4 ms·

>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 Ge

>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 2y 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.
- throwawaycities 2y ago
  They are the two predominate areas of the laws of use of force and armed conflict. >Strong defensive plays by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere… Do you know the difference between what you referenced above and the Nuremberg Trials from the standpoint of International Law?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    The obvious difference is one is a trial and the other is a set of invasions. At that point I suspect the average international lawyer would be forced to admit that, even from a legal perspective, these two things are different.
- close04 2y ago
  > being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime Neither is being a chancellor. von Braun was much more than the super-selective characterization of "rocket scientist". His were the actions of a war criminal to anyone except his supporters and the people who benefited greatly from him not being considered as such. Eye witness testimonies say that von Braun personally picked slave laborers from concentration camps to work and eventually be tortured and killed in the factories he personally supervised. These facts are undisputed by any historical account. The only reason he got away with these crimes is that he was useful to the US space program. Saying "but being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime" sounds willfully ignorant or just apologetic and that's not the kind of thing you want to excuse. Nobody's blaming him for being a brilliant rocket scientist, only for willingly killing thousands of unwilling prisoners in just a few short years. If you want an analogy that doesn't involve a history book, imagine hearing that Amazon's or Tesla's CEOs pretended they had no idea that thousands of warehouse or factory workers they had hand picked from prisons were killed or raped every year at work according to rules and procedures signed off by those very same CEOs who routinely patrol the floors to see those rules are enforced. Would you still be here saying "but being a CEO isn't a crime"?
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > The only reason he got away with these crimes is That's not really true though. Most nazis who were committing crimes on the same level (or even more serious ones) got away with them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Wytwwww 2y ago
> WvB was should have been tried for the deaths of thousands of forced workers and civilians Perhaps. But this doesn't change the fact that there were thousands or at least hundreds of others guilty of bigger crimes (at least directly) were never prosecuted. Only a tiny minority of war criminals were actually tried after WW2. And almost none of those who escaped justice (or received a slap on the wrist at most) were rocket scientists or were later hired by the US government. The whole "denazification" process in Germany was very lenient and superficial relative to the severity of the crimes that were committed during and before the war. von Braun was very far down the ladder of responsibility... > 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. Also on that.. how is this not the same as Order No. 154 (unrestricted submarine warfare). Dönitz was exonerated of war crimes because allies admitted that they were doing the same (IIRC Allied admirals even testified on his behalf). Certainly this would apply to the case of indiscriminate bombings? And von Braun wasn't even giving the order so by the standards of the day (or modern standards) I don't see who could he be legally tried for this. The whole slave worker thing was another matter of course but almost nobody was prosecuted for stuff like that anyway..
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 2y 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.

throwawaycities 2y ago
They are the two predominate areas of the laws of use of force and armed conflict. >Strong defensive plays by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere… Do you know the difference between what you referenced above and the Nuremberg Trials from the standpoint of International Law?
- roenxi 2y ago
  The obvious difference is one is a trial and the other is a set of invasions. At that point I suspect the average international lawyer would be forced to admit that, even from a legal perspective, these two things are different.
close04 2y ago
> being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime Neither is being a chancellor. von Braun was much more than the super-selective characterization of "rocket scientist". His were the actions of a war criminal to anyone except his supporters and the people who benefited greatly from him not being considered as such. Eye witness testimonies say that von Braun personally picked slave laborers from concentration camps to work and eventually be tortured and killed in the factories he personally supervised. These facts are undisputed by any historical account. The only reason he got away with these crimes is that he was useful to the US space program. Saying "but being a rocket scientist during a war isn't a war crime" sounds willfully ignorant or just apologetic and that's not the kind of thing you want to excuse. Nobody's blaming him for being a brilliant rocket scientist, only for willingly killing thousands of unwilling prisoners in just a few short years. If you want an analogy that doesn't involve a history book, imagine hearing that Amazon's or Tesla's CEOs pretended they had no idea that thousands of warehouse or factory workers they had hand picked from prisons were killed or raped every year at work according to rules and procedures signed off by those very same CEOs who routinely patrol the floors to see those rules are enforced. Would you still be here saying "but being a CEO isn't a crime"?
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > The only reason he got away with these crimes is That's not really true though. Most nazis who were committing crimes on the same level (or even more serious ones) got away with them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Wytwwww 2y ago

> WvB was should have been tried for the deaths of thousands of forced workers and civilians Perhaps. But this doesn't change the fact that there were thousands or at least hundreds of others guilty of bigger crimes (at least directly) were never prosecuted. Only a tiny minority of war criminals were actually tried after WW2. And almost none of those who escaped justice (or received a slap on the wrist at most) were rocket scientists or were later hired by the US government. The whole "denazification" process in Germany was very lenient and superficial relative to the severity of the crimes that were committed during and before the war. von Braun was very far down the ladder of responsibility... > 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. Also on that.. how is this not the same as Order No. 154 (unrestricted submarine warfare). Dönitz was exonerated of war crimes because allies admitted that they were doing the same (IIRC Allied admirals even testified on his behalf). Certainly this would apply to the case of indiscriminate bombings? And von Braun wasn't even giving the order so by the standards of the day (or modern standards) I don't see who could he be legally tried for this. The whole slave worker thing was another matter of course but almost nobody was prosecuted for stuff like that anyway..

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]