Was the Nuernberg Trial a Kangaroo Court?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 28 May 2003 12:50

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court--


I don't know if you can explain what "kangaroo court" is supposed to be, and I'm sure you can't explain what inadequacy of the procedural rules and their application in practice, or of the assessment of evidence in favor and against the defendants (who spent more time in court making their case and had more witnesses testifying on their behalf than the prosecution) would justify pinning this label on the Nuremberg trials. But you are welcome to give it a try.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:all too often convicting men simply for wearing the wrong uniform.


An unreflected, emotional statement you will have trouble substantiating. But you are welcome to give it a try.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Doenitz, Manstein, Speer, others demonstrate this.


The sentence against Doenitz, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his responsibility for execution of the notorious "Commissar Order" within his area of command.

The sentence against Speer, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his criminal use of forced labor. The mitigation considered on account of his "opposition to Hitler's scorched earth programme in some of the Western countries and in Germany by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk" helped him to get off more lightly than his involvement in War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity would have warranted.

As to Manstein, he was no angel either. I wonder what, if anything, his defense attorney Mr. Paget had to say about, for instance, the following passages of an order the noble Manstein issued to his troops on 20 November 1941, transcribed on pages 41 and following of Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns": Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten 1939-1945, Frankfurt am Main 1989:

[…]Das Judentum bildet den Mittelsmann zwischen dem Feind im Ruecken und den noch kaempfenden Resten der Roten Wehrmacht und der Roten Fuehrung. Es haelt staerker als in Europa alle Schluesselpunkte der politischen Fuehrung und Verwaltung, des Handels und des Handwerks besetzt und bildet weiter die Zelle fuer alle Unruhen und moeglichen Erhebungen.
Das juedisch-bolschewistische System muss ein fuer allemal ausgerottet warden. Nie wieder darf es in unseren europaeischen Lebensraum eingreifen.
Der deutsche Soldat hat daher nicht allein die Aufgabe, die militaerischen Machtmittel des Systems zu zerschlagen. Er tritt auch als Traeger einer unerbittlichen voelkischen Idee und Raecher fuer alle Grausamkeiten, die ihm und dem deutschen Volk zugefuegt wurden, auf.
[…]
Fuer die Notwendigkeit der harten Suehne am Judentum, dem geistigen Traeger des bolschewistischen Terrors, muss der Soldat Verstaendnis aufbringen. Sie ist auch notwendig, um alle Erhebungen, die meist von Juden angezettelt warden, im Keime zu ersticken.[…]


My translation:

[…]Jewry is the middleman between the enemy at the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe it holds all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be exterminated once and for all. Never again must it intervene in our European living space.
The German soldier therefore has not only the task of shattering the system’s military means. He is also the bearer of a merciless idea of our people and the avenger of all cruelties that have been inflicted on him and the German people.
[…]
For the need of harsh atonement on Jewry, the spiritual bearer of Bolshevik terror, the soldier must show understanding. It is also necessary to choke at birth all uprisings, which are mostly incited by Jews.[…]


This order, which called upon Wehrmacht troops to tolerate and cooperate with the mass killings by Einsatzgruppen and SS and police formations, was the main reason for his being given an 18-year prison sentence by a British military court in 1949. Four years into his sentence, however, he was released from prison in 1953 and in 1956 called on by West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to act as a senior advisor in the effort to help build the new German army and thereby enable Germany's entry into NATO.

Of course you can argue about these sentences, as you can argue about a number of others at the Nuremberg trials or any other criminal trial. This doesn't make the Nuremberg trials into a "kangaroo court" any more than your dissatisfaction with a sentence issued by an American or German court in a plain criminal trial would make that court into a "kangaroo court".

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 29 May 2003 00:50

Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court--


I don't know if you can explain what "kangaroo court" is supposed to be, and I'm sure you can't explain what inadequacy of the procedural rules and their application in practice, or of the assessment of evidence in favor and against the defendants (who spent more time in court making their case and had more witnesses testifying on their behalf than the prosecution) would justify pinning this label on the Nuremberg trials. But you are welcome to give it a try.


The Nuremberg trials were a farce, a Kangaroo court--victor's justice crudely dressed in the garb of justice. Two essential principals make this so:

1) Soviet judges sat on the bench. SOrt of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think. I would respect thte Nuremberg trials if they prosecuted Soviet war criminals for example. But they did not. Ergo--it is a kangaroo court.

2) It prosecutes persons for thigns that were not a crime when they were committed. I can let this go pertaining to crimes against humanity with theories of natural law. But that charge of planning aggresive war, for example, is preposterous. Under that standard--a standard that was not even known till Germany had been defeated--the only way a general could avoid a charge is to commit treason against his country.

Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:all too often convicting men simply for wearing the wrong uniform.


An unreflected, emotional statement you will have trouble substantiating. But you are welcome to give it a try.


Speer and Doenitz--I maintain--shoudl have been acquitted. There are probably other generals and soliders who convicted for simply wearing the wrong uniform. I cannot remember if Guderian was convicted or not.

In relation to Doenitz, I woud refer you to this link:

http://www.uboat.net/men/nuremberg3.htm

One particularly important passge reads as follows:

Großadmiral Dönitz.... . was accused of conspiracy against peace, crimes against peace and crimes against martial law. He was not accused of crimes against humanity, as were the Nazi villains responsible for the incredible cruelty at the concentration camps.

The text then instructs that the Grossadmiral:

was then condemned because he conducted (not planned, prepared or unleashed) an offensive war and his U-boats were well prepared and trained for war. This strikingly ridiculous reasoning has never since been applied. If it had been, every officer in the whole world training and preparing his men for battle (after all that is what the job of an officer is all about) should have been convicted.

Ie--Doenitz was covnicted for waging unrestricted Submarine warfare!

