyers” to my analysis so I can demonstrate what is wrong with their assertions, as I have done on previous occasions.

It´s not about whether a Tribunal should be created for war crimes, but simply the deeds committed, the double standards always used in wars, and the "rotten fruits" legal theory just put into practice.


Again, I strongly doubt that my friend understands his own phrases. If he is referring to the Allies also having committed crimes similar to those on trial, that’s an old hat, an issue related to whether those who held the trial had the moral authority to do so and not to whether the investigation and trial procedures as such, including but not limited to the acquisition and assessment of evidence, lived up to proper legal standards. Besides, those war crimes regarding which the Allies didn’t have a clean conscience themselves (unrestricted submarine warfare and indiscriminate area bombing) were excluded from the charges placed against the defendants. The organized and systematic mass murder of millions of prisoners of war and civilians outside the scope of acts of war was another matter, however – nothing in the Allies’ wartime conduct resembled it qualitatively let alone quantitatively.

If you are not a Law graduate,


I actually am a Law graduate. Are you?

you should study more,


That’s what I’m telling you, buddy. Take off those ideological blindfolds.

and understand why the Nuremberg trials were a joke, technically speaking; they were a show created to legitimate very excessive punishments, in many cases.


I explained in detail why I consider the Nuremberg Trial, despite some shortcomings it certainly had, to have been everything other than “a joke, technically speaking”. Now I’m waiting for Mr. VJ to convince me otherwise. So far, no show.

Of course there were crimes, of course there was a need for punishment, but not in the way it was done. The "nulla poena sine lege" principle is just a slight part of that.


I wonder what the others are supposed to be. As to the principle of “nulla poena sine lege", that may be arguable in regard to Counts One (“The Common Plan or Conspiracy”) and Count Two (“Crimes Against Peace”), but it is out of place in regard to Count Three (“War Crimes”) and Count Four (“Crimes Against Humanity”). These latter two were basically related to mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians, and there is no arguing that the defendants were entitled to consider their related actions legitimate at the time they engaged in them.

Unfortunately, I don´t have the same time that you have to reply and post lengthy quotes like you love to do; but this is a hint of a more complete answer to come, when possible.


I’ll be waiting.

Once again, I ask you: which developed, "democratic", anti-terrorist country recently denounced the treaty for creation of a Permanent Military Tribunal, justifying that "our Military cannot suffer the risks of undeserved penalties for their actions"..???


I don’t know. Is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

Which other developed country uses torture and illegal coertions and prisons to obtain confessions from "suspects"? Any hint? Do you smell war crimes around?


As above.

NOW THAT´S DOUBLE STANDARD, AND THAT´S VICTOR´S JUSTICE...


“Victor’s Justice”, if you want to call it that, can still be fair justice. Even a gangster can give another gangster a fair trial if the defendant benefits from presumption of innocence, is entitled to a qualified defense of his choice that is granted the same rights and opportunities as the prosecution and is convicted only on such charges regarding which his guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This was the case at the Nuremberg Trial, pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal:

Article 16.
In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.
(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.
(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm

p.s.: I didn´t label you, so I ask you not to label me or call me names, please...behave yourself, and we will be all right here.


As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Scott Smith on 16 May 2002 05:47

Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.
:wink:

Image
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
United States
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Roberto on 16 May 2002 11:19

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.
:wink:

Image


No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Scott Smith on 16 May 2002 13:44

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.

No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.

FAITH and a monomaniacal agenda, yes, with proof of your humble commitment to intellectual inquiry and respecting diverse points-of-view being found in this thread, which was supposed to be about Göring:

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
United States
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Roberto on 16 May 2002 13:55

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.

No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.

FAITH and a monomaniacal agenda, yes, with proof of your humble commitment to intellectual inquiry and respecting diverse points-of-view being found in this thread, which was supposed to be about Göring:

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?


Stop bitching and get a German language quote, Reverend. That's all I'm asking for.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Scott Smith on 16 May 2002 14:29

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.

No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.

FAITH and a monomaniacal agenda, yes, with proof of your humble commitment to intellectual inquiry and respecting diverse points-of-view being found in this thread, which was supposed to be about Göring:

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?


Stop bitching and get a German language quote, Reverend. That's all I'm asking for.

Why? For a point that you ADMIT that you don't even care about? You blew your Goodwill with me in that department over a year ago when you started calling me a LIAR after becoming impatient with the slowness of the materials that I was sending to you in Portugal via U.S. Mail. Not everything is point-and-click, after all.

