Nazi Doctor "Honored"

[General Zod]

I did do some research, I was asking others on their opinions and if they had other info.

The fact that you didn't bother providing any examples makes your "research" claim extremely dubious. How about you do some actual research, form your own opinion and then get back to us instead of relying on other people doing the work for you?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Certainly the entire nature of the tribunal as the levying of ex post facto charges against the Nazi leadership and rank and file was quite illegal, with no genuine legal tradition anywhere in the world supporting it, and rather immoral as well: The Crimes did not exist yet, so the Nazis had no idea that they could be charged for them. That laughs in the face of any idea of a genuine rule of law, and as the main argument against Nuremburg.

My solution was the same as what Churchill had proposed for the high ranking Nazis--he wanted Acts Attainder passed in Parliament for those in British custody, sentencing them by vote of Parliament to summary execution. The Soviets certainly could have done the same, dispensing with the need to construct fictitious crimes by which to charge people.

[Kanastrous]

The Crimes did not exist yet,

If premeditated murder is a crime when committed against one person, it doesn't seem to be breaking much new ground, to regard premeditated murder committed against large numbers of people, as a crime too.

so the Nazis had no idea that they could be charged for them.

I can't quote offhand, but Hitler and Goebbels both recorded an awareness that if Germany lost the war, they would likely be tried and executed as criminals. Seems they had an idea, all right.

[Stark]

I think she means things like 'planning to conduct offensive action against another state' and such, things every military officer in every country do all the time. Some of the things Nuremburg charged Germans with were very strange from the 'it's only bad if you're German' perspective, particularly when they never did it for the Japanese too.

It's not like, as Zeon says, these people could've been executed or punished without the rigamarole. While dealing with war criminals and Nazis was a lofty goal, Nuremburg was definately a court of the victors and many penalties were politically driven rather than anything else, especially given Operation Paperclip etc.

[Warsie]

The fact that you didn't bother providing any examples makes your "research" claim extremely dubious.

here then, the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_ ... _the_court

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If premeditated murder is a crime when committed against one person, it doesn't seem to be breaking much new ground, to regard premeditated murder committed against large numbers of people, as a crime too.

Sure, charge them with premeditated murder if you want to bother with legal formalities (why you would, I don't know--how could shooting Auschwitz guards be immoral in any circumstance? If you can establish they were assigned there, execution should follow as a matter of course. You shouldn't have to prove specific crimes against people assigned to operate extermination camps.

I can't quote offhand, but Hitler and Goebbels both recorded an awareness that if Germany lost the war, they would likely be tried and executed as criminals. Seems they had an idea, all right.

Only after the war was clearly lost--Hitler made no such statements until his last months of life in 1945. And he was aware of that because the allies had by that time agreed that such charges would be made. He had no idea that he could be held liable for offensive war in, say, 1939 when he actually committed the crime, you see? That's the key thing.

At any rate, they were chargeable with numerous offences under German law--the Weimar constitution was usurped, etc, etc, so they could all be charged with treason to the Weimar Republic, which is an interesting tact to think about it in terms of dealing with postwar Germany. But this "conspiracy to wage offensive war" crap was simply Victor's Justice with no real standing.

The point being that people like this shouldn't need to (or deserve to) get a trial--Nazi doctors who signed forms sending kids to extermination camps for having disabilities should be taken out back and have a bullet put in their head, and then we take the person who pulled the trigger out for dinner and a beer.

[TC Pilot]

Some of the things Nuremburg charged Germans with were very strange from the 'it's only bad if you're German' perspective, particularly when they never did it for the Japanese too.

The American occupation certainly conducted war crime trials, going so far as to execute former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and several generals, and at least several hundred high-to-low ranking Japanese (I remember they went so far as to put a nurse on trial in John Dower's Embracing Defeat) though clear war criminals like the Emperor and the psychopaths in Unit 731 never faced trial, and the Reverse Course essentially exonerated war criminals like later-Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke

[K. A. Pital]

Weren't there some people who complained that Nuremburg was one-sided and biased?

You mean Holocaust deniers, presumably, right? "Biased" my ass. It was a form of victor's justice, but it was a trial with shitloads of criminal evidence: something that the Germans did not really do for the nations they openly exterminated.

But not all of them were and not all of its members were there voluntarily

Read the Charge and Indictment for Nuremberg. It was accounted for: in case a person was forcibly drafted with zero choice in the SS, and did not take part in War Crimes, he can be aquitted.

particularly when they never did it for the Japanese too

Tokio Process. There were trials.

And people who refer to Wikipedia as proof of NMT being "invalid" need to seriously reconsider just WHY they are posting here.