As for the Commissar order, Doenitz merely allowed that to pass by not cancelling it. He did not conceive of the order. I find it a torubling precdent to require officer's to openly defy the commander in chief in this way. If they have the temerity to do so (perhaps risking their lives) as many did relaitng to the Commissar order, that is great. But they ought not be required to do so.

Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Doenitz, Manstein, Speer, others demonstrate this.


The sentence against Doenitz, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his responsibility for execution of the notorious "Commissar Order" within his area of command.


Maybe based in part, but it was not a necessary element. They were going to--and did in fact -conivct this man for waging unrestricted submarine warfare.

Roberto wrote:The sentence against Speer, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his criminal use of forced labor. The mitigation considered on account of his "opposition to Hitler's scorched earth programme in some of the Western countries and in Germany by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk" helped him to get off more lightly than his involvement in War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity would have warranted.


Again--this is an unreasonable standard. Speer was given the duty I belive as Minister of Interior, though I do not remember for sure. Various duties required ensuring sufficenit munitions and other wartime materials. In the scheme of things, he had some leeway as to how to do that, except for the sort of labor to be used. It is not like Hitle told him, and Speer, you can eiyther choose to use slave labor, or a German equivalent of Rose the Riveter. The point being that there was no alternative to slave labor. The only alternative would be to fail in your duty to your country--and essentuially betray your country. This standard is unreasonable--and certainly too rich for my blood.

Roberto wrote:As to Manstein, he was no angel either. I wonder what, if anything, his defense attorney Mr. Paget had to say about, for instance, the following passages of an order the noble Manstein issued to his troops on 20 November 1941, transcribed on pages 41 and following of Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns": Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten 1939-1945, Frankfurt am Main 1989:

[…]Das Judentum bildet den Mittelsmann zwischen dem Feind im Ruecken und den noch kaempfenden Resten der Roten Wehrmacht und der Roten Fuehrung. Es haelt staerker als in Europa alle Schluesselpunkte der politischen Fuehrung und Verwaltung, des Handels und des Handwerks besetzt und bildet weiter die Zelle fuer alle Unruhen und moeglichen Erhebungen.
Das juedisch-bolschewistische System muss ein fuer allemal ausgerottet warden. Nie wieder darf es in unseren europaeischen Lebensraum eingreifen.
Der deutsche Soldat hat daher nicht allein die Aufgabe, die militaerischen Machtmittel des Systems zu zerschlagen. Er tritt auch als Traeger einer unerbittlichen voelkischen Idee und Raecher fuer alle Grausamkeiten, die ihm und dem deutschen Volk zugefuegt wurden, auf.
[…]
Fuer die Notwendigkeit der harten Suehne am Judentum, dem geistigen Traeger des bolschewistischen Terrors, muss der Soldat Verstaendnis aufbringen. Sie ist auch notwendig, um alle Erhebungen, die meist von Juden angezettelt warden, im Keime zu ersticken.[…]


My translation:

[…]Jewry is the middleman between the enemy at the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe it holds all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be exterminated once and for all. Never again must it intervene in our European living space.
The German soldier therefore has not only the task of shattering the system’s military means. He is also the bearer of a merciless idea of our people and the avenger of all cruelties that have been inflicted on him and the German people.
[…]
For the need of harsh atonement on Jewry, the spiritual bearer of Bolshevik terror, the soldier must show understanding. It is also necessary to choke at birth all uprisings, which are mostly incited by Jews.[…]


This order, which called upon Wehrmacht troops to tolerate and cooperate with the mass killings by Einsatzgruppen and SS and police formations, was the main reason for his being given an 18-year prison sentence by a British military court in 1949. Four years into his sentence, however, he was released from prison in 1953 and in 1956 called on by West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to act as a senior advisor in the effort to help build the new German army and thereby enable Germany's entry into NATO."


This is news to me.I do not know to what extent Manstein was following orders, or that these actions were cumplosory. My understanding was that Manstein convicted merely for the planning of aggression war bit.

Roberto wrote:Of course you can argue about these sentences, as you can argue about a number of others at the Nuremberg trials or any other criminal trial. This doesn't make the Nuremberg trials into a "kangaroo court" any more than your dissatisfaction with a sentence issued by an American or German court in a plain criminal trial would make that court into a "kangaroo court".


To close--yes I can call it a Kangaroo court when they pnly try Germans ina war where every combatant committed war crimes, and when, to quote, " here laws were introduced that had previously not existed and were made legally binding even before their existence."

User avatar
British Free Corps
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 05 May 2003 22:19
Location: England, Great Britain

Post by British Free Corps » 29 May 2003 00:58

In relation to Doenitz, I woud refer you to this link:

http://www.uboat.net/men/nuremberg3.htm


Another important piece in regard to the trial of Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, from the same website:

"The verdict was regarded by many as an outrageous example of injustice and officers all over the world, amongst them some 120 Admirals of the U.S. Navy, considered the sentence as an unjustified attack on one of their brother officers. Dönitz received nearly 400 letters from Admirals, Generals, politicians, historians and journalists from all over the world, expressing their sympathy and regretting his fate."

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 29 May 2003 02:42

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court--


I don't know if you can explain what "kangaroo court" is supposed to be, and I'm sure you can't explain what inadequacy of the procedural rules and their application in practice, or of the assessment of evidence in favor and against the defendants (who spent more time in court making their case and had more witnesses testifying on their behalf than the prosecution) would justify pinning this label on the Nuremberg trials. But you are welcome to give it a try.


The Nuremberg trials were a farce, a Kangaroo court--victor's justice crudely dressed in the garb of justice. Two essential principals make this so:

1) Soviet judges sat on the bench. SOrt of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think.


So what?

