What exactly did he do that is 'criminal'?

What exactly did he do that is 'criminal'?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact
youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

been criminally retarded

Night of the Long knives for one.

That doesn't count. Moron.

crystal night
night of the long knives

Ethnic genocide is a war crime.

I thought this was the smart board?

None of these fucking count. Ugh, you people are imbeciles.

Assassinating the former chancellor of Germany does. As does him beheading the man who opposed him back in 1922.

He ate a Kinder Egg once.

>didn't listen to his generals
>tried to micromanage shit when he had no military academy training
>didn't build a proper strategic bomber for the entirety of the war
>poisoned his dog blondie
>committed suicide (Hitler was a catholic, therefore this was a sin on his part)

Why don't they count?

literally nothing. There wasn't international human rights at the time and german's contitution allowed everything he did. Plus nuremberg trial was ex postfacto bullshit and shouldnt have happened
>inb4 naturalfags

You mean aside from the several wars of aggression? If nothing else, the invasion of Yugoslavia was completely indefensible and executed for no reason at all beyond "Join us or die".

You're not going to accept anything Hitler did as criminal because you're here to push an agenda.

Hitler could've literally eaten millions of babies alive and /pol/tards would be lining up to say "b-b-but what about BRITISH COLONIES and JEWISH LIES and SOVIET GULAGAGAGAGS"

If there's no such thing as international human rights, then what's wrong with a conquering army rounding up a bunch of generals and killing them?

Yes it does. Poopy head.

OK you guys who approve of the Nuremberg "Justice", do you think the allied leaders should be hold accountable to the same standard?

gave you an excuse to enter into my life

He lost.

Nothing, as long as they're honest about it. The entire Human Rights project is one big lie.

there's no global law and he deposed germany's

unless you imagine the consequences of one's actions, such as declaring war on the entire world, as a law.

Sure. Name the wars of aggression the Allies started, then.

Oh wait, you can't, because Hitler was a Bozo who preemptively invaded Norway before the British could.

>crystal night
Hitler had nothing to do with this

violation of international state supremacy. Like I said there wasn't legitimate charges because there wasnt international treaties such as human rights, hence ex postfacto

> do you think the allied leaders should be hold accountable to the same standard?
Sure, a criminal act is a criminal act. But pretending Eisenhower or Churchill were as bad as Hitler is ridiculous.

His mustache was criminal

>Teutonic Knights
>made the world a better place

>Hitler
>made the world a better place

What are you gonna do about it faggot.

The guys who think they're real have more guns, and by your own standard of morality, that's acceptable.

If international state supremacy is important, why did the Germans invade Poland?

not a bad looking dude tbqh

Look at those big fucking nostrils. They're the exact reason he grew it in the first place.

Hitler always looks far more intimidating without the mustache I thought.

The same aswell when he was just casually speaking rather than his "speech" loud agrandised yelp.

His voice and speaking pattern is chilling, extremely deep, gravelly and methodical.

They put a picture of him without the mustache on dating sites.

It did pretty well.

Teutonic order did little more than kill pagans. Even if that appeals to you, saving the world? Pfft.

Why wouldn't it? Pretty fine looking motherführer.

>If international state supremacy is important, why did the Germans invade Poland?
wage war is a right held by states supremacy. Going into their territory and executing your law on specific individuals is not a right states have

Link?

Germany went into other countries territories and executed their own law on specific individuals.

Most of those countries didn't even declare war on Germany, like Germany did with the US, or break a treaty, like Germany did with the UK, France, and USSR.

So either individual rights matter, in which case the Nuremberg Trials were valid, or individual rights don't matter, in which case the Nuremberg Trials were valid.

Beer Hall Putsch

thats stormfront. /pol/ is just a cesspit of shitposting and semi-genuine political discussion by edgy 13 year olds

What's wrong with wars of aggression? People all through history have launched wars of aggression

It's something that Germany renounced by treaty in 1928.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact

He wears that mustache and haircut. Thats crime on many levels.

