3 ms·

Was Germany a part of any such treaty? Or was it inappropriate for those Nazis to be held accountable for their crimes?

Veen 1y ago
The Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.
SllX 1y ago
Germany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “no” before you apply your own justice, but we’re still going to do everything in our power to defend ourselves.
- jeremyjh 1y ago
  What does that have to do with what is appropriate?
  - SllX 1y ago
    I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary. Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continued existence of the German State was in jeopardy, and probably the only way it could continue to exist in any form even after being divided was to go through the Nuremberg Trials first. Don’t forget Stalin and the USSR was out for blood and new additions to the Eastern Bloc.
    - jeremyjh 1y ago
      Those are reasons it was feasible. It was appropriate for moral reasons, and the same is true of US leaders.
      - SllX 1y ago
        I would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure. > and the same is true of US leaders. The thing is, there isn’t enough in the way of shared morality between nations of the world to make this claim. From our perspective, the POTUS is imbued with the power to deal with foreign nations, and this includes both diplomatic and war functions, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to America. That’s what he is elected for, so imposing the ICC’s international justice on our elected leaders is in essence the same as trying to impose a foreign justice on America. We have our own laws, and govern our military with our own code of justice passed by our Congress, therefore we cannot abide by the ICC’s infringement on our sovereignty, nor will we tolerate a threat from it against our elected leaders.
    - freeopinion 1y ago
      You are becoming incoherent. By your own argument, the Nuremberg trials were not necessary. Anybody lacking the military might to defy the U.S. can be summarily executed without a trial. Anybody enjoying the support of the U.S. military is exempt from any courtroom regardless of their actions. Then here you write that Nurenmberg was appropriate and necessary. You don't seem to be able to hold the thread of your own argument.
      - SllX 1y ago
        If the alternative was to leave Germany to the Soviet wolves, allow France to colonize it, or disregard the events of the Holocaust and not thoroughly document what occurred, how, and under whose orders, then it was necessary. If you don’t care about any of that, sure, you can make the argument the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary, but I’m not going to be the one to do it. Do note that the key difference between America in 2025 and Germany in 1945 is that we’re not a diminished State without really any sovereignty left to claim and haven’t recently invaded pretty much the entirety of Europe with the intention of subsuming it into a greater Empire and spent the last 4 years systematically destroying the entire Jewish population therein. That’s some important context and shouldn’t be overlooked in your zeal to put American Presidents on trial.

Veen 1y ago

The Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.

SllX 1y ago

Germany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “no” before you apply your own justice, but we’re still going to do everything in our power to defend ourselves.

jeremyjh 1y ago
What does that have to do with what is appropriate?
- SllX 1y ago
  I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary. Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continued existence of the German State was in jeopardy, and probably the only way it could continue to exist in any form even after being divided was to go through the Nuremberg Trials first. Don’t forget Stalin and the USSR was out for blood and new additions to the Eastern Bloc.
  - jeremyjh 1y ago
    Those are reasons it was feasible. It was appropriate for moral reasons, and the same is true of US leaders.
    - SllX 1y ago
      I would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure. > and the same is true of US leaders. The thing is, there isn’t enough in the way of shared morality between nations of the world to make this claim. From our perspective, the POTUS is imbued with the power to deal with foreign nations, and this includes both diplomatic and war functions, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to America. That’s what he is elected for, so imposing the ICC’s international justice on our elected leaders is in essence the same as trying to impose a foreign justice on America. We have our own laws, and govern our military with our own code of justice passed by our Congress, therefore we cannot abide by the ICC’s infringement on our sovereignty, nor will we tolerate a threat from it against our elected leaders.
  - freeopinion 1y ago
    You are becoming incoherent. By your own argument, the Nuremberg trials were not necessary. Anybody lacking the military might to defy the U.S. can be summarily executed without a trial. Anybody enjoying the support of the U.S. military is exempt from any courtroom regardless of their actions. Then here you write that Nurenmberg was appropriate and necessary. You don't seem to be able to hold the thread of your own argument.
    - SllX 1y ago
      If the alternative was to leave Germany to the Soviet wolves, allow France to colonize it, or disregard the events of the Holocaust and not thoroughly document what occurred, how, and under whose orders, then it was necessary. If you don’t care about any of that, sure, you can make the argument the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary, but I’m not going to be the one to do it. Do note that the key difference between America in 2025 and Germany in 1945 is that we’re not a diminished State without really any sovereignty left to claim and haven’t recently invaded pretty much the entirety of Europe with the intention of subsuming it into a greater Empire and spent the last 4 years systematically destroying the entire Jewish population therein. That’s some important context and shouldn’t be overlooked in your zeal to put American Presidents on trial.