The Tribunal shall not be bound by rules of evidence

How they can be here if no copy was found?

>documental evidence is the only sort of evidence hurr

It was a show trial, would've been better if they just shot them all on the spot they found them.

I'm talking about the fact no copy was found, idiot.

>the japanese were worse than the nazis
>the rising sun is printed on t-shirts and the swastika is banned
>the japanese don't have to confess any war crimes but the germans aren't allowed to forget
sometimes i think if karma really did exist the human race would be gone

>By whose authority do you think to question our laws
>implying the laws of the tribunal don't come from false gods.
>implying the laws of the tribunal mean anything under the occupation of the mongrel dogs of the empire.

It was a show trial and at the same time it seems like the allies made an actual effort into looking non-arbitrary and "just". They even let Speer off the hook to show how fair they were, particularly since the last thing they wanted was to let the Nazis get any sympathy due to being unfairly tried or something. I don't think that if Nuremberg had been conducted by only the Soviets it would have been so nice for the defendants.

Japs didn't mess with the wrong chosen people, goy. Killing chinks is pretty okay, don't you know.

Hitler drop the ball when he didn't crowned himself as emperor and stayed after the war as one for the pressing ceremonial reasons.

What a retarded post.

The Nazi Swastika specifically refers to the Nazi rule of Germany whereas the rising sun is simply a symbol for Japan as a country.

>The Nazi Swastika specifically refers to the Nazi rule of Germany whereas the rising sun is simply a symbol for Japan as a country.
why did you say the same thing twice

original pic for reference btw
igorlevchenko.deviantart.com/art/Morrowind-Lord-Dagoth-592646983

The painting is in the style of Gustave Moreau(1826-1898)

Here's some more of Igor Levchenko's work based on historical paintings:

igorlevchenko.deviantart.com/gallery/

What?

dont asians get pretty upset by japan stuff

So... How did this one guy who commanded Nazi army in their biggest battle managed to get off the hook?

Because he defected and worked for the soviets.

>it's a thinly veiled Purimfest thread

Liar.
>The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.
>Article 15.
>The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties:
>(a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence
>(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

Holocaust denial in a nutshell. Take a quote out of context, change it and draw retarded conclusions.

Some of the Nuremberg prosecutors even wanted to try Westmoreland

>By early 1971, Telford Taylor, a retired army general who had served as chief counsel for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials, was speaking out on ABC television’s Dick Cavett Show and sparring in the pages of the New York Times with Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor and army general counsel Robert Jordan about the potential guilt of General Westmoreland himself. Resor and Jordan admitted that, in connection with My Lai, they had given thought to the Yamashita precedent: the case of a Japanese general who had been found guilty by an American military tribunal and executed in 1946 for failing to prevent atrocities by his troops, even though he had lost communication with the soldiers and had no direct control over them. Under the Yamashita standard, Taylor argued, war crimes committed by Americans in Vietnam—the widespread bombing and shelling of civilian hamlets in “free-fire” zones, the forced evacuations of peasants from their homes, and general failure to provide for the safety and care of civilians—could leave American commanders like Westmoreland in the dock.

>It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

Which is overturning the rules of evidence by allowing unduly prejudicial and otherwise illegally obtained evidence.

This interpretation would literally allow the courts to convict on hearsay alone or use evidence coerced from a party

>ywn see the leading Bolsheviks on trial

This depresses the shit out of me.

You don't need to stretch so much to defend Nuremberg, user. Every legal scholar in the world thinks that what happened there was a judicial travesty. It had a violation of every possible principle of criminal law by the creation of new crimes to retroactively prosecute the defendants, extremely discretionary rules of evidence and what is more evidently, a judging body that couldn't under any stretch of imagination be called impartial.

Not to say that the Nuremberg Trials were bad or wrong, they were necessary, but they were a complete legal travesty that happened because the Allies wanted to pass themselves as magnanimous.

Vehk pls go

I wouldn't call spending years in a Soviet POW camp "getting off the hook". One year in them is like 5-10 years in a regular western prison.

Mein Kampf is pretty much all the evidence you need for Generalplan Ost

Why would you need written evidence? That shit was being executed.

>I don't think that if Nuremberg had been conducted by only the Soviets it would have been so nice for the defendants.
I don't think Nuremberg would happen if it was just by the Soviets, they would just take them all to a forrest somewhere and shot them.

This. Especially in Poland.

Nah. Stalin was pretty big on show trials, He wouldn't miss an opportunity.

Hilarious
>we don't need proof, his opinions are enough!

Lawfag here. Nuremburg had no real basis in any form of international or domestic law, and was merely to garb the actions of the Allies with a veneer of respectability. In my view they should have just dispensed with the hilariously shit pretence entirely. The basis of their actions should have just been "woe to the vanquished".

I feel like it would have been much worse than execution by firearm. I imagine there would have been some torture involved.

>write a book
>get hanged for writing it

What did the Allies mean by this?

He deserved it. Rosenberg was one of the most popular Nazi ideologues.

But denazification in general was a joke and for the most part the courts were extremely lenient. West Germany was swarming with the former Nazis.

The Tribunal have a bad reputation mostly thanks to neo-Nazi and revisionist propaganda. It's mostly just lies, like the one that Germans were blamed for the Katyn massacre or that someone was convicted for alleged human skin lampshades.

What Japan stuff?

>inb4 the liberation of Nanjing or any other alleged warcrimes which the USA found no proof of during post war investigations

>draw wyatt mann caricatures
>get hanged

I think this guy had it worse