Nuremberg trials

Except historians and people who actually studied it don't think that. You are repeating shitty neo-nazi propaganda you found on revisionist sites. This is hardly 'objective truth'.

You know what's a bigger joke? Retributive justice.

It was even worse than that. Many Nazi judges and prosecutors survived because they were helped by their friends. Including many war criminals.

Yeah typically for totalitarian governments most Germans, Soviets and Japanese never got what they deserved. Now they're chasing 95 year old guards.

>The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused

Meant for

stormfag revionism

Yet those who commited no evil were set free.

The Nuremberg trials were totally justified simply because they STILL make Nazis assblasted to this very day.

SAY IT WITH ME

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS, AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN

Fuck off soviet apologist you're no different than a neonazi.

my grandfather was in the trial AMA

get off the internet grandpa

>whining about X's trial when you are at Y's trial
Are all stormfags this retarded?

your dubz won't faze me

You're their best friend you tell me.

Really? Well ok....in any case Fritzsche is one of those obscure characters that I find pretty interesting because we don't know too much. Looks like he was just a guy who was a stand in for Goebbels as the "next best thing." Do you think after the trial he still believed in national socialism?

Same reason there is no "nuremberg trial" of the european colonialists or any other imperialistic forces in history : they won and they died a long time ago.

>raeder gets life
>doenitz gets 10 years

weird, the submarine proponent and actual nazi and temp-job fuhrer gets less than the big ship proponent career guy

this is a very very reddit thread.

It's because he was the "president" for like 10 days. They wanted to accuse him of some war crimes but then they realized that Americans did the same so they dropped it.

Of course if the same logic was applied to everything then there would be no trial as long as the Soviets were one of the judges.

i'm not disagreeing with the aim and intent of the trial, just surprise at anomalous outcomes.

it's not like the judges at nuremburg were worried about the hypocrisy of prosecuting nazis for firebombing cities when much of germany and japan was in ashes.

the nazis shouldn't have started the war. they brought it upon themselves.start shit get hit and all that...

No, they tried accusing innocent people like Hess and Speer who had nothing to do with the war.

It's not like anyone in Operation Paperclip ran a death camp. They were just scientists.

but unit 731 though

Doenitz surrendered to them so they probably went easy on him.

Lol no, even the one SCOTuS judge from that era tBought it was offensive they were pretending it was a real trial.

I think they should have just sent them to st Helena like napoleon. That way they are 'responsible' but out of the picture and German sovereignty is still preserved.

>That way they are 'responsible' but out of the picture and German sovereignty is still preserved.
Good fucking luck with that with emotions running high from the invasions, the holocaust, and WWI-tier "Germany is a fucking wildcard in Europe it constantly starts shit" thinking.

Tell me about Papen
He dindu right?

Look at the madd Fashi.

Should have almost all been shot immediately before the Germans got around to commuting their sentences and saying they wuz gud boys who dindu nuffin

>Do you agree with the sentences?

Most of them, Speer should have been put to death, tho, but sadly the Allies believed his lies that he was "the good Nazi" who dindu nuffin, when we now know that he hand-picked many of the slaves who died building his ugly vision of brutalism.

Source on 'hand-picked slaves'?

Why were non-combatants and people who had nothing to do with the alleged war crimes sentenced to death like Rosenburg?

Speer confessed to his priest that he lied to save his life. But Jodl? Might as well hang all officers.

They deserved to hang. Nazis were genocidal monsters, not just some random enemies.

This trial was a good thing. The allies compiled a lot of evidence. Even today many historians use it as a source. And let's not forget about its main goal - reeducation of German people. They wanted to show them the crimes committed by the regime they supported. For the same reason they shot Mills if War and shows civilians Nazi concentration camps.

But this policy ultimately failed and by 1949 myth about clean wehrmacht or 'it was all Hitler's fault', or the allies also committed war crimes were already very popular.

Adenauer's government was already full of former Nazis and his amnesties for Nazi prisoners were supported by the majority of population

The whole shit show was a farce because they accused the losers of crimes that only existed after the fact. Post ex facto laws aren't really defensible.