You will certainly find that you can get much more from me with a respectful attitude. I won't even dream about ordering the German language books via ILL until I get either an apology or a commitment to honorable behavior on this forum in the future, which means fewer insults to those with whom you disagree. Comprende Amigo?
:wink:
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
United States
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Roberto on 16 May 2002 15:00

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:As I said above, I’m an outspoken fellow. If you have problems with that, better refrain from talking to me.

In other words, it's Roberto's way or the High-Way. You will get along fine with our resident monarch, as long as he agrees with you.

No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.

FAITH and a monomaniacal agenda, yes, with proof of your humble commitment to intellectual inquiry and respecting diverse points-of-view being found in this thread, which was supposed to be about Göring:

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?


Stop bitching and get a German language quote, Reverend. That's all I'm asking for.

Why? For a point that you ADMIT that you don't even care about? You blew your Goodwill with me in that department over a year ago when you started calling me a LIAR after becoming impatient with the slowness of the materials that I was sending to you in Portugal via U.S. Mail. Not everything is point-and-click, after all.

You will certainly find that you can get much more from me with a respectful attitude. I won't even dream about ordering the German language books via ILL until I get either an apology or a commitment to honorable behavior on this forum in the future, which means fewer insults to those with whom you disagree. Comprende Amigo?
:wink:


Respect for the Reverend?

Respect is earned, and the Reverend managed to forfeit whatever respect for him I had with his repetitive, paternalistic and intellectually dishonest propaganda rambling, incidentally earning the nickname he now carries with his endless sermons.

For the rest see my post of Thu May 16, 2002 2:50 pm on the thread

Was Reich Marshal Hermann Goering an Idiot?
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 4968039c32

Don’t mix up the threads, Reverend.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Scott Smith on 16 May 2002 15:42

Roberto wrote:Don’t mix up the threads, Reverend.

Agreed, Spamkönig. That's why my latest response is there!
:P

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
United States
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Roberto on 16 May 2002 15:54

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Don’t mix up the threads, Reverend.

Agreed, Spamkönig. That's why my latest response is there!
:P

Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?


That's my boy. :lol:
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Victor´s Justice? on 16 May 2002 17:58

Roberto wrote:No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.


If we get on your nerves, please take a shower and leave the forum; you are the unpolite one here, you are the one full of prejudice and almost-Nazi behavior here, respecting what you want to be respected, and censoring every other contrary opinion.

If your reply is to be an offensive one, kindly think again and refrain from posting here. Repeating what I said before: I don´t have time nor will to post lengthy texts here 24/7, (un)fortunately...and many things that were written as a statute for the Nuremberg tribunal simply weren´t obeyed, period.

Answering my above question about countries, the first one is US; the second is Israel; I thought you knew that already, but you seem to carefully select the news that you read.

And by the way, if you are REALLY a Law graduate, you either should study more and think by yourself, or just use your diploma as wallpaper; because your quotes just lead to what you want, nothing more, as you simply keep labelling and disregarding every other opinion. It doesn´t take a lot of intelligence to do that, be it in German, English or Portuguese.

I am a Lawyer, and work with Law all day, that´s why I don´t have such spare time, like you do.

And finally, if you know you are outspoken, that´s a good start; at least you recognize your (many) faults, and should fix that; urbane individuals don´t need to accept offenses from others, especially in an open forum.

Your rudeness should take you out, not others.
User avatar
Victor´s Justice?
Member
Brazil
 
Posts: 67
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 04:02
Location: Brasil

Re: Honorable KANGAROOs and Humble Kings...

Postby Roberto on 16 May 2002 18:24

Victor´s Justice? wrote:
Roberto wrote:No. As long as he doesn't get on my nerves with endless repetitive sermons of nonsense. People may have deplorable views on certain issues and yet be nice folks if they don't try to be missionaries of their Faith.

If we get on your nerves, please take a shower and leave the forum; you are the unpolite one here, you are the one full of prejudice and almost-Nazi behavior here, respecting what you want to be respected, and censoring every other contrary opinion.


1. Who is "we"? Are you about to join the Reverend in sermonizing?

2. Has no one ever explained to you what the difference between showing what is wrong with an "opinion" and censoring is?

If your reply is to be an offensive one, kindly think again and refrain from posting here.


Why, am I not allowed to respond in kind to your offenses?

