Lessons From Nuremberg

[Bilge_Rat]

If Hitler had been captured by the Russians, he would have met the same fate as Stalin's collaborators: extensive "interrogation" at the hand of the NKVD, a show trial were he would make a full confession of his crimes followed by a quick execution.

[Feuer Frei!]

The questions are endless. The answers are purely speculative, but fascinating to consider.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The only other sentence I would quibble with would be the death sentence for Jodl and Keitel. In their positions as chief of staff, they were not really in a position to give orders. A 20 year sentence would have been more appropriate.

from wiki about Jodl:
"On 28 February 1953, the München Hauptspruchkammer (Main denazification court) declared Jodl not guilty of the main charges brought against him at Nuremberg,(...)"

Originally Posted by STEED

Hitler feared if he was taken by the Russians, Stalin would put him on display in a zoo.

he used the word "panopticum" to be precise

The only other sentence I would quibble with would be the death sentence for Jodl and Keitel. In their positions as chief of staff, they were not really in a position to give orders. A 20 year sentence would have been more appropriate.

If they were not in a position to give orders how comes so many of the documents ordering major war crimes were in their handwriting?
OK you can maybe get a "pass" on orders they just signed as chiefs of staff for all their subordinates to follow, though that "pass" would under the terms still merit the full penalty.

[Gammelpreusse]

The problem with Nuremberg, from a German perspective, is not so much the issue at "that" time. Giving those thugs a trial was probably the best thing to do, it itself it was a very idealistic endeavor and was perfect to avoid martyrdom.

It rather is that the standards applied there were never met by the victorious nations themselves, neither before, during or after the war. A good point for illustrating this is "plotting for a war of aggression", many German military personal were sued on these grounds. I do not have to mention recent events in this regard.
Another problem is that the US was overly happy to play judge, but when it came to the international court of justice, the first attempt to institutionalize these mechanics on a global level, particularly inspired by the Nuremberg trials, many US based newspapers even threatened with invasion should one American ever be trialled there. That did not exactly give the impression those medias probably hoped for.

So from here the Nuremberg trials stand out as exemplary how to deal with criminal governments in general, however this view is not extended to the benefit of the nations that conducted this trial in terms of moral high ground.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

The problem with Nuremberg, from a German perspective, is not so much the issue at "that" time. Giving those thugs a trial was probably the best thing to do, it itself it was a very idealistic endeavor and was perfect to avoid martyrdom.

It rather is that the standards applied there were never met by the victorious nations themselves, neither before, during or after the war. A good point for illustrating this is "plotting for a war of aggression", many German military personal were sued on these grounds. I do not have to mention recent events in this regard.
Another problem is that the US was overly happy to play judge, but when it came to the international court of justice, the first attempt to institutionalize these mechanics on a global level, particularly inspired by the Nuremberg trials, many US based newspapers even threatened with invasion should one American ever be trialled there. That did not exactly give the impression those medias probably hoped for.

So from here the Nuremberg trials stand out as exemplary how to deal with criminal governments in general, however this view is not extended to the benefit of the nations that conducted this trial in terms of moral high ground.

You seem to be well oriented, and you should have credit for.

[Bilge_Rat]

If they were not in a position to give orders how comes so many of the documents ordering major war crimes were in their handwriting?
OK you can maybe get a "pass" on orders they just signed as chiefs of staff for all their subordinates to follow, though that "pass" would under the terms still merit the full penalty.

re: Jodl and Keitel. Agree they were culpable, the issue is more proportionality of the sentence.

They were initially chosen as a representative of, respectively, the Heer and the Wehrmacht and not because they were outstanding war criminals. Certain orders they signed did go beyond their duties and were war crimes. However, Doenitz who signed similar orders was given 10 years. Speer who was a top Nazi and oversaw the entire slave labour program was given 20 years. Many German generals who signed similar orders on the OstFront received similar prison sentences (Von Manstein: 18 years, reduced to 12)or were never charged.

so yes, I would think a 20 year sentence would have been more in line with other similar sentences.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

re: Jodl and Keitel. Agree they were culpable, the issue is more proportionality of the sentence.

They were initially chosen as a representative of, respectively, the Heer and the Wehrmacht and not because they were outstanding war criminals. Certain orders they signed did go beyond their duties and were war crimes. However, Doenitz who signed similar orders was given 10 years. Speer who was a top Nazi and oversaw the entire slave labour program was given 20 years. Many German generals who signed similar orders on the OstFront received similar prison sentences (Von Manstein: 18 years, reduced to 12)or were never charged.

so yes, I would think a 20 year sentence would have been more in line with other similar sentences.

Agreed....I never thought the trials were conducted on 'a level playing field'.

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

For example, if the full extent of Speer's complicity in the slave labour program had been exposed, he would have been sentenced to death, as he should have been.

Politically difficult to invoke the death penalty and then turn around and absorb the fruits of the V2 rocket program. Yes it was largely developed on slave labor, and yes many thousands died to make it a reality, (although this was more a result of manpower shortages, i.e. necessity - than design); nevertheless, the question of American culpability could be raised.

