Trial,execution or else ...for the Nazi elite.

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 15:48

Korbius wrote:Wow, look at all of those who voted for Nazi leaders to be set free after the war!? Sounds like too many neo-nazis in this place.


no, it shows people who aren't hypocritical. Japanese and US leaders were nopt tried for the Batton Death Marches or Atomic Bomb droppings :|

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 22 Feb 2003 15:57

Brig wrote:
Korbius wrote:Wow, look at all of those who voted for Nazi leaders to be set free after the war!? Sounds like too many neo-nazis in this place.


no, it shows people who aren't hypocritical. Japanese and US leaders were nopt tried for the Batton Death Marches or Atomic Bomb droppings :|

Good point Brig.
However. If some criminals escaped justice due to some reasons - does it mean that we have totally forsake the idea of retribution for the crimes committed ?
I would agree that both the Japanese responsible for the Batton Death Marches and those Americans who made the decision to drop A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have been brought to the Tribunals as well.

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 15:59

I am also pointing out the fact that the US wasn't tried because, well, they won. However, a crimje is only a crime if it violates the laws of the Nation where it was committed, or a nation controlled by another nation of whom the soldier belongs to, etc. Yes, and there were always legal and lrgit hypocritical exceptions towards elite at times

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 22 Feb 2003 16:06

However, a crimje is only a crime if it violates the laws of the Nation where it was committed, or a nation controlled by another nation of whom the soldier belongs to, etc.

Well I don't care personally about the internation legal subtleties here
( Although I doubt very much that your point of view would concur with the opinions of many professionals of the international law ) but for me waging warfare against civilians and not combatants is definitely Crime which should be punishable by all means .

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 16:08

well, soldiers WERE obeying orders. In the US army it may not be an excuse since you can decline on moral grounds. But in the Reich, you obeyed or you were severely punished. Different laws, but the US failed to acknowlege this at Nuremburg, I think

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 22 Feb 2003 16:13

well, soldiers WERE obeying orders.

This is not an excuse. Would you obey the order to shoot a 5 years old kid ?
( Most Einsatzgruppen members did but there were such occasions when some of them refused and ..were not punished just transferred to the other units )
There is such a notion as a criminal order.
Human being is not an automaton even when in the army. You always have choices in every situation. :)

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 16:16

you have choices, but you often have to fear being punished. they did not tell you there would be a transfer.

besides, soldiers were proagandized to the point where they had a warped sense of morality

Have you ever seen that WWII Texaco propaganda neswpaper ad 'What Goes Through The Mind Of A Goosestepper?'

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 22 Feb 2003 16:19

you have choices, but you often have to fear being punished

No doubt .There is a prize to be paid to remain a decent person. :)
But there were such people.
Again I repeat my question - Would you obey the order to shoot a 5 years old kid ?

Krasnaya Zvezda
Financial supporter
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 17:45
Location: Moscow

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 22 Feb 2003 16:21

To me the critical questions is - why do you want to put somebody on a trial? Logical answer is to establish wrongdoing if it has not been established. Now comes the critical subquestion, what is the definition of wrongdoing?

We all clearly agree that crimes against civillians, obvious breach of Geneve convention is a crime, expulsion of other people in the name of the superior race, killing children with an intentiont to exterminate them is not a wrongdoing it is a crime!

From this standpoint, anyone with a rank higher than the corporal on the Eastern front is guilty of CRIMES agaist humanity and does not deserve any trial. They all knew on a daily basis what the fight was like and how they treated their enemy and civillians. So for me it is clear how the enemy on east should have been handled and there is no discussion here, every country should have handled the same this issue.

Now, second category is Western front, occupation of the western European countries, that followed more or less millitary code of honest conduction. Here you can put people on trial for economical damage, unprovoked war, pain, casulaties, and in some occasions crimes against civillians and here you would need the court to establish guilt. Here you go into the stuff "I only followed orders" , "it was not my idea to start this war" and so on.