Repeating what I said before: I don´t have time nor will to post lengthy texts here 24/7, (un)fortunately...and many things that were written as a statute for the Nuremberg tribunal simply weren´t obeyed, period.


I'm keenly waiting for my friend to show me which and to provide examples supporting his statements. With the necessary backup, of course.

Answering my above question about countries, the first one is US; the second is Israel; I thought you knew that already, but you seem to carefully select the news that you read.


Wrong. I hardly ever read any news.

And by the way, if you are REALLY a Law graduate, you either should study more and think by yourself, or just use your diploma as wallpaper; because your quotes just lead to what you want, nothing more, as you simply keep labelling and disregarding every other opinion.


I'm keenly waiting for my friend to show me what is wrong, from a legal point of view or otherwise, with my statements and the quotes I use to back them up, which usually derive from respectable professional colleagues of ours. Insults and hollow platitudes are not likely to convince.

It doesn´t take a lot of intelligence to do that, be it in German, English or Portuguese.


Judging by what I've seen coming from the "Revisionist" side, I'd say it takes more intelligence than they can muster.

I am a Lawyer, and work with Law all day, that´s why I don´t have such spare time, like you do.


How do you know I have so much time on my hands? I just happen to possess the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And finally, if you know you are outspoken, that´s a good start; at least you recognize your (many) faults,


Which are? Examples, please.

and should fix that; urbane individuals don´t need to accept offenses from others, especially in an open forum.


Exactly. That's why I don't have to accept your tirades.

Your rudeness should take youout, not others.


I'll let your audience decide who of us has been more rude to the other, and who has done more to deserve being treated rudely.

So much for now. When you find the time to produce some substantial arguments supporting your point of view rather than just whine about what a bad fellow I am, I'll be glad to hear from you again.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Tarpon27 on 16 May 2002 18:47

If your reply is to be an offensive one, kindly think again and refrain from posting here. Repeating what I said before: I don´t have time nor will to post lengthy texts here 24/7, (un)fortunately...and many things that were written as a statute for the Nuremberg tribunal simply weren´t obeyed, period.


What "many things" written as a statute for Nuremberg were not obeyed?

I believe the original document, hammered out by Robert Jackson, was nine pages.

And for this gem:

Answering my above question about countries, the first one is US; the second is Israel; I thought you knew that already, but you seem to carefully select the news that you read.


Yeah, and like the now (rapidly) discarded and much heralded UN investigative commission to investigate the "massacre" at Jenin, the new office of the ICC could conduct such politically motivated witch hunts. Of course the US should not sign as a signatory; it is a concept as flawed as the Independent Special Prosecutor in domestic US politics.

And unlike the assertion, Nuremberg and the ICC office are not alike.

Mark
Tarpon27
Member
United States
 
Posts: 334
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

A FEW QUESTION FOR ROBERTO

Postby Ovidius on 16 May 2002 20:36

Roberto wrote:
Of course there were crimes, of course there was a need for punishment, but not in the way it was done. The "nulla poena sine lege" principle is just a slight part of that.


I wonder what the others are supposed to be. As to the principle of “nulla poena sine lege", that may be arguable in regard to Counts One (“The Common Plan or Conspiracy”) and Count Two (“Crimes Against Peace”), but it is out of place in regard to Count Three (“War Crimes”) and Count Four (“Crimes Against Humanity”). These latter two were basically related to mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians, and there is no arguing that the defendants were entitled to consider their related actions legitimate at the time they engaged in them.


The 1000-point question: Since the nulle poena sine lege principle had been applied as such(hypothesis which I reject, but let's say it was :mrgreen: ), and considering that laws of the victor states upheld the right for free speech, then what's the justification for Streicher's death sentence?

Streicher was not only sentenced to death, but thoroughly beaten by his guards before being taken to the Court. This was not done to other defendants, not even to those hated by entire nations, as Hans Frank.

While other Nuremberg defendants, like Keitel or Jodl, are talked about by historians, journalists etc in a rather neutral tone, Streicher has been systematically loathed over the last decades, and some members in the old forum said even that "it's not incidental he had the lowest intelligence of them all".

On which basis is Julius Streicher(journalist and propagandist) more hated by people with some knowledge of history, than even those who directly ordered the "crimes": Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Frank etc ?

~Regards,

Ovidius

PS leave out the "sermon", "Faith" etc rhetoric. I expect a reasonable answer :roll:
Ovidius
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Next

Return to Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests