5 ms·

Genuine question - unless he was directly involved with the genocide, was he not doing the exact same thing the allies were doing? It’s not a war crime to parti

Genuine question - unless he was directly involved with the genocide, was he not doing the exact same thing the allies were doing? It’s not a war crime to participate in a war for your country. The US bombed German civilians and Japanese civilians in mass numbers.

cyberpunk 2y ago
Many would consider those war crimes also.
- dylan604 2y ago
  yes, but that side "won". so the important take away is that if you're going to commit war crimes, you must win the war to avoid being charged
perihelions 2y ago
The atrocity is that von Braun's V-2 factory was an extermination-through-labor camp. About 12,000 people were forcibly worked and tortured to death to produce those weapons—numerically more deaths than V-2, as a weapon, caused in Britain. von Braun was aware of this, complicit in this, oversaw parts of it as a high-ranking SS officer: his Wikipedia entry quotes a survivor testifying "von Braun went to the concentration camp to pick slave laborers".
- pc86 2y ago
  Assuming this is true (I have no reason to believe it's not) it's clearly a damning indictment of von Braun himself. And it calls into question his accounts, so it seems like odds are he was "actually" a Nazi as opposed to someone affiliating with the party to avoid punishment or execution. I still don't see what that has to do with the original comment that mentioned him. If we're talking about him in depth, absolutely mention it and dig into it. I guess the thing I'm having trouble reconciling in my head is the need to, upon a passing reference to someone orthogonal to the main point, say it's "worth including" that they're a controversial figure. The controversy seems irrelevant to me. It seems to border on virtue signaling, this need to say "oh by the way, Nazis are bad" when that (objective fact) has nothing to do with anything. I see your other comment and I get the point you're trying to make but I don't think it has anything to do with speaking respectfully or with any sort of courtesy about a Nazi, just about trying to make a point.
  - joshuahutt 2y ago
    I can see your point, but I think it's worthwhile to understand the full context, even if it's irrelevant on the surface. I wasn't familiar with von Braun before reading this thread, and I appreciate the extra info. Complex figure. Maybe even a really bad guy. But, also interesting that his work was useful in getting us to the moon. Maybe we can all appreciate that dichotomy. Even more interesting to note, is without your initial pushback, I wouldn't have read more detail about him, so I owe your resistance to actually exploring this facet of the man's alleged history to getting me to actually read a bit about it.
pdonis 2y ago
> The US bombed German civilians and Japanese civilians in mass numbers. Yes, agreed. I'm not arguing that the standards of Nuremberg were actually the right ones.
kmeisthax 2y ago
A significant chunk of the adult male population of Nazi Germany was involved with the genocide. Hitler made sure there was blood on as many German hands as possible. In retrospect the Allies were extremely lenient[0] on Germany and Japan and they probably could have punished them way, way worse. As for Allied war crimes, many of those were only criminalized after-the-fact. For example, the justification for nuking Nagasaki was "well, there's a factory nearby, so that's a valid military target". [0] For example, "fiduciary duty to shareholders" was a valid excuse that saved several businessmen at Nuremburg, despite them running forced labor camps that were deadlier than Auschwicz.
- foolswisdom 2y ago
  > For example, the justification for nuking Nagasaki was "well, there's a factory nearby, so that's a valid military target". Erm, what? The justification for nuking nagasaki was that demonstrating overwhelming might would swiftly end the war (it did) while continuing conventional war would cause many more casualties over time. Maybe you mean to say that because a lot of ships, bombs and military equipment were made there (though it wasn't merely "a factory nearby") they dropped the bomb there rather than somewhere else. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- defrost 2y ago
  The justification at the time for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was field testing two different novel bomb designs .. the urgency came from Germany's surrender and unavailability to use as a test bed and from the rapid depletion of pristine targets in Japan. The H&N bombings followed close on the heels of bombing 72 other cities (including Tokyo) as part of an ongoing HE + incendiary campaign with list of targets. These specific targets were selected for atomic tested as they had not been bombed before and served as "clean" test beds for the before and after comparisons, in addition to having some containing topography. What's important to remember is that they were selected from a long list of targets that were all scheduled to be bombed, the fact that they were low priority from a military standpoint is what had "saved" then from not already having been bombed. When Hiroshima was bombed the only prior atomic test at Trinity was on a tower with a lot of external controls .. it wasn't even certain at the time that this would work as a bomb let alone "end the war". The military compulsion to battlefield test a weapon that had consumed more R&D budget than any ever before in history was intense, and the WW's were rapidly closing out with Germany defeated and Russia closing in on Japan. After the bombings, immediately after, came a lot of retro fitting justifiction, more so with the Cold War .. but it was never as clear cut and about swift endings and saving casualities as came to be believed. People forget that atomic bomb or not the US was already committed to levelling all cities within Japan. For more, and a deeper dive in the many takes on dropping the bomb, see: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... for example (it has many references to many historic viewpoints)

cyberpunk 2y ago

Many would consider those war crimes also.