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 16:23

5 Year Old kid...

Yes. As an order from the Reich and military which I would have self-enlisted in, especially on the Eastern Front against COmmunism (Which I so greatly despise), I probably would have obeyed an order to do such. As a soldier, you do what is required of you. I would not want to be sent to some desk position because I declined an order.

Of course, were it in the US military, I probably would not. There would be no cause I saw myself fighting for, other than national protection. America doesn't start wars against much, just because of much

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 22 Feb 2003 16:37

witness wrote
Would you obey the order to shoot a 5 years old kid

Brig wrote

5 Year Old kid...

Yes. As an order from the Reich and military ..

I guess we don't have anything to talk about anymore on this point...

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 22 Feb 2003 16:42

witness wrote:witness wrote
Would you obey the order to shoot a 5 years old kid

Brig wrote

5 Year Old kid...

Yes. As an order from the Reich and military ..

I guess we don't have anything to talk about anymore on this point...


and to finish, you never answered my question about the Texaco page. It had a soldier goosestepping and said 'Left, right, lef, right, don't think, obey the Fuhrer'. That was basically the idea of the Reich. it's all how you're raised. If you were raised in the HJ, there is undoubtedly no way you would not shoot a 5 year old if ordered to

Krasnaya Zvezda
Financial supporter
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 17:45
Location: Moscow

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 22 Feb 2003 21:54

Brig wrote:5 Year Old kid...

Yes. As an order from the Reich and military which I would have self-enlisted in, especially on the Eastern Front against COmmunism (Which I so greatly despise), I probably would have obeyed an order to do such. As a soldier, you do what is required of you. I would not want to be sent to some desk position because I declined an order.

Of course, were it in the US military, I probably would not. There would be no cause I saw myself fighting for, other than national protection. America doesn't start wars against much, just because of much


Hehe, Brig , you are funny man :D Look, you do not have to try to make the Wermaht look like an honorable army. There is no need for romanticism here. German soldier was neither honorable nor soldier in the East.

We all know, and they all knew that killing civilians is a crime, not a wrong doing. There is nothing soldier like in killing 100 civilians for each German soldier killed. Real soldier would suck up the losses and refuse to resort to repressing the civilians to save his life and continue to fight the enemy. And we know from first hand witnesses that German soldiers were fully supporting this practices.

As far as you notion on following the orders. Look, go and jump in an empty pool to prove us how brave are you. I bet if an order was issued to the German soldiers to kill themselves they would refuse. Or at least to shoot in their own Germans they would much more refuse than refusing to shoot Russian civilians. Many generals in the East when faced with imminent defeat were refusing orders. So the conclusion is as long as I am doing OK, I can kill in the name of Reich but as soon as Russians came close to Berlin than all of a sudden it was Hitler's fault. To all this, I say screw the German army. It is easy to obey the orders to kill c 5 year old children when you are advancing, when face with its own demise, than all of a sudden they were disobyeing orders. Their commanding cadre (German) in east is guilty as sin. I can also say this thing for the soldiers, yet there could be 1% of those who at least felt it was wrong and tried to avoid mass murdering. Honestly, in the east, I do not see any reason for organizing a trial for let say Einsatzgruppen members, all you have to establish is weather that person was or not a member of such unit. Once that is established execution of the appropriate justice is the next and last step.

And also, do not give me that stuff about HJ, nobody, nobody in East was really resisting shooting the civilians and out of 75% German personel consumed in Barbarossa somebody was trained in HJ.

User avatar
Brig
Member
Posts: 4708
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 01:42
Location: Iraq

Post by Brig » 23 Feb 2003 04:13

jump in an empty pool? I've done worse on the streets.

in some cases, civilians ARE the enemy (Partisans, party-supporters, etc)

SS would have gladly killed themselves and troops did shoot other troops who were deserters.

don't give me any bs about it being otherwise, either

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 23 Feb 2003 05:11

Well I think that why it is good they lost after all. :D
If killing civilians and kids were O.K for them .. then they got what they deserved. :D (Perhaps even not enough..)
Which is real good. And the Trial was also a good ( not for them of course )idea just to show them in all their beauty.. :D

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”