But this "conspiracy to wage offensive war" crap was simply Victor's Justice with no real standing.

Yeah. I mean, attacking 3 major world powers (US, Britain, USSR) and countless other nations, with eventual plans featuring world conquest is just par the course. Nothing unusual.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But this "conspiracy to wage offensive war" crap was simply Victor's Justice with no real standing.

:roll: Yeah. I mean, attacking 3 major world powers (US, Britain, USSR) and countless other nations, with eventual plans featuring world conquest is just par the course. Nothing unusual.

Maybe it should have been a crime, but it wasn't at the time of the conspiracy, which is my objection.

Didn't we have enough to execute them all with anyway? Why harm the legitimacy of the trials by adding in ex post facto illegalities?

[Stark]

The American occupation certainly conducted war crime trials, going so far as to execute former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and several generals, and at least several hundred high-to-low ranking Japanese (I remember they went so far as to put a nurse on trial in John Dower's Embracing Defeat) though clear war criminals like the Emperor and the psychopaths in Unit 731 never faced trial, and the Reverse Course essentially exonerated war criminals like later-Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke

I didn't know that, thanks.

[Adrian Laguna]

The point being that people like this shouldn't need to (or deserve to) get a trial--Nazi doctors who signed forms sending kids to extermination camps for having disabilities should be taken out back and have a bullet put in their head, and then we take the person who pulled the trigger out for dinner and a beer.

While a trial where the accused can defend himself may not be necessary, or even desirable, in all cases, going straight to execution is unwisely hasty. A tribunal should review each case (note, cases may involve more than one individual), and be given the power to do one of four things: order an execution, order a trial, free the accused, or defer the case to a later date.

If nothing else the filing of appropriate paperwork should ensure that any action taken, including execution, can be defended if challenged.

[K. A. Pital]

The point being that people like this shouldn't need to (or deserve to) get a trial

Why would you deny trial to a murderer? It is a generic procedure; and it shows a respect for the process. Killing without trial and any process is something we charged the Nazis with; should we really stoop to the same level?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The point being that people like this shouldn't need to (or deserve to) get a trial

Why would you deny trial to a murderer? It is a generic procedure; and it shows a respect for the process. Killing without trial and any process is something we charged the Nazis with; should we really stoop to the same level?

The entire organization was so systematically guilty of immense crimes that the organization as a whole could be tried and all of its members subjected to the same punishment. The SS Medical Corps, responsible for horrifying experiments on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, surely qualifies in that regard? I mean, it's not like we need to then kill everyone in the SS--but all the camp guards? I certainly think membership in the SS-Totenkopfverbände warrants summary execution by definition.

[The Yosemite Bear]

ok, that's almost as bad as if they tried to give awards to the Mengele family...

[K. A. Pital]

The entire organization was so systematically guilty of immense crimes that the organization as a whole could be tried and all of its members subjected to the same punishment

It was tried as a whole, but since there was a consideration for involuntary draft still, members had to undergo individual trials.

I certainly think membership in the SS-Totenkopfverbände warrants summary execution by definition.

Well, sure. In some ways we might have been too soft.

[Mange]

Yeah. I mean, attacking 3 major world powers (US, Britain, USSR) and countless other nations, with eventual plans featuring world conquest is just par the course. Nothing unusual.

And which country enabled Hitler to start the war? The USSR.

[Mange]

And to be clear, Stas. That wasn't intended as an insult, but just as a simple statement. One dictator offered the other dictator something he couldn't refuse.

[Pelranius]

Well, using that logic, it's also the fault of Chamberlain and who ever was in charge of France in 1938/39 as well. Munich was their stupid idea (negotiating in diplomacy works, but only if the other guy isn't a complete lunatic.)

[Mange]

Well, using that logic, it's also the fault of Chamberlain and who ever was in charge of France in 1938/39 as well. Munich was their stupid idea (negotiating in diplomacy works, but only if the other guy isn't a complete lunatic.)

Yes, the appeasement policies were also aiding Germany, but once the appeasement politics ended and the U.K. and France started negotiating with Stalin to prevent Hitler from seizing the corridor, Stalin instead took Hitler's bait which gave half of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland (which the Soviets failed to conquer) to the Soviet Union.

[K. A. Pital]

And which country enabled Hitler to start the war? The USSR.

You mean Hitler didn't annex Austria and Czechoslovakia with screeching' USSR running around and Britain and France doing nothing (or even legalizing Hitler's behaviour in case of Czechoslovakia)? Or that the Pilsudski-Hitler pact to carve up Czechoslovakia between buddy-buddy Hitler and Poland did not exist, as a precursor and the very real foreshadow of the M-R pact?