>monsters

Spooky

Papen was an absolute madman and a bit of an idiot who did a bunch of crazy shit during WW1 but he had no attachment to nazi ideology or the holocaust and his biggest 'crime' relating to the Nuremberg trials would be helping Hitler take power because he thought Hitler could be controlled as a puppet.

>Keitel and Jodl death
>Hess life imprisonment ????

Keitel could be linked to some fucked up shit.
I don't know about Hess. I guess being a card-carrying party member was enough since he didn't actually do much but Germany still managed to wage war on several nation while he was still an active Nazi.

I just don't get how Speer and others walked after like 5 years whilst the guy who was basically sidelined out of any power in 38-39 and then flew to the UK to try and negotiate peace 4 years before the war ended got life.

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS, AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN

Because he was creepy.

His peace negotiating was more about getting britain on board (through a non agression pact) while the reich turned its sight fully on the USSR.

Makes you wonder why the brits didnt believe them in the slightest. Naturally they had to lock him up since an offer of peace would have stalled further the US entering the war. Not a classy move but pragmatically the right one, wouldnt have been smart to delay the hostilities only until the reich controlled russia - best to strike when they are split between two fronts.

>inb4 MUH PERFIDY
TopKek, imblying war is ever fair

It's pretty cool that he was basically the last high profile prisoner of the Tower after people like Edward V, Guy Fawkes and Walter Raleigh.

Why do stormfags argue that these men should have been spared?

So it makes sense for allied soldiers to kill axis soldiers but it makes no sense to hang the very men who ordered the soldiers?

Bad analogy, because enemy soldiers are killed when they pose an immediate threat to you or your comrades. You don't generally shoot them when they're disarmed and in chains.

so why didn't they hang all of the axis soldiers after the war? really thought this one through didn't you.

>the classic "if you arent a retarded stormfag then you must be a tankie!" non argument

hey dumb dick, notice how the pic I posted shits on both communist and neo-nazis?

90% of Germans supported National Socialism, if you killed all of them the only people you'd have left would be filthy Jews and communists

You're a dumb piece of shit to suggest that pointing out that war criminals who started the war together with Germany should be also put on trial means I'm a nazi myself.

You do when they're Nazi filth.

The soldiers were mostly just poor schmucks tricked into throwing their lives away. It;s the leaders who deserved to die, and happily, they were mostly put down like the vermin they were.

Hm let's see

>Art.19 "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence."

>Art.21 "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof."

Look regardless of whether you're a stormweenie or not, if you actually believe the Nuremberg Trials were anything but a kangaroo court convened to make it look better that we were lynching a bunch of people, you're a fucking imbecile. They even charged Germans with war crimes the Soviets committed, for fuck's sake. They allowed hearsay as evidence, and they even convicted people like Karl Doenitz and Albert Speer, who had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi war crimes, as war criminals. It was a fucking sham.

BUT, the Allies conveniently didn't convict any scientists, engineers, politicians, or military personnel that could be useful to them later on.

Adding to this, this kind of bullshit continues to be used to this day when it comes to anything challenging the "hurrr durrr all Nazis are baby-murdering psychopaths who deserve to be lynched without a fair trial" narrative.

Remember when David Irving offered $10,000 to anyone who could provide PROOF that gas chambers were used at Auschwitz? Some Jew came forward and wrote a letter to a judge saying that he pinky-promised that he saw the Nazis do it, and the court ordered Irving to pay him the $10,000.

I don't care what your political affiliations are, what your religion is, or which historical theories you subscribe to: if you believe that """evidence""" like that counts for SHIT in a legitimate court of law, you forfeit your right to claim that you are only interested in "the truth." The truth does not fear investigation.

History is written by the victors, jerry cucks

>Lieutenant David "Mickey" Marcus, a Zionist Jew who would eventually leave the US military to serve as the Commander in the Haganah, served chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, Marcus would select almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials.
>The entire idea of the Nuremberg trial was the brainchild of Jewish Lawyer and officer Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays. It was Bernays, a successful New York attorney, who persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial.