dylan604 2y ago
yes, but that side "won". so the important take away is that if you're going to commit war crimes, you must win the war to avoid being charged

perihelions 2y ago

The atrocity is that von Braun's V-2 factory was an extermination-through-labor camp. About 12,000 people were forcibly worked and tortured to death to produce those weapons—numerically more deaths than V-2, as a weapon, caused in Britain. von Braun was aware of this, complicit in this, oversaw parts of it as a high-ranking SS officer: his Wikipedia entry quotes a survivor testifying "von Braun went to the concentration camp to pick slave laborers".

pc86 2y ago
Assuming this is true (I have no reason to believe it's not) it's clearly a damning indictment of von Braun himself. And it calls into question his accounts, so it seems like odds are he was "actually" a Nazi as opposed to someone affiliating with the party to avoid punishment or execution. I still don't see what that has to do with the original comment that mentioned him. If we're talking about him in depth, absolutely mention it and dig into it. I guess the thing I'm having trouble reconciling in my head is the need to, upon a passing reference to someone orthogonal to the main point, say it's "worth including" that they're a controversial figure. The controversy seems irrelevant to me. It seems to border on virtue signaling, this need to say "oh by the way, Nazis are bad" when that (objective fact) has nothing to do with anything. I see your other comment and I get the point you're trying to make but I don't think it has anything to do with speaking respectfully or with any sort of courtesy about a Nazi, just about trying to make a point.
- joshuahutt 2y ago
  I can see your point, but I think it's worthwhile to understand the full context, even if it's irrelevant on the surface. I wasn't familiar with von Braun before reading this thread, and I appreciate the extra info. Complex figure. Maybe even a really bad guy. But, also interesting that his work was useful in getting us to the moon. Maybe we can all appreciate that dichotomy. Even more interesting to note, is without your initial pushback, I wouldn't have read more detail about him, so I owe your resistance to actually exploring this facet of the man's alleged history to getting me to actually read a bit about it.

pdonis 2y ago

> The US bombed German civilians and Japanese civilians in mass numbers. Yes, agreed. I'm not arguing that the standards of Nuremberg were actually the right ones.

kmeisthax 2y ago

A significant chunk of the adult male population of Nazi Germany was involved with the genocide. Hitler made sure there was blood on as many German hands as possible. In retrospect the Allies were extremely lenient[0] on Germany and Japan and they probably could have punished them way, way worse. As for Allied war crimes, many of those were only criminalized after-the-fact. For example, the justification for nuking Nagasaki was "well, there's a factory nearby, so that's a valid military target". [0] For example, "fiduciary duty to shareholders" was a valid excuse that saved several businessmen at Nuremburg, despite them running forced labor camps that were deadlier than Auschwicz.

foolswisdom 2y ago
> For example, the justification for nuking Nagasaki was "well, there's a factory nearby, so that's a valid military target". Erm, what? The justification for nuking nagasaki was that demonstrating overwhelming might would swiftly end the war (it did) while continuing conventional war would cause many more casualties over time. Maybe you mean to say that because a lot of ships, bombs and military equipment were made there (though it wasn't merely "a factory nearby") they dropped the bomb there rather than somewhere else. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
defrost 2y ago
The justification at the time for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was field testing two different novel bomb designs .. the urgency came from Germany's surrender and unavailability to use as a test bed and from the rapid depletion of pristine targets in Japan. The H&N bombings followed close on the heels of bombing 72 other cities (including Tokyo) as part of an ongoing HE + incendiary campaign with list of targets. These specific targets were selected for atomic tested as they had not been bombed before and served as "clean" test beds for the before and after comparisons, in addition to having some containing topography. What's important to remember is that they were selected from a long list of targets that were all scheduled to be bombed, the fact that they were low priority from a military standpoint is what had "saved" then from not already having been bombed. When Hiroshima was bombed the only prior atomic test at Trinity was on a tower with a lot of external controls .. it wasn't even certain at the time that this would work as a bomb let alone "end the war". The military compulsion to battlefield test a weapon that had consumed more R&D budget than any ever before in history was intense, and the WW's were rapidly closing out with Germany defeated and Russia closing in on Japan. After the bombings, immediately after, came a lot of retro fitting justifiction, more so with the Cold War .. but it was never as clear cut and about swift endings and saving casualities as came to be believed. People forget that atomic bomb or not the US was already committed to levelling all cities within Japan. For more, and a deeper dive in the many takes on dropping the bomb, see: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... for example (it has many references to many historic viewpoints)