I don't like holier than thou people.

Yes, the appeasement policies were also aiding Germany, but once the appeasement politics ended and the U.K. and France started negotiating with Stalin to prevent Hitler from seizing the corridor, Stalin instead took Hitler's bait which gave half of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland (which the Soviets failed to conquer) to the Soviet Union.

No-no-no. Wait. The Franco-British-Soviet talks failed in 1938-1939 - THAT is why the USSR turned to Germany. And why did they fail? Because both parties - the USSR and Britain/France could not agree. Both were at fault in the failure; Britain and France said passage of Soviet forces through Poland and Romania is disallowed (making the "pact" meaningless), and sent diplomats who had no authority to sign anything; the USSR officials were frustrated and turned to Germany instead.

Of course I'm not blaming the 1939 talks failure on them alone, but they do share a fraction of the blame.

Stalin instead took Hitler's bait which gave half of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland (which the Soviets failed to conquer) to the Soviet Union.

A nonagression pact to create a buffer zone; I guess Hitler did know how dire straits was the USSR position. Even Churchill recognized that without the Pact, Hitler's attack position against the USSR would've been far more favourable; and the USSR had absolutely no guarantees from France or Britain that they'd support Soviet side, not German side. Zero. Zilch.

[Mange]

And which country enabled Hitler to start the war? The USSR.

You mean Hitler didn't annex Austria and Czechoslovakia with screeching' USSR running around and Britain and France doing nothing (or even legalizing Hitler's behaviour in case of Czechoslovakia)? Or that the Pilsudski-Hitler pact to carve up Czechoslovakia between buddy-buddy Hitler and Poland did not exist, as a precursor and the very real foreshadow of the M-R pact?

I don't like holier than thou people.

I have no problems with you other than you sometime keeps your blinders on. I have the greatest respect for you and your knowledge.

Yes, the appeasement policies were also aiding Germany, but once the appeasement politics ended and the U.K. and France started negotiating with Stalin to prevent Hitler from seizing the corridor, Stalin instead took Hitler's bait which gave half of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland (which the Soviets failed to conquer) to the Soviet Union.

No-no-no. Wait. The Franco-British-Soviet talks failed in 1938-1939 - THAT is why the USSR turned to Germany. And why did they fail? Because both parties - the USSR and Britain/France could not agree. Both were at fault in the failure; Britain and France said passage of Soviet forces through Poland and Romania is disallowed (making the "pact" meaningless), and sent diplomats who had no authority to sign anything; the USSR officials were frustrated and turned to Germany instead.[/quote]
Oh please. What "officials" are you talking about? There were only one kind of officials: Those acting according to Stalin's wishes. Furthermore, the Franco-British-Soviet talks were still ongoing when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was sealed (and the Soviet Union had had secret discussions with the Germans since early spring 1939). And why would France and the U.K. accept the completely unacceptable terms that the Soviet Union put forward when their aim was to safeguard the independence of another country? (The Soviets demanded the Baltic states, for example.)

Of course I'm not blaming the 1939 talks failure on them alone, but they do share a fraction of the blame.

You should put a larger blame on Stalin and his ambitions.

Stalin instead took Hitler's bait which gave half of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland (which the Soviets failed to conquer) to the Soviet Union.

A nonagression pact to create a buffer zone; I guess Hitler did know how dire straits was the USSR position. Even Churchill recognized that without the Pact, Hitler's attack position against the USSR would've been far more favourable; and the USSR had absolutely no guarantees from France or Britain that they'd support Soviet side, not German side. Zero. Zilch.[/quote]
Ah yes, here comes the old after-the-fact-construction again. While I would agree that the creation of buffer zones is an old Russian tactic, it's naive to claim that it was that Stalin wanted. The Soviet Union had already made clear what they wanted: They wanted to annex neighboring countries and the Soviet Union drew up the spheres of influence together with Germany and, which we discussed earlier, aided the German war machine.

Hitler of course never had any intentions to upheld the treaty and it's doubtful that the Soviet Union did which, after the fall of France in 1940, saw an opportunity (the Zhukov plan developed by Zhukov and Timoshenko).

[K. A. Pital]

Oh please. What "officials" are you talking about? There were only one kind of officials: Those acting according to Stalin's wishes. Furthermore, the Franco-British-Soviet talks were still ongoing when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was sealed (and the Soviet Union had had secret discussions with the Germans since early spring 1939). And why would France and the U.K. accept the completely unacceptable terms that the Soviet Union put forward when their aim was to safeguard the independence of another country? (The Soviets demanded the Baltic states, for example.)