>Germany went into other countries territories and executed their own law on specific individuals.
no, they went into their own country, which at that point was claimed, conquered.
>Most of those countries didn't even declare war on Germany, like Germany did with the US, or break a treaty, like Germany did with the UK, France, and USSR.
it's in any State's right to wage war, treaties are formalities
>So either individual rights matter, in which case the Nuremberg Trials were valid, or individual rights don't matter, in which case the Nuremberg Trials were valid.
were are you getting that from, really?

youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec

Nothing OP. But the weak should fear the strong and Nazi Germany lost.

Provide material for edgelords like you.

Contracts made under duress are invalid, and it is justifiable to ignore them

>no, they went into their own country, which at that point was claimed, conquered.
>it's in any State's right to wage war, treaties are formalities
>were are you getting that from, really?

It's something you just said. The Allies went into Germany, which they claimed as conquered and dissolved its government. So either Might Makes Right is correct, in which case the Nuremberg trials were valid because they were held by the victorious Allies. Or Individual Rights are correct, in which case the Nuremberg trials were valid because the Allies were enforcing international law.

That kind of thinking make nation band together to crush you, there a reason why broke treaty is stupid.

>1928
>made under duress

Nobody made Germany sign it. They chose to of their own free will, just like they chose to ignore it under their own free will and face the consequences.

Gassed the kikes
It wasnt illegal back then but people like to judge historical figures by modern standards

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order

>Hitler was well aware that this order was illegal, but personally absolved in advance any soldiers who violated international law in enforcing this order. He erroneously claimed that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 did not apply since the Soviets hadn't signed them.[6] In fact, Russia had signed both conventions. However, the Soviet Union, as a distinct entity from the Russian Empire, did not, in fact, sign the Geneva Convention of 1929.

>While the Soviet Union did not sign the 1929 convention, Germany did and was bound by article 82, stating "In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto."

gg no re

>That kind of thinking make nation band together to crush you, there a reason why broke treaty is stupid.
Well where are all the countries ganging up on the US for breaking the same treaty with the multitude wars they've been initiated?

State supremacy=might makes right
They had no legal charges against the officials, which they corrupted their state supremacy to exert their "justice" on purely natural grounds because they simply wanted to. I never claimed might makes right, what i meant was germany's conquered territories was annexed and under their power.

>treaties signed under duress are not valid and it is justifiable to ignore them

1. The Geneva convention of 1929 was not made or signed "under duress".

2. Such laws that apply to civilians in such a way do not apply to countries. If, during or after a war, a country capitulates and is forced to sign away land, material, people, etc., that treaty can never be abrogated by the argument that it was made "under duress".

3. Did any person indicted or convicted of violating international law (especially during World War II) successful make such an argument after the war?

Get #rekt, my man.

Oh, I know. But if the guy thinks the Kellogg-Briand Pact was somehow made under duress, he probably thinks the Geneva Conventions were too.

Are you fucking retarded? How is killing white christians a good thing you stupid fuck?

Aktion T4 the involuntary euthanasia program. Killing the disabled was not covered by legal decree (though those who carried it out called for one) and neither was it publicly announced because of the anticipated opposition.

...

Come on Veeky Forums, you know better than reply to this type of posters.

I never offered my standard of morality. I just think America's is dishonest and gay.

kys positivist shit

I think you've been intellectually dishonest. in trying to draw a parallel between executing murderers and massacring civilians based on their ethnicity.

I think that you're a deeply contrarian person, seeking validation through an anonymous source, and that you were more likely than not raised in a single parent household.

>and that you were more likely than not raised in a single parent household.
This is one of the biggest problems with Veeky Forums. We need more abortions.

>What exactly did he do that is 'criminal'?
>criminal
if you consider anything other than whats codified to be criminal you need to fuck off

lol

It's the biggest problem with American society in general.

Particularly, it's why achievement levels in black and then Hispanic communities started to diverge from whites in the aftermath of the sexual revolution.

The Holocaust

We won't know as he was never tried and found guilty.