Even a gangster can give another gangster a fair trial, if certain procedural rules are adhered to.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: I would respect thte Nuremberg trials if they prosecuted Soviet war criminals for example. But they did not. Ergo--it is a kangaroo court.


By such standards every criminal court in the world is a kangaroo court, because there are always criminals who for one or the other reason cannot be brought to trial. Your reasoning would also imply that no criminal at all may be tried unless it is possible to try all criminals, which is never the case. So I hope you will recognize that your argument makes no sense.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: 2) It prosecutes persons for thigns that were not a crime when they were committed. I can let this go pertaining to crimes against humanity with theories of natural law.


You don't have to go as far as natural law, for murder was outlawed in every civilized country at the time, and mass murder was what the charges "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity" basically amounted to.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:But that charge of planning aggresive war, for example, is preposterous.


That may have been so until the signature of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (which was in 1928, if I remember correctly) and before war was officially pronounced to be an international crime by national and international entities in Geneva in the sequence of this pact. After that, the legitimacy of waging aggressive war was no longer arguable.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: Under that standard--a standard that was not even known till Germany had been defeated--the only way a general could avoid a charge is to commit treason against his country.


Or refuse to follow criminal orders, whatever the consequences (which would not necessarily have been unbearable). Hitler and his minions knew very well what they were doing, and that they were breaking international law. For instance, one of the Fuehrer’s statements when briefing his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the attack on Poland, was the following, recorded in Halder’s diary (my translation):

Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.
Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.


The generals were listening and nodding to this statement. How could they later in good faith claim they had not been aware of being in violation of international law?

Halder’s notes from which I translated this passage are transcribed under the link

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/22-08-1939-halder.shtml


Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:all too often convicting men simply for wearing the wrong uniform.


An unreflected, emotional statement you will have trouble substantiating. But you are welcome to give it a try.


Speer and Doenitz--I maintain--shoudl have been acquitted.


We can argue about Doenitz, but don’t give me Speer, who consciously and deliberately used brutally treated forced labor for his armament projects.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: There are probably other generals and soliders who convicted for simply wearing the wrong uniform.


I haven’t met a single one so far.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: I cannot remember if Guderian was convicted or not.


Neither do I, but if he was, it certainly wasn’t just because of his uniform.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: In relation to Doenitz, I woud refer you to this link:

http://www.uboat.net/men/nuremberg3.htm

One particularly important passge reads as follows:

Großadmiral Dönitz.... . was accused of conspiracy against peace, crimes against peace and crimes against martial law. He was not accused of crimes against humanity, as were the Nazi villains responsible for the incredible cruelty at the concentration camps.

The text then instructs that the Grossadmiral:

was then condemned because he conducted (not planned, prepared or unleashed) an offensive war and his U-boats were well prepared and trained for war. This strikingly ridiculous reasoning has never since been applied. If it had been, every officer in the whole world training and preparing his men for battle (after all that is what the job of an officer is all about) should have been convicted.

Ie--Doenitz was covnicted for waging unrestricted Submarine warfare!


Whoever wrote this text obviously did not read the judgment against Doenitz, to which I gave you a link. The statement the author therefore missed is the following:

In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.


Source of quote:

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

So Doenitz was not convicted for waging unrestricted submarine warfare, because Admiral Nimitz testified that the US were doing the same in the Pacific.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: As for the Commissar order, Doenitz merely allowed that to pass by not cancelling it. He did not conceive of the order. I find it a torubling precdent to require officer's to openly defy the commander in chief in this way. If they have the temerity to do so (perhaps risking their lives) as many did relaitng to the Commissar order, that is great. But they ought not be required to do so.


A good argument of defense – assuming that it required any "temerity" on the part of Doenitz to disallow the execution of the Commando Order in his area of command or otherwise prevent its being carried out. There’s no evidence that any German soldier or officer risked any serious trouble let alone his life for refusing to carry out an order to kill unarmed non-combatants. And the higher the rank, the better the chance to suffer no disadvantage whatsoever on account of such refusal. Our friend Manstein, for instance, made a case – to my knowledge not refuted – out of having prevented the execution of the Commissar Order in his area of command. None of his superiors seems to have bothered him in the slightest because of that.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Doenitz, Manstein, Speer, others demonstrate this.


The sentence against Doenitz, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his responsibility for execution of the notorious "Commissar Order" within his area of command.


Maybe based in part, but it was not a necessary element. They were going to--and did in fact -conivct this man for waging unrestricted submarine warfare.


This is not correct, see above. I suggest you read the judgment instead of relying on U-Boat Net.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:The sentence against Speer, which can be read under

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

was mainly based on his criminal use of forced labor. The mitigation considered on account of his "opposition to Hitler's scorched earth programme in some of the Western countries and in Germany by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk" helped him to get off more lightly than his involvement in War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity would have warranted.


Again--this is an unreasonable standard. Speer was given the duty I belive as Minister of Interior, though I do not remember for sure. Various duties required ensuring sufficenit munitions and other wartime materials. In the scheme of things, he had some leeway as to how to do that, except for the sort of labor to be used. It is not like Hitle told him, and Speer, you can eiyther choose to use slave labor, or a German equivalent of Rose the Riveter. The point being that there was no alternative to slave labor. The only alternative would be to fail in your duty to your country--and essentuially betray your country.


Refusing to do what a criminal regime requires me to do in order to conduct its criminal war I would not consider betrayal of my country, but mere disobedience to that regime and its plans of aggression and conquest. Speer could simply have quit his job as armaments minister. Nothing would have happened to him.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:This standard is unreasonable--and certainly too rich for my blood.