Some stuff to ponder.

After the German Danzig ultimatum, Britain seeks abilities for collective counteraction against Germany. 21 March. Seeds gives Litvinov a project declaration, which was to be signed by USSR, England, France and Poland.

"We, heresigned, having the authority to claim so, state that because peace and security in Europe are a common interest and because European peace and security can be impacted by any actions, constituting a threat against sovereignity of any European nation, our governments are obliged to immediately counsel about the actions which must be taken for common defense against such actions".

It was assumed Romania, Turkey and Greece join. The USSR agreed to sign it in case Poland and Romania sign it too. But by 29 March it became clear the plan fails. Romania and Poland - the last categorically - claimed that they will not enter any collective defense agreement if it also includes the USSR. Also they were not satisfied with "consulting", they wanted clear military guarantees. 1st april the declaration issue was buried officially. Forever.

Later on the USSR presented projects and France and Britain did. The difference between them was NOT what you claim; the idea that USSR "demanded" other nations to be ruled is fucking preposterous.

The USSR proposed that the list of sovereign nations for a joint defense agreement be solidified. And a military pact made too.

The military pact issue was crucial; Britain and France did not want to get into a possible war; especially if that war could be between USSR and one or another of it's western neighbors. The USSR demanded that the list of nations for joint protection included it's entier borderline: Poland, Romania, etc. etc. Brtain and France wanted to either leave it vague or limit protection rules to Poland and Romania. It's understandable - they had already given guarantees to those two nations and only sought to secure them by a pact with USSR; whereas the USSR followed its own objections - securing the ENTIER border, and it didn't give a shit about Britain's and France will to limit the pact to Poland and Romania.

You should put a larger blame on Stalin and his ambitions.

You should not make false claims that the USSR demanded that any sovereign nations be annexed or administered by the USSR during the talks. That's not "putting blame on Stalin", that's inventing things out of thin air - which is silly considering the huge amount of real stuff you could accuse the USSR of.

The Soviet Union had already made clear what they wanted: They wanted to annex neighboring countries

Please provide evidence that the USSR demanded the annexion of the Baltics during the Franco-British-Soviet tripartite talks in 1938-1939.

and, which we discussed earlier, aided the German war machine.

More like politically secured Germany's Eastern borders. Yes, it's pretty deplorable, but the appeasement policy in 1938 shares a lot of the blame for it; the USSR could no longer trust either France or Britain (not that it really ever trusted them to begin with) - and here was a cause for yet greater distrust.

[Mange]

Oh please. What "officials" are you talking about? There were only one kind of officials: Those acting according to Stalin's wishes. Furthermore, the Franco-British-Soviet talks were still ongoing when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was sealed (and the Soviet Union had had secret discussions with the Germans since early spring 1939). And why would France and the U.K. accept the completely unacceptable terms that the Soviet Union put forward when their aim was to safeguard the independence of another country? (The Soviets demanded the Baltic states, for example.)

Some stuff to ponder.

After the German Danzig ultimatum, Britain seeks abilities for collective counteraction against Germany. 21 March. Seeds gives Litvinov a project declaration, which was to be signed by USSR, England, France and Poland.

"We, heresigned, having the authority to claim so, state that because peace and security in Europe are a common interest and because European peace and security can be impacted by any actions, constituting a threat against sovereignity of any European nation, our governments are obliged to immediately counsel about the actions which must be taken for common defense against such actions".

It was assumed Romania, Turkey and Greece join. The USSR agreed to sign it in case Poland and Romania sign it too. But by 29 March it became clear the plan fails. Romania and Poland - the last categorically - claimed that they will not enter any collective defense agreement if it also includes the USSR. Also they were not satisfied with "consulting", they wanted clear military guarantees. 1st april the declaration issue was buried officially. Forever.

Later on the USSR presented projects and France and Britain did. The difference between them was NOT what you claim; the idea that USSR "demanded" other nations to be ruled is fucking preposterous.

That is in effect what the Soviets demanded. They demanded that other countries would be offered guarantees in the form of Soviet troops against the will of said countries. If a country refused, then the Soviet Union demanded that such a country should become forcibly occupied. I don't know about you, but I don't find it the least bit strange that France and the U.K. didn't trust Stalin enough to let Poland and Romania become occupied by Soviet troops (and Poland was not willing to allow Soviet troops on Polish soil, the situation was the same with Romania).

