3 ms·

> By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, he probably should have been tried and convicted. But he was never even accused, because the US wanted his rocket ex

by jjk166 3y ago

> By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, he probably should have been tried and convicted. But he was never even accused, because the US wanted his rocket expertise--by the time of the Nuremberg trials, he was already working for the US Army. Absurd. For starters, by the standards of the nuremberg trials, there's no way in hell he would be convicted. For comparison, among the men actually acquitted by the nuremburg trials were Franz von Papen, Hitler's vice chancellor from 1933 to 1934 and the man who pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to power, and Hans Fritzsche, a high ranking propagandist who was in the Fuhrerbunker in the last days of the war and after his acquittal took part in a cabal attempting to re-nazify West Germany. The nuremberg trials targetted only the very highest level Nazis - only the top 5 highest ranking officers in the entire german military were indicted. Even if von Braun had been an enthusiastic Nazi (and there's quite a bit of evidence he wasn't), he was way too low level to have been tried nonetheless convicted by the Nuremberg trials.

pdonis 3y ago
> The nuremberg trials targetted only the very highest level Nazis The initial ones did, but there were subsequent ones targeting entire organizations--one of which was the SS, to which Von Braun belonged.
- jjk166 3y ago
  There was only one round of Nuremberg Trials. There were subsequent Nuremberg tribunals conducted in the same courthouse, but these were a US only effort, and not what people are referring to when they say "the Nuremberg Trials" Those subsequent tribunals were still quite limited, with only about 1600 people being tried. For context, there were over a million members of the SS. Further, the punishment for most of those convicted in these tribunals was forced labor, so had Von Braun been tried and convicted at that time, odds are he still would have most likely wound up working for the US developing their rockets. So the claim that the US shielded him doesn't really make sense.
dullcrisp 3y ago
> Hitler's vice chancellor from 1933 to 1934 and the man who pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to power Are you saying that supporting Hitler before the war should have been a war crime?
- roenxi 3y ago
  I don't see him saying that, so probably not. But being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime either. Looking at Wikipedia there seems to be something going on with Braun's involvement in forced labour and war prisoners. I don't see an outline of what the problem is; maybe there is something serious but if there is a problem Wikipedia doesn't seem to detail it. If building horrible weapons is a war crime then I think Fat Man and Little Boy probably take the cake.
  - throwawaycities 3y ago
    >But being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime either. How familiar are you with jus ad bellum and jus en bello? Most legal scholars conclude German use of force against the UK was a violation of jus ad bellum and the indiscriminate nature of V-1 and V-2 rockets including their use against civilians was a violation of jus en bello. The Nuremberg Trials were primarily focused on prosecuting individuals who were deemed to bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities committed during World War II and the Holocaust. Many legal scholars of international law and use of armed force agree WvB was should have been tried for the deaths of thousands of forced workers and civilians. His value to the US government definitely saved him, but for that he’d at least have been tried.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > How familiar are you with jus ad bellum and jus en bello? Yeah they're terms of art. When US or British people use them they mean that aggression by English speakers is appropriate (really we should characterise any aggression as fundamentally defensive in nature) but aggression by people using barbarian tongues is inappropriate (if it damages the commercial interests of English speakers it might be better termed an affront against the divine nature of things). There are some complexities depending on trade agreements and current military alliances. For example you can see strong defensive plays by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere in the middle east. But then you have examples of aggression by the USSR back in the day in the same countries which was largely unprovoked.

by jjk166 3y ago

pdonis 3y ago

> The nuremberg trials targetted only the very highest level Nazis The initial ones did, but there were subsequent ones targeting entire organizations--one of which was the SS, to which Von Braun belonged.

jjk166 3y ago
There was only one round of Nuremberg Trials. There were subsequent Nuremberg tribunals conducted in the same courthouse, but these were a US only effort, and not what people are referring to when they say "the Nuremberg Trials" Those subsequent tribunals were still quite limited, with only about 1600 people being tried. For context, there were over a million members of the SS. Further, the punishment for most of those convicted in these tribunals was forced labor, so had Von Braun been tried and convicted at that time, odds are he still would have most likely wound up working for the US developing their rockets. So the claim that the US shielded him doesn't really make sense.

dullcrisp 3y ago

> Hitler's vice chancellor from 1933 to 1934 and the man who pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to power Are you saying that supporting Hitler before the war should have been a war crime?

roenxi 3y ago
I don't see him saying that, so probably not. But being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime either. Looking at Wikipedia there seems to be something going on with Braun's involvement in forced labour and war prisoners. I don't see an outline of what the problem is; maybe there is something serious but if there is a problem Wikipedia doesn't seem to detail it. If building horrible weapons is a war crime then I think Fat Man and Little Boy probably take the cake.
- throwawaycities 3y ago
  >But being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime either. How familiar are you with jus ad bellum and jus en bello? Most legal scholars conclude German use of force against the UK was a violation of jus ad bellum and the indiscriminate nature of V-1 and V-2 rockets including their use against civilians was a violation of jus en bello. The Nuremberg Trials were primarily focused on prosecuting individuals who were deemed to bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities committed during World War II and the Holocaust. Many legal scholars of international law and use of armed force agree WvB was should have been tried for the deaths of thousands of forced workers and civilians. His value to the US government definitely saved him, but for that he’d at least have been tried.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > How familiar are you with jus ad bellum and jus en bello? Yeah they're terms of art. When US or British people use them they mean that aggression by English speakers is appropriate (really we should characterise any aggression as fundamentally defensive in nature) but aggression by people using barbarian tongues is inappropriate (if it damages the commercial interests of English speakers it might be better termed an affront against the divine nature of things). There are some complexities depending on trade agreements and current military alliances. For example you can see strong defensive plays by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere in the middle east. But then you have examples of aggression by the USSR back in the day in the same countries which was largely unprovoked.