You’re entitled to your opinion, as I am to telling you that your gut feeling is not legally relevant.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:As to Manstein, he was no angel either. I wonder what, if anything, his defense attorney Mr. Paget had to say about, for instance, the following passages of an order the noble Manstein issued to his troops on 20 November 1941, transcribed on pages 41 and following of Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns": Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten 1939-1945, Frankfurt am Main 1989:

[…]Das Judentum bildet den Mittelsmann zwischen dem Feind im Ruecken und den noch kaempfenden Resten der Roten Wehrmacht und der Roten Fuehrung. Es haelt staerker als in Europa alle Schluesselpunkte der politischen Fuehrung und Verwaltung, des Handels und des Handwerks besetzt und bildet weiter die Zelle fuer alle Unruhen und moeglichen Erhebungen.
Das juedisch-bolschewistische System muss ein fuer allemal ausgerottet warden. Nie wieder darf es in unseren europaeischen Lebensraum eingreifen.
Der deutsche Soldat hat daher nicht allein die Aufgabe, die militaerischen Machtmittel des Systems zu zerschlagen. Er tritt auch als Traeger einer unerbittlichen voelkischen Idee und Raecher fuer alle Grausamkeiten, die ihm und dem deutschen Volk zugefuegt wurden, auf.
[…]
Fuer die Notwendigkeit der harten Suehne am Judentum, dem geistigen Traeger des bolschewistischen Terrors, muss der Soldat Verstaendnis aufbringen. Sie ist auch notwendig, um alle Erhebungen, die meist von Juden angezettelt warden, im Keime zu ersticken.[…]


My translation:

[…]Jewry is the middleman between the enemy at the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe it holds all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be exterminated once and for all. Never again must it intervene in our European living space.
The German soldier therefore has not only the task of shattering the system’s military means. He is also the bearer of a merciless idea of our people and the avenger of all cruelties that have been inflicted on him and the German people.
[…]
For the need of harsh atonement on Jewry, the spiritual bearer of Bolshevik terror, the soldier must show understanding. It is also necessary to choke at birth all uprisings, which are mostly incited by Jews.[…]


This order, which called upon Wehrmacht troops to tolerate and cooperate with the mass killings by Einsatzgruppen and SS and police formations, was the main reason for his being given an 18-year prison sentence by a British military court in 1949. Four years into his sentence, however, he was released from prison in 1953 and in 1956 called on by West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to act as a senior advisor in the effort to help build the new German army and thereby enable Germany's entry into NATO."


This is news to me.I do not know to what extent Manstein was following orders, or that these actions were cumplosory. My understanding was that Manstein convicted merely for the planning of aggression war bit.


No, that order of his seems to have been the key charge, and for good reason, as explained. Again, Manstein was under no duress to issue this order. It is true that it was modeled on an order by Reichenau which the Fuehrer passed around stating that he would like to see every Eastern Front commander issue a similar order. Manstein complied. Others did not. And nothing happened to those who did not, for however murderous Hitler’s intentions and policies were, he was also keen on avoiding whatever might cause unrest in the ranks of his military commanders and therefore didn’t push them too hard to cooperate with the mass killings carried out by the Einsatzgruppen and other SS and police forces. In many cases and respects this was not necessary either. Regarding the brutal treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, for instance, the Fuehrer and his military commanders were largely in agreement, and the Wehrmacht needed few instructions from above.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:Of course you can argue about these sentences, as you can argue about a number of others at the Nuremberg trials or any other criminal trial. This doesn't make the Nuremberg trials into a "kangaroo court" any more than your dissatisfaction with a sentence issued by an American or German court in a plain criminal trial would make that court into a "kangaroo court".


To close--yes I can call it a Kangaroo court when they pnly try Germans ina war where every combatant committed war crimes, and when, to quote, " here laws were introduced that had previously not existed and were made legally binding even before their existence."


Both arguments of yours have been addressed above, and I have explained why they don’t hold water. No criminal can claim having been treated unfairly because another criminal who committed the same crime wasn’t prosecuted, and it’s no less hard to argue that the defendants were entitled to consider their participation in aggressive war, war crimes and crimes against humanity legal at the time they engaged in it.

Still, I appreciate your argumentative capacity, and it sure was nice talking to you.

Best regards,

Roberto

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 29 May 2003 03:17

Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The Nuremberg trials were a farce, a Kangaroo court--victor's justice crudely dressed in the garb of justice. Two essential principals make this so:

1) Soviet judges sat on the bench. SOrt of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think.


So what?

Even a gangster can give another gangster a fair trial, if certain procedural rules are adhered to.


Not without suffering from umnbelievable hypocrisy:w hich is why I denounce the Nuremberg trials.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: I would respect thte Nuremberg trials if they prosecuted Soviet war criminals for example. But they did not. Ergo--it is a kangaroo court.


Roberto wrote:By such standards every criminal court in the world is a kangaroo court, because there are always criminals who for one or the other reason cannot be brought to trial. Your reasoning would also imply that no criminal at all may be tried unless it is possible to try all criminals, which is never the case. So I hope you will recognize that your argument makes no sense.


In this case, teh Western allies ought to have at least attempted to recitify the excessos the Soviets--or at the very least prevent Soviet judges from sitting on the bench. In ohter words--I believe that, with moral fortitude, some of the Soviets could have been boruight to justice. Remeber, at this point the West had the bomb--Stalin did not.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: 2) It prosecutes persons for thigns that were not a crime when they were committed. I can let this go pertaining to crimes against humanity with theories of natural law.


Roberto wrote:You don't have to go as far as natural law, for murder was outlawed in every civilized country at the time, and mass murder was what the charges "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity" basically amounted to.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:But that charge of planning aggresive war, for example, is preposterous.


Roberto wrote:That may have been so until the signature of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (which was in 1928, if I remember correctly) and before war was officially pronounced to be an international crime by national and international entities in Geneva in the sequence of this pact. After that, the legitimacy of waging aggressive war was no longer arguable.