PERFIDIOUS ALBION STRIKES AGAIN

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't they not execute Otto Skorzeny because they couldn't prove he ordered his men to conduct combat operations while in disguise during Operation Greif? That does not seem like a verdict a kangaroo court would reach.

/pol/ argues that the Nazis were tortured to admit that the Holocaust was real before the court. You'd think Speer, Hess or even Goering or Streicher would've mentioned it at one point. Or the psychologists or the guards or anyone.

If any of the charges didn't actually happen, someone would have said something. The Nazis all knew they were going to die anyways.

If I may, those do make a bit of sense, at least as far as I can see. Art.19 seems like it would come into play due to the special nature of both the offense and trial. i.e. This tribunal has no fingerprints nor murder weapon, but has concluded that the defendant, Nazi McNaziface, killed 50 Jews, based off eyewitness testimony and orders given.

Art.21 would have use given that it was essentially an entire government being put on trial, and certain facts needed to be noted as a matter of course so as to facilitate orderly judicial proceedings. i.e. This tribunal accepts as judicial fact that the government of Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Poland, therefore no investigation into this event is required.

>It was even worse than that. Many Nazi judges and prosecutors survived because they were helped by their friends. Including many war criminals.
What's wrong with that? I care about love more than anything in the world. I would do anything to save the life of somebody I loved, no matter what they were guilty of. The family matters more than anything else.

It wasn't a pure kangaroo court however it was quite close , the fact they dispensed with the rules evidence and didn't prospective allied war criminals - including the Italians - shows it wasn't a sincere trial

>/pol/ argues that the Nazis were tortured to admit that the Holocaust was real before the court.
they're wrong

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN

Keitel was the brains behind Nacht un Nebel and Jodl had drafted the Commando and Commissar Orders.

Hess was in British custody for most of the war, so he didn't really have much of an opportunity to commit war crimes. Most of the crimes he was convicted of took place prior to the outbreak of war.

>If I may, those do make a bit of sense, at least as far as I can see

I would argue it does not.

Forensics is a tiny insignificant part of the law of evidence. The bigger issue is of admissability.

1).For instance abolishing this rule allows for hearsay

"ie we find McNazi Face guilty because Jerry heard from schlmo a story told by Aggie who saw 50 jews get killed" Want to hear Aggies original story and challenge it? too bad she isnt called as a witness to give evidence.

2. Prevents the defendants from having dodgy evidence thrown out before it being heard by and influencing the judge

3.Eliminates the burden of proof when it comes to admitting evidence.

>Art.21 would have use given that it was essentially an entire government being put on trial, and certain facts needed to be noted as a matter of course so as to facilitate orderly judicial proceedings. i.e. This tribunal accepts as judicial fact that the government of Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Poland, therefore no investigation into this event is required.

See the other part of 21 where it allows reports made by the allies to be accepted as part of this "common sense"

For example The Nazis being responsible for the Katyn massacre committed by the NKVD would be allowed to be accepted as "common sense" under this provision.

The Allies should've just rounded up all the Gestapo, SS, Einatzgruppen, Sicherheitsdienst, and RSHA personnel they could get their hands on, taken them to their hometowns, and had an unironic Day of the Rope where they're all hanged in the town square simultaneously.

>Fritz Sauckel, head of the German wartime labor mobilization program, was sentenced to death at the main Nuremberg trial. An important piece of evidence presented to the Tribunal by the US prosecution was an affidavit signed by the defendant. (Nuremberg document 3057-PS.) It turned out that Sauckel had put his signature to this self-incriminating statement, which had been presented to him by his captors in finished form, only after he was bluntly told that if he hesitated, his wife and children would be turned over to the Soviets. "I did not stop to consider, and thinking of my family, I signed the document," Sauckel later declared.

>Hans Fritzsche, another defendant in the main Nuremberg trial, was similarly forced to sign a self-damning confession while he was a prisoner of the Soviet secret police in Moscow. (Nuremberg document USSR-474.)