In other words, if the Allies had fully demonized Speer it could have caused guilt by association to become a legitimate question. Much better to adopt a relative morality and say Speer was really bad, (but what we're doing with his work is good), rather than claim Speer was evil, (but we intend to go ahead and profit off the deaths of slaves anyway).

If they had adopted the later approach, many might have begun wondering why 'the good guys' would stoop to associating themselves with anything so rooted in evil. At the very least it makes for bad public relations, so best to draw a fictitious line and call it bad but not evil.

[Bilge_Rat]

The truth is actually much simpler.

Goering convinced most of the defendants to follow his line of defence of denying responsibility for everything.

Speer took a different tack, accepting collective responsiblity, while fudging the details of his personal involvement. Not all the evidence against Speer was found and presented at Court. Speer was a sympathetic character and was able to portray himself as a naive young man who had been fooled by Hitler.

On the larger issue of "Allied culpability", I don't see any of it. The Germans started the war and tried to conquer all of Europe, the Germans murdered 6,000,000 jews, 4,000,000 Soviet POWs, etc., etc.

After the war, the Allies set up the tribunals to punish the guilty. There were 13 trials in all, against 200 defendants stretching all the way into 1949. How many Germans should they have locked up to not feel guilty? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

By 1948, after taking down the worst dictator in modern history, the US was facing the second worst dictator in modern history. Stalin had staged coups in every country in eastern europe and was "purging" their government. Stalin had shipped off every German scientist he could get his hands on to the USSR and was working on an atomic bomb.

What should the US have done? should they have said: Oh no, we can't deal with any German scientist who worked for the Nazis! Better to remain pure even if it means the Communists will take over all of Europe!

[Platapus]

Anyone read "other losses" by James Bacque?

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The truth is actually much simpler.

Goering convinced most of the defendants to follow his line of defence of denying responsibility for everything.

Speer took a different tack, accepting collective responsiblity, while fudging the details of his personal involvement. Not all the evidence against Speer was found and presented at Court. Speer was a sympathetic character and was able to portray himself as a naive young man who had been fooled by Hitler.

On the larger issue of "Allied culpability", I don't see any of it. The Germans started the war and tried to conquer all of Europe, the Germans murdered 6,000,000 jews, 4,000,000 Soviet POWs, etc., etc.

After the war, the Allies set up the tribunals to punish the guilty. There were 13 trials in all, against 200 defendants stretching all the way into 1949. How many Germans should they have locked up to not feel guilty? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

By 1948, after taking down the worst dictator in modern history, the US was facing the second worst dictator in modern history. Stalin had staged coups in every country in eastern europe and was "purging" their government. Stalin had shipped off every German scientist he could get his hands on to the USSR and was working on an atomic bomb.

What should the US have done? should they have said: Oh no, we can't deal with any German scientist who worked for the Nazis! Better to remain pure even if it means the Communists will take over all of Europe!

Makes a good story doesn't it? Sells our culpability a bit easier? WWII is a little more complex than the age old "Hitler was gonna conquer the world!" speech.

World war two started because Germany and Russia conquered and divided Poland. Ribbentrop\Molotov pact. Poland was to cease to exist.

France and England in turn declared war on Germany but not Russia????

German's were shocked that they would go to war over Poland and rather abruptly threw plans for war in the west together. In fact their first plan was the same Schifflin plan of WWI!

It is now known that dum fuhrer wanted England as Allies not enemy's and had little interest west.

[Catfish]

I also wonder why England did not declare war to Russia as well, after both Russia and Germany invaded Poland, and split it up between them ?
As well Hitler did ot want to conquer the world, he was not even prepared well enough for Russia.


Hitler's plan was to gain "space in the east", and Russia was the one target, so he had to get his troops through Poland anyway.
Germany and Russia invaded/split up Poland (Ribbentrop\Molotov), with Stalin not expecting Germany to attack him.

So England and France declare war to Germany, because they have a treaty with Poland - but they only declare war to Germany - not Russia.

To not get the same trench situation in the west like in WW1, and to be forced to fight a two-front war, Hitler again uses the Schlieffen plan invading France, but this time he is victorious (at first, ahem).

Then England tries to strangle Germany again with a blockade, at the same time trying to invade Norway, to also strangle the iron ore resources going to Germany.
So Hitler tries to invade Norway before England does (needing Denmark for the march-through, while Sweden remains neutral), and succeeds while losing almost all destroyers and a few cruisers at Narvik.

Then Mussolini runs into problems and asks Hitler to help him in Greece and especially Crete garrisoned by England, and also in the rest of the mediterranean area. So the sh!t really hit the fan, but it was not "world domination" Hitler had in mind.

Greetings,
Catfish

I also wonder why England did not declare war to Russia as well

Maybe Britain and Poland hadn't signed up against Russia
Protocol 1
The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.
1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

Seems pretty clear cut doesn't it, Poland agreed that invasion by any country apart from Germany would only trigger some talks between Britain and Poland.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Seems pretty clear cut doesn't it, Poland agreed that invasion by any country apart from Germany would only trigger some talks between Britain and Poland.

But then, it's not soo funny ..