Well we studied Nurmeberg trials at length at my law school. Never learned about the Kellogg--Briand Pact. Even if waht you say is correct, I still do not want officers put in jail for doing their duty. It puts them ina Catch 22 sitution: betray your country or, shoudl they lose, face war crimes trials.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: Under that standard--a standard that was not even known till Germany had been defeated--the only way a general could avoid a charge is to commit treason against his country.


Roberto wrote:Or refuse to follow criminal orders, whatever the consequences (which would not necessarily have been unbearable). Hitler and his minions knew very well what they were doing, and that they were breaking international law. For instance, one of the Fuehrer’s statements when briefing his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the attack on Poland, was the following, recorded in Halder’s diary (my translation):

Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.
Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.


The generals were listening and nodding to this statement. How could they later in good faith claim they had not been aware of being in violation of international law?

Halder’s notes from which I translated this passage are transcribed under the link

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/22-08-1939-halder.shtml


It is easy to stand here and now some sixty years after the fact and say they did not fear reprisal. But there is another matter. Often times to escape indictment one would have had to openyl defy orders in a way that would greatly hinder the war effort. Speer, for example: the only way he could produce munitions was through slave labor. There was no Rosie the Riveter. To delay things by protesting to an unsymapthetic Fuehrer would not only have been in vain, it would have jeoparidized the curucial porduction of vital war supplies. In other words, you are sasking him to betray his country, to betray the men on the frontline who depend on those munitions and other vital war supplies and materials. Again--I cannot in conscience demand sucha high standard that interferers with one's right and duty to serve their country.

As to the rest, i will merely say you are the first to assert Doenitz was not convicted for unrestricted submarine warfare.
As to Manstein--well I agree he was more of a mixed bag than I thought. Even so, how can the Allies talk about the treatment of Soviet PoWS when they themsleves treated German POWS almost as bad, or worse in the case of the Soviets.
Again--Nuremberg is Siegerjustiz--nothing more. In this way I maintain, despite some of your interesting points, that it is a sham, and should certainly be looked upon with some skepticism.

Einsamer Wolf

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 29 May 2003 06:09

For our readers -- The IMT trial at Nueremberg has been extensively discussed in previous threads of this section of the forum. I'm currently trying to put together an index that would be helpful to researchers and "first-timers" alike.

On the guilt of Doenitz and Speer, there are some extensive discussions at:

Did Albert Speer Commit Any War Crimes in WWII?
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 51&start=0

Doenitz at Nuremburg
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 51&start=0

On the fairness of the trials generally, see:

War Crimes Trials - Righteous or Bogus Victor's Justice.
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14807

Nuremberg Defendants Treated Fairly?
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12670

Senator Taft and the Nuernberg Trials
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21670

For the debates on war crimes charges generally, see:

"What Exactly is a War Crime?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10254

"War Criminal"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16624

"Geneva Convention & Rules of War"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime

"When is a War Criminal Not a War Criminal?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime

User avatar
PolAntek
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 04:41
Location: The Beautiful West Coast of Canada

Post by PolAntek » 29 May 2003 06:19

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: The Nuremberg trials were a farce, a Kangaroo court--victor's justice crudely dressed in the garb of justice. Two essential principals make this so:

1) Soviet judges sat on the bench. SOrt of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think.


Roberto wrote: So what?

Even a gangster can give another gangster a fair trial, if certain procedural rules are adhered to.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote: Not without suffering from umnbelievable hypocrisy:w hich is why I denounce the Nuremberg trials.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote:I would respect thte Nuremberg trials if they prosecuted Soviet war criminals for example. But they did not. Ergo--it is a kangaroo court.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote:In this case, teh Western allies ought to have at least attempted to recitify the excessos the Soviets--or at the very least prevent Soviet judges from sitting on the bench. In ohter words--I believe that, with moral fortitude, some of the Soviets could have been boruight to justice. Remeber, at this point the West had the bomb--Stalin did not.


Both sides bring good points to the table here. However, one must remember what the Nuremberg trials set out to be.

Einsamer_Wolf has the better argument.

I'll throw in the Katyn wild card, and cite the following quotes relating to the cover up of the Soviet slaughter of over 14000 Polish officers in 1940:

Stanislaw Swianiewicz writes in “In the Shadow of Katyn”:

“ It is of great historical significance that the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg...(an institution that was) especially designed to uncover this sort of crime…elected to ignore this case completely in its findings”

Louis FitzGibbon in “The Katyn Cover-up”:

“ But how does one avoid an issue, that affects the conscience of the civilized world, as it affects the very conception of law and justice, which are supposed to be the very basis of our civilization…”

Exactly!

By heeding Churchill's words:

"It was decided that the issue [of Katyn] should be avoided”

the Nuremberg Trials on this count were an undeniable farce. And to have the Soviet murderer's representatives on the judges bench is absolutely unconscionable.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 29 May 2003 06:37

There were a few choices in 1945 left to the allies when considering the unbelievable crimes committed by Germany during the course of the war.

1. Morgenthau type of program that destroys the militant German nation for centuries.

2. Stalin "Shoot them all from Captain on up". Joke or serious? Who knows with Stalin.

3. Ignore these crimes committed during the war and go back to things as usual.

4. Create a court that can bring some of the culprits to justice and at the same time relieve some of the blame from the average German person.


Now if you had to chose, which do you chose. These events during WWII could not be left to be forgotten, there was no way that could happen. Millions and millions of dead, murdered, not due to the actions of war, but by the actions of extermination.

Nor was anyone going to make the Soviet Union pay for Katyn when they had the strongest most experienced army in history sitting all over Europe. Hypocrisy on that account? Perhaps, but it was sad to say a minor point when one looks at the bigger picture. It was a horrible event, but there was little to be done about it at this time. What was important was ending of this damnable war. Sure not everyone got justice including thousands of Germans and their Allies who carried out shootings all over Europe. People need to look at it with common sense and drop the passion for one moment as though it is some personal affront to them. Look at it from the third person, was it perfect? No of course not, did it work? Yes in my opinion it worked very well.

