4 ms·
from the home page of the archive: > The IMT contributed to the definition of war crimes and the outlawing of wars of aggression. that hints at what really ha
by readonthegoapp 3y ago
from the home page of the archive:
> The IMT contributed to the definition of war crimes and the outlawing of wars of aggression.
that hints at what really happened at the tribunal. chomsky has some details:
https://chomsky.info/20070803/ https://chomsky.info/20070803/
The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. First of all, the Nuremberg trials—of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today—it is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. ‘We’re now declaring these things you did to be crimes.’ That is already questionable.
There is plenty more absurdity. like this bit:
Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we didn’t do it.
So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on—those aren’t crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, it’s not a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, ‘Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we did.’ And, therefore, they weren’t sentenced for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that’s the way it ran through. Now, that’s a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that’s the most serious one.
so, props to the new site and Stanford and crew for hinting at the absurdity of the trial, but i think they should do much more than hint. alas, calling every US President (and their many underlings) war criminals would probably not win Stanford many fans in the circles of power.
- winrid 3y agoIt's peobably worth noting Doenitz still spent 10 years in prison for crimes against peace. He didn't get out early because he wouldn't denounce his allegiance to Hitler, either.
- readonthegoapp 3y agoyou are saying that US military leaders should have served time too?
- ekianjo 3y agoIf we were serious about crimes against civilians, much certainly so but we all know this is just a big farce to make revenge look defensible
- hef19898 3y agoIn just and fair world, yes. In the real world we live in, not so much. Examples of action nobody was tried for, Axis or Allies: Strategic terror bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure, unrestricted submarine warfare.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoI can’t say whether they should have, but I can say that part of the reason international law is a joke among friends is that it was designed such that this would be the question. The US committed atrocities in the war, and it also took extreme measures in the war which shouldn’t be judged as harshly. But we don’t have a meaningful framework to reconcile those because reconciling them is intentionally excluded from the framework.
- winrid 3y agoThat wasn't my intent. You mean the US submarine commanders? Probably not, no..
- CamperBob2 3y agoChomsky has proven to be a rather biased observer in the "yeahbutwhatabout" game. Which is saying something, considering his ethnic heritage and the fact that we're talking about Nazis. If he and Kissinger were on fire and I only had one glass of water, I'd drink it.
- boppo1 3y agoEveryone seems to hate Kissinger except my late ethnic german grandma who lived through WW2 in Berlin. What did he do?
- CamperBob2 3y agoI don't want to derail the thread by getting into that; you can ask people from Ukraine to Cambodia to Indonesia to Latin America about the real-world effects of his brand of realpolitik. He's a big fan of placating dictators and invaders by ceding other peoples' territory to them.
- rightbyte 3y agoNot being a warmonger is a bad thing? The real nightmare is if the US deny you your right to lose. Like Vietnam.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoHe was very much a warmonger, he just favored fomenting war by parties which might be inclined to fight.
- rightbyte 3y agoOh, ye, well I need to read up on political history.
- CamperBob2 3y agoNot being a warmonger is a bad thing? When war comes to your doorstep, yes, not being a warmonger is a bad thing. Bullies understand only force and violence. They will not listen to reason, and they will not return the favor after you come to their aid. Kissinger, who spent his youth being bullied by real, live Nazis, should have understood that. And when your cause is just, you need to be able to count on help from friendly Western democracies, not debates over how much of your country should be turned over to your attacker.