Another of Molotov's demands was that any deal with the U.K. and France would have to include an "indirect aggression" clause involving the Baltic states which would give the Soviet Union the right to occupy them if they adopted any policy which the Soviet Union would interpret as hostile (of course, this rather lame excuse was what Stalin used the year later when the SU invaded and annexed the Baltic states).[1]


However, the British ambassador to Poland, Kennard, was given instructions as late as August 18, 1939 to press the Polish Foreign Minister Beck on the issue. Of course, this was all worked out after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the USSR was free to march into the Baltic states, Finland (which was not too keen on the idea to become a Soviet satellite) and Bessarabia.

You should put a larger blame on Stalin and his ambitions.

You should not make false claims that the USSR demanded that any sovereign nations be annexed or administered by the USSR during the talks. That's not "putting blame on Stalin", that's inventing things out of thin air - which is silly considering the huge amount of real stuff you could accuse the USSR of.

It's not a false claim (even though perhaps "annexation" was too strong a word). The Soviet Union wanted to be given the right to say to for example Romania that "If you don't accept Soviet troops on your territory, your country will be invaded and you will be forced to accept those troops."

and, which we discussed earlier, aided the German war machine.

More like politically secured Germany's Eastern borders. Yes, it's pretty deplorable, but the appeasement policy in 1938 shares a lot of the blame for it; the USSR could no longer trust either France or Britain (not that it really ever trusted them to begin with) - and here was a cause for yet greater distrust.

Unfortunately, yes. What was also a serious contributing factor to the breakdown was the U.K.'s skepticism towards the Soviet Union.

[1] Crowe, Jr., David M., Great Britain and the Baltic States pp 178

Watson D., Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 52, no. 4 June 2000

[K. A. Pital]

They demanded that other countries would be offered guarantees in the form of Soviet troops

Allied troops. The USSR pushed for a full alliance; a-la Entente, with full military obligations for each member.

Also, that would only apply in case of a nation-state attacking those states, it was the "passage rule" (allowance for Soviet troops to pass over Poland and Romania to combat the enemy).

What the Voroshilov notes for the last round of speeches said? This is an internal document; it shows pretty well the situation:

- If the French or British still insist on negotiations, move the negotiations to the principial questions, mostly the question of free passage of our forces through the Vilensk corridor, Halycia and Romania.
- If it becomes clear that free passage of our forces through Poland or Romania is impossible in any case, state, that without this clause the agreement is impossible, since without a free passage rule the defense against agression in Europe is doomed to fail, and we will not take part in a mission that is doomed to fail.

Note that at this point Voroshilov did not even give a fuck about inclusion of the Baltics in the "passage zone", only about allowing passage to combat in Europe through very clear designated territories.

I'd say it's pretty clear that the USSR was driven by selfish security concerns, regardless of small nations wishes of course, and totally oblivious to their sovereignity issues, but they were security concerns.

Another of Molotov's demands was that any deal with the
U.K. and France would have to include an "indirect aggression" clause involving the Baltic states which would give the Soviet Union the right to occupy them if they adopted any policy which the Soviet Union would interpret as hostile

The "indirect aggression" clause was understood by the British and French delegates as "actions, which the stated nation gave consent to under threat of force from another nation and which are connected to a loss of independence or neutrality by this nation". The USSR statement did not allow for "under threat of force": "indirect agression means an action which any of the aforementioned nations agrees to under threat of force against this nation or without this threat, and which leads to the use of the territories and forces of this state into an agression against it or any of the consenting parties - meaning a loss of sovereignity or neutrality by this nation".

France agreed at this point; Britain did not. It assumed that the USSR could use this clause to force Britain into a conflict between USSR and any of it's Western neighbors.

It's funny, considering how just a tad later, without ANY qualms, now buddy-buddy, Britain and USSR easily jointly invaded and controlled Iran. Indeed, such are the ways of diplomacy.

[Big Orange]

The core of the Waffen-SS (especially it’s more nastier formations like the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf) being deservedly written off as a criminal organisation does not surprise or upset me, but on the other hand why was the Wehrmacht not condemned in the same fashion when many of it’s officers and soldiers acted as enablers, accomplices and perpetrators of many Nazi atrocities? Of course whole sections of the Wehrmacht were not entirely in tune with the National Socialists, but not all members of the Waffen-SS were technically Nazi Party members either and that does not really exonerate them if they directly perpetrated war crimes.

As for Japan, it was mistake to keep the Emperor on his throne and retain their bushido cult (where the ashes of IJ war criminals are ritually honoured by thousands to this day) and the infamous research outfits like Unit 731 being makes little post-war sense (unlike taking in rocket or aircraft technicians from Germany) if Unit 731 peddled the same sort of junk medical “science” as the SS sanctioned doctors.