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 29 May 2003 06:55

But it could have worked a lot better. One--Speer and Doenitz should not have been convicted. That I am most adamant about that. In the wake of Roberto's post, I am now unsure about Manstein. Two, Crimes against Peace was a bad idea--too much potential to punish one merely for serving their country. Three, Soviet judges ought not have sat on the bench. My own view was that the Western Allies ought not have appeased the Soviets the way they did. Whether they ought to have tried to convict Katyn or not is arguable. Whether or not that should have issued an ultimatum (we had the bomb, Uncle Joe did not) is arguable. What is NOT arguable is whether there is any place for Soviet judges on a trial for war crimes and crimes aganst humanity. In the end, I suppose it worked. But it did not work well, at least not according to my standards which eschew the notion of conviciting a man merely for servign his country.

Einsamer Wolf

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

Post by witness » 29 May 2003 11:16

Three, Soviet judges ought not have sat on the bench.

Why not ?
On the Soviet territory Nazis committed much more crimes then say in France or Holland .
Katyn had to be condemned and those behind this crime had to be held responsible I agree..But realisticaly it was not posible in this time .
Besides this was a trial of the Nazis who committed crimes during the WW2.
My own view was that the Western Allies ought not have appeased the Soviets the way they did

What do you mean "appeased" ?
What other alternatives could have been there ?
The Soviets took the major brunt of the war btw. How the Western Allies could have possibly prevented the Soviets from partaking in the trial ?
Soviets occupied a very significant chunk of Germany (including Berlin)
Also there was a possibility that the Soviets could have organized their own trial if the cooperation between Allies on this issue had failed .
Would it have been better ? Hardly so..

In the end, I suppose it worked.

I agree.
But it did not work well, at least not according to my standards which eschew the notion of conviciting a man merely for servign his country.

Well ,the trial was far from perfect . But again given the circumstances,
realistically the other alternatives were either summorily excecutions which would have made very nice martyrs from the Nazi criminals or setting them free which was not acceptable to any of the Allies
taken into account the scope of the Nazi crimes

User avatar
Mike K.
Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 22:33
Location: California

Post by Mike K. » 29 May 2003 11:53

But it could have worked a lot better. One--Speer and Doenitz should not have been convicted.


If there was going to be a trial Speer undoubtly deserved a place in it, as stated many times for his administration of forced labor.

Though some will argue that Speer was opposed to their "employment", this was due more so to productivity than any moral qualms; slave laborers are inherently unskilled, as proven by their disappointing results in even the most rudimentary tasks for Germany's armament industry. Added with the cost of housing, feeding, clothing, and guarding-- not to mention the malnourishment and savage treatment these laborers received-- only deprived Speer of their usefulness.

After reading his book, I walked away with the impression that Speer was a likeable man who was the victim of circumstances, what I like to call "The Speer Myth." In this way he played his cards very well for his legacy.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 29 May 2003 13:57

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The Nuremberg trials were a farce, a Kangaroo court--victor's justice crudely dressed in the garb of justice. Two essential principals make this so:

1) Soviet judges sat on the bench. SOrt of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think.


So what?

Even a gangster can give another gangster a fair trial, if certain procedural rules are adhered to.


Not without suffering from umnbelievable hypocrisy:w hich is why I denounce the Nuremberg trials.


I have no problem with your denouncing the many shortcoming these trials had. I just don’t think it is appropriate to call them "kangaroo courts", a term conveying the idea that the respective tribunal didn’t strive to establish and weigh the evidence against and in favor of the defendants and that the trial was not conducted in accordance with procedural rules aimed at safeguarding the defendant’s rights. Whatever you may say against the moral legitimacy of the trials’ promoters, and however harshly you may criticize individual decisions, the notion that the Nuremberg trials were some kind of sham rather than a proper judicial procedure, however fraught with fallacies deserving severe criticism, is completely wrong. I don’t know what your definition of a "kangaroo court" is. I for my part refer to the words of this forum’s most senior legal expert, Mr. Walter Kaschner. In his post # 243 (9/22/01 1:20:20 am) on the thread "Any information on the Nurenberg trials?", which used to be available under the link

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 61&stop=80

Walter Kaschner wrote:It is all too easy to dismiss the Trials as “sham”, “fraudulent”, “kangaroo court” but to me that just demonstrates a poverty of analysis. Actually, I don’t really know just what a kangaroo court is. In my younger days I thought it meant a court held among convicts in a prison to judge one of their own. And then I read somewhere that it derives from the gold mining days in California, where informal courts were set up to adjudicate charges of “claim jumping”, hence the kangaroo aspect. But if the generally accepted meaning today is a court which has no authorized status or procedures, I don’t believe the Nuremberg Tribunals qualify. Clearly the four power London Charter and the Constitution of the IMT set out a basis and detailed procedures for the Tribunal’s operations, and those procedures were, as far as I am aware, pretty closely followed.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote: I would respect thte Nuremberg trials if they prosecuted Soviet war criminals for example. But they did not. Ergo--it is a kangaroo court.


Roberto wrote:By such standards every criminal court in the world is a kangaroo court, because there are always criminals who for one or the other reason cannot be brought to trial. Your reasoning would also imply that no criminal at all may be tried unless it is possible to try all criminals, which is never the case. So I hope you will recognize that your argument makes no sense.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote: In this case, teh Western allies ought to have at least attempted to recitify the excessos the Soviets--or at the very least prevent Soviet judges from sitting on the bench. In ohter words--I believe that, with moral fortitude, some of the Soviets could have been boruight to justice. Remeber, at this point the West had the bomb--Stalin did not.


