Nuremberg Trials

>there is still the fact that the trials retroactively charged men for breaking laws that had not yet been written. Laws that were written with the intent of making their actions illegal.

I'm pretty sure laws against waging aggressive expansionary wars, and genociding people already existed at that point.

>Speer
>20 years prison
>left alone

>Schacht
>interned in various KZs since 1944
>still put on trial for doing his job

They were fair in the sense that they really did prove they did the things they were accused of. But they were in a sham in the sense any trial for retroactive crimes would be.

>That's the thing about war crimes, if it's you on the ropes next time around, nobody is going to show an ounce of sympathy.
Of course you can easily dodge the rope by having something your enemies want from you, like with unit 730 and the German marshals and Generals.
Wasn't the "clean Werhmacht" meme created by the Allies so they would be able to keep all those German officers in their service without people making a fuzz about it?

In my opinion, it was pretty hypocritical for soviet judges to judge war crimes in poland.

>Baltics ranked as occupied
This is going to trigger Russians

>the germans couldn't even counter argument what the allies said there
Goering was allowed to speak for hours on end.

>Wasn't the "clean Werhmacht" meme created by the Allies so they would be able to keep all those German officers in their service without people making a fuzz about it?
yes, but not only by them, but by the generals in questions ("we dindu nuffin, it was SS bad bois") as well

anything that isn't "glorious Russia destroyed Hitler without doing anything at all bad" is going to trigger Russians, to be honest

its not like they had anything meaningful to say other than "muh orders" or "I dindu nuffin"

Any chance we will see a expulsion here soon btw?
It's not like the ones in question don't miss the time when they were the herrenvolk and locals were sent away.

The balts are in EU.
Putin knows that a war against EU-NATO would be suicide and without russia the balt minorities couldn't do anything.

The EU isn't that stable as proven by Brexit and Trump seem to be willing to kick countries out from NATO ((Even if Estonia is meeting the spending requirements))
Why not do it now and lose the risk of them ((And the rest of Estonia)) getting liberated by Russians for ever?

>The EU isn't that stable as proven by Brexit a
The British never were truly "in" in the first place. Them leaving really doesn't mean much.

> and Trump seem to be willing to kick countries out from NATO
Nobody in his staff would care about what Trump thinks and promised during the campaign.

Still, the future is uncertain enough for it to be a good idea.

They got better than they deserved desu, only cucks let the law get in the way of justice.

...

They were acused of joining an illegal party(Nazi Party) and forming an illegal goverment(Third Reich).
The word genocide didn't exist at that point.

Reminds me of Mother Night by Vonnegut.

>Were the Nuremberg Trials fair?
No.

>Was due process taken?
No.

>Did the Nazis get fairly prosecuted?
No.

A claim without justification is pretty much worthless, because it merely tells me of your opinion and usually just leads to shitflinging opinions back and forth.

The Nuremberg Trials weren't fair. The punishment given to them was based on complete retroactive laws, some murders that they were accused of in Poland were actually committed by the USSR, and there were many arrangements between some of the accused and the authorities.
Still, they were all the executors of the Holocaust and deserved punishment. It's just that, well, it wasn't a complete fair process.

>The punishment given to them was based on complete retroactive laws
Name some.

Make this thread on /pol/

And come back and tell me who is more inclined to call you names and give no citations.

>protip: it will be Veeky Forums

Well the Nuremberg Charter signed in London just invented all of the crimes that they were accused of (Crime against peace, crime against Humanity...). If you punish someone for a crime that you just created, it is retroactive.
Yes, the nazis deserved to be hanged for their deeds, this isn't the question, it's just that the Nuremberg Trial in himself was completly unfair.

They could have just accused them of murdering hundreds of thousands or even a few civilians since they'd hang from just one instead of inventing a whole lot of crimes retroactively.

What's crimes?

Post evidence of the nazis committing any kind of war crime.

Official national socialist party documents ordering said crimes.

>Crime against peace
namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

>crime against humanity
namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
These are not crimes that were just created, right? I mean, murder and shit were crimes before 1945????