>Nuremberg defendant Julius Streicher, who was eventually hanged because he published a sometimes sensational anti-Jewish weekly paper, was brutally mistreated following his arrest. He was badly beaten, kicked, whipped, spat at, forced to drink saliva and burned with cigarettes. His genitals were beaten. Eyebrow and chest hair was pulled out. He was stripped and photographed. Fellow defendant Hans Frank was savagely beaten by two black GIs shortly after his arrest. August Eigruber, former Gauleiter of Upper Austria, was mutilated and castrated at the end of the war.

>it's another we're the assuming the defendant is being truthful when he claims he was hideously tortured despite detailed records of what happened to him being kept by prison staff and the fact he does not appear to suffer any ill effects of claimed injuries response

>The testimony of the prosecution's chief witness in the Nuremberg "Wilhelmstrasse" trial was obtained by threat of death. The American defense attorney, Warren Magee, had somehow obtained the transcript of the first pretrial interrogation of Friedrich Gaus, a former senior official in the German Foreign Office. Despite frantic protests by prosecuting attorney Robert Kempner, the judge decided to permit Magee to read from the document. During the pretrial interrogation session, Kempner told Gaus that he would be turned over to the Soviets for hanging. Tearfully pleading for mercy, Gaus begged Kempner to think of his wife and children. Kempner replied that he could save himself only by testifying in court against his former colleagues. A desperate Gaus, who had already endured four weeks in solitary confinement, agreed. When Magee finished reading from the damning transcript, Gaus sat with both hands to his face, totally devastated

Also

>ywn whip Hans Frank's ass like a runway slave

feelsbadman

>whipping ass
What is it with Jews and coprophilia?

I'm not Jewish and scat definitely is not my fetish

Might as well be at this point.

Anyone who's interested in a source may enjoy reading this 1946 article by a US federal judge.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-dangerous-precedent/306492/?single_page=true#disqus_thread

It's his opinion that the trials did not constitute judicial justice, but rather an executive decision. To quote:

>Indeed it hardly lies in the mouth of any supporter of the Nuremberg proceedings to disparage such procedural considerations; for may it not be said that the reason that the authors of those proceedings cast them in the form of a trial was to persuade the public that the customary safeguards and liberties were preserved?

>note how the Jew assumes a southern identity to protect themself

The record is being corrected gentlemen

...

is that way faggot

There is a a lot of handwaving in international law.

>Germany and Japan are still enemy states of the UN.
Doesn't apply anymore. Don't concern yourself with it.

>Germany still does not have a constitution.
Don't concern yourself.

>The circumvention of the Anti-Bailout rule in the EU, because stupid Americans thought that single states could not go bankrupt on their own, because there was a supposed lender-of-last-ressort like in the U.S.

>Target2-saldi between EU states need not be paid of regularly like the similar interstate-saldi in the US.

Who cares anyway?

Stalin just wanted to line them up and shoot them by the tens of thousands.

If you read any part of the transcript of the trial (avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp) one could see how they meticulously laid out evidence. If it was a kangaroo court it wouldn't have gone 280 days.

Skorzeny didn't hang because American commander came up to the court and said Americans did ops in disguise too.

Soviets defeated their aggressors, why the fuck should they be there? inb4 le you are kike

>>Germany still does not have a constitution.
>Don't concern yourself.
I live in the UK, we don't ethier, entrecnhed law is not a requirement for a modern state, as seen by the likes of germany and france.

>i will circumvent law and overlook the objective moral disregardment of my peers because they are my peers
Congratulations, you're a warlord without any power, please arm yourself and report to africa at your earliset conveience.

Unrelated to the original point. Still, Frank deserved it big time. And Streicher too I guess a little bit. Unlawful? Well so was the court itself.

>Germany still does not have a constitution.
It does though.

IHR is such a joke. About Sauckel and this important piece of evidence.

Dodd: My recollection is that in the presentation of the case on slave labor, we included this in our document book, but did not offer it in evidence. I think I told the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to offer it.
The President: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit number if it is not offered in evidence.
Dodd: I do not either. I think it's an error.

The President: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to the document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
Dodd: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation of the Slave labour case Dr. Servatius made some objection and I think that is what brought the matter up at that time. And that is why we did not use it.
The President: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.

I wonder how many of their articles are full of shit like that.