Your considerations have my sympathy, but they don’t change the fact that the Nuremberg defendants were given a fair trial, one where procedural rules meant to safeguard the defendants’ rights were adhered to and the defendants, supported by qualified attorneys of their choice and speaking their language, were entitled to both contest the evidence brought against them by the prosecution and to present evidence in their favor. The latter was actually quite voluminous. Any attempt to condemn the trial against the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal as a "kangaroo court", a "sham" or a "show trial" requires ignoring a number of essential facts, namely that

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 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.

m) As to the burden of proof, that is upon the defendant in a show trial. "Revisionists" (I'm not saying you are one, you seem to be smarter than that) 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, to question the moral legitimacy of the Soviet judges on the bench and to harshly criticize sorry episodes like the Soviet’s attempt, fortunately foiled by their colleagues on the bench, to blame their government's own massacre at Katyn on the defendants in order to rid the Soviet Union of that politically inconvenient burden. To claim that the whole process was a charade and a fraud, however, is a wholly unsustainable proposition.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: 2) It prosecutes persons for thigns that were not a crime when they were committed. I can let this go pertaining to crimes against humanity with theories of natural law.


Roberto wrote:You don't have to go as far as natural law, for murder was outlawed in every civilized country at the time, and mass murder was what the charges "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity" basically amounted to.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote:But that charge of planning aggresive war, for example, is preposterous.


Roberto wrote:That may have been so until the signature of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (which was in 1928, if I remember correctly) and before war was officially pronounced to be an international crime by national and international entities in Geneva in the sequence of this pact. After that, the legitimacy of waging aggressive war was no longer arguable.


Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Well we studied Nurmeberg trials at length at my law school. Never learned about the Kellogg--Briand Pact.


Well, that’s very unfortunate and makes the completeness of your law school’s program in this respect seem questionable. They should have shown you and discussed with you the Kellogg-Briand Pact, one of the documents on which the Nuremberg charge of "war of aggression" resided and which is transcribed under

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm ,

as well as Justice Jackson’s assessment of the legal precedent for condemning war of aggression as a criminal offense in his letter to the US President of 7 June 1945, which reads as follows:

[…]Doubtless what appeals to men of good will and common sense as the crime which comprehends all lesser crimes, is the crime of making unjustifiable war. War necessarily is a calculated series of killings, of destructions of property, of oppressions. Such acts unquestionably would be criminal except that International Law throws a mantle of protection around acts which otherwise would be crimes, when committed in pursuit of legitimate warfare. In this they are distinguished from the same acts in the pursuit of piracy or brigandage which have been considered punishable wherever and by whomever the guilty are caught. But International Law as taught in the Nineteenth and the early part of the Twentieth Century generally declared that war-making was not illegal and is no crime at law. Summarized by a standard authority, its attitude was that "both parties to every war are regarded as being in an identical legal position, and consequently as being possessed of equal rights."

This, however, was a departure from the doctrine taught by Grotius, the father of International Law, that there is a distinction between the just and the unjust war, the war of defense and the war of aggression.

International Law is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties or agreements between nations and of accepted customs. But every custom has its origin in some single act, and every agreement has to be initiated by the action of some state. Unless we are prepared to abandon every principle of growth for International Law, we cannot deny that our own day has its right to institute customs and to conclude agreements that will themselves become sources of a newer and strengthened International Law. International Law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in International Law are brought about by the action of governments designed to meet a change in circumstances. It grows, as did the Common-law, through decisions reached from time to time in adapting settled principles to meet situations. Hence I am not disturbed by the lack of precedent for the inquiry we propose to conduct. After the shock to civilization of the last World War, however, a marked reversion to the earlier and sounder doctrines of International Law took place. By the time the Nazis came to power it was thoroughly established that launching an aggressive war or the institution of war by treachery was illegal and that the defense of legitimate warfare was no longer available to those who engaged in such an enterprise. It is high time that we act on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal.

The re-establishment of the principle of unjustifiable war is traceable in many steps. One of the most significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, by which Germany, Italy and Japan, in common with ourselves and practically all the nations of the world, renounced war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to seek the settlement of disputes only by pacific means, and condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies. Unless this Pact altered the legal status of wars of aggression, it has no meaning at all and comes close to being an act of deception. In 1932, Mr. Stimson, as Secretary of State, gave voice to the American concept of its effect. He said, "War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. This means that it has become illegal throughout practically the entire world. It is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no longer to be the principle around which the duties, the conduct, and the rights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing.... By that very act, we have made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession the task of reexamining many of its codes and treatises."

This Pact constitutes only one in a series of acts which have reversed the viewpoint that all war is legal and have brought International Law into harmony with the common sense of mankind, that unjustifiable war is a crime. Without attempting an exhaustive catalogue, we may mention the Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed by the representatives of forty-eight governments, which declared that "a war of aggression constitutes . . . an international crime." The Eighth Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on unanimous resolution of the representatives of forty-eight member nations, including Germany, declared that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime. At the Sixth Pan-American Conference of 1928, the twenty-one American Republics unanimously adopted a resolution stating that "war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species."[…]


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack01.htm

The Nuremberg trials were not discussed in my law school at all, by the way. All I know about them is based on my own research in the course of discussions on this forum, and on that of fellow posters.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: Even if waht you say is correct,


If you still have any doubts about this after reading the above quotes, please let me know.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: I still do not want officers put in jail for doing their duty.


Depends on what that duty is. If it’s criminal violations of national or international law and they know it or have every reason to know, I wouldn’t let them hide behind the "doing their duty" excuse.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: It puts them ina Catch 22 sitution: betray your country or, shoudl they lose, face war crimes trials.


Nor, as I explained, would I consider a failure to obey a criminal regime’s criminal orders betrayal of one’s country.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: Under that standard--a standard that was not even known till Germany had been defeated--the only way a general could avoid a charge is to commit treason against his country.


Roberto wrote:Or refuse to follow criminal orders, whatever the consequences (which would not necessarily have been unbearable). Hitler and his minions knew very well what they were doing, and that they were breaking international law. For instance, one of the Fuehrer’s statements when briefing his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the attack on Poland, was the following, recorded in Halder’s diary (my translation):

Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.
Unleashing: means make no difference. The victor is never asked if his reasons were justified. This is not about having right on our side, but exclusively about victory.


The generals were listening and nodding to this statement. How could they later in good faith claim they had not been aware of being in violation of international law?

Halder’s notes from which I translated this passage are transcribed under the link

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/22-08-1939-halder.shtml


Einsamer_Wolf wrote: It is easy to stand here and now some sixty years after the fact and say they did not fear reprisal.


It’s easy indeed, given that no evidence to their having had to fear any reprisals has surfaced in all those sixty years.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: But there is another matter. Often times to escape indictment one would have had to openyl defy orders in a way that would greatly hinder the war effort. Speer, for example: the only way he could produce munitions was through slave labor. There was no Rosie the Riveter. To delay things by protesting to an unsymapthetic Fuehrer would not only have been in vain, it would have jeoparidized the curucial porduction of vital war supplies. In other words, you are sasking him to betray his country, to betray the men on the frontline who depend on those munitions and other vital war supplies and materials.


No, I’m just asking him to say "no, I won’t do it if it calls for abuse of slave labor, let someone else do it". The argument about the men on the frontline who depended on munitions does not convince. After all, it was the Nazi regime’s own unprovoked aggressions which placed them and their armed forces in a situation where only brutally exploited forced labor could give them the tools they needed.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Again--I cannot in conscience demand sucha high standard that interferers with one's right and duty to serve their country.


Serving one’s country and serving a criminal regime may be the same for you, but they are not the same for me. Of course criminal prosecution would require awareness of the criminal nature of that regime and its ambitions, which lower-ranking German armament officials didn’t necessarily have. They may have believed the propaganda stance that there was no choice in a situation Germany’s enemies had brought upon the country. But someone of Speer’s standing could not claim ignorance of the true nature and precedents of the circumstances which required him to exploit forced labor for the armament industry.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:As to the rest, i will merely say you are the first to assert Doenitz was not convicted for unrestricted submarine warfare.


I don’t think so. I’d say the first was M. de Vabres when he wrote down the judgement against Doenitz transcribed under

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

:wink:

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:As to Manstein--well I agree he was more of a mixed bag than I thought. Even so, how can the Allies talk about the treatment of Soviet PoWS when they themsleves treated German POWS almost as bad, or worse in the case of the Soviets.


You don’t seem to be too well-informed about what the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, of whom hundreds of thousands were executed and millions deliberately allowed to starve, especially in the initial period of the war, was all about and how it differed even from the treatment that the Soviets meted out to their prisoners of war in that there was no systematic governmental murder plan behind the latter. A reading of the following threads should help you update your knowledge:

Timeline of Soviet POW Mortality (for Viriato)
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

Annihilation of Soviet Prisoners of War in Belorussia
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

"Stalin's War of Extermination", by Joachim Hoffma
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

Of 120,000 soldiers from 6th army captured, only 5000 return
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

American & French (post) War Crimes
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Again--Nuremberg is Siegerjustiz—


Whatever that means. Certainly not an improper or insufficient legal procedure let alone a "kangaroo court", as explained.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:nothing more. In this way I maintain, despite some of your interesting points, that it is a sham,


However strong criticism many aspects of the Nuremberg trials may have warranted, calling them a "sham" is emotional hyperbole at best and propagandistic distortion at worst, as explained.

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: and should certainly be looked upon with some skepticism.


Skepticism in regard to what aspects thereof? If it’s the promoters’ moral legitimacy and the fact that, unfortunately, the step in the right direction these trials constituted was not followed up until recently (regarding was crimes in Bosnia, Rwanda etc.), you have my sympathy. If it’s the findings of fact, they have been subject to the scrutiny of historical research and further criminal investigation throughout the last decades, which have in most cases confirmed them and in some even shown a picture of events more somber than that which emerged from the Nuremberg trials.

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 29 May 2003 17:23

Roberto--I skimmed through your response--you make some very valid points and I now concede that kangaroo court is too harsh of a term. Much of Nuremberg Trials were commendable. However, I still maintain that many men like Doenitz and Speer did not get a fair trial. It puts men like these in a situation where they face conviction merely for serving their country. Whetehr one regards this as a sham or not is debatable. But more questionsable moments of Nuremberg certainly do hint at Siegerjustiz.
I think ultimately we agree on much--it is just the terminology we disagree about.

Einsamer Wolf

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 29 May 2003 17:25

On the point about Soviet POWs--beleive me, I have no delusions. However, German POWs met a very similar threat. In my view the Western Allies are also culpable, because they delievered a number of German POWs into Soviet custody, knowing full well what the repercussions would be.

Einsamer Wolf

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 29 May 2003 17:29

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Roberto--I skimmed through your response--you make some very valid points and I now concede that kangaroo court is too harsh of a term. Much of Nuremberg Trials were commendable. However, I still maintain that many men like Doenitz and Speer did not get a fair trial. It puts men like these in a situation where they face conviction merely for serving their country. Whetehr one regards this as a sham or not is debatable. But more questionsable moments of Nuremberg certainly do hint at Siegerjustiz.
I think ultimately we agree on much--it is just the terminology we disagree about.

Einsamer Wolf


So it seems. As I said, I would make a big distinction between a lower-ranking armament official employing forced labor on the one hand and Mr. Speer, who knew what the Nazi regime and its goals were all about, on the other.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”