Wars and Conflicts听 permalink
Nuremberg Trials
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Sunday, 9th October 2005
A fascinating chapter in 20th century history from the POV of an American. Correct me if I鈥檓 wrong: When the war ended, 22 members of the Nazi High Command were apprehended and put on trial for crimes against humanity. One defendant committed suicide in his cell before the trails started. The trials lasted from 1945 to 1949.
One account I read remarked at the very ordinary nature of the Nuremberg defendants. The 鈥渂anality of evil鈥 it said. Far from depraved monsters they were 鈥榗ivilized gentlemen鈥 who appreciated fine art, music and literature and loved their wives and children.
Their consistent rationalization for slaughtering millions: 鈥淲e were following orders from our superiors鈥. The finding of the tribunal was that every man is answerable to a higher voice, i.e., his conscience.
Were all the defendants members of the German military? Was there, in the Third Reich, a clear distinction between military and civilian?
What were the respective roles of the USA and UK at Nuremberg? I鈥檝e heard that although Britain suffered more at the hands of the Nazi鈥檚, the Americans were more eager to 鈥渟ee blood鈥 in retribution.
What about the Soviet Union, our former WWII ally which quick became our Cold War adversary?
One of the defendants, Herman Goering I believe, remarked, 鈥淭he only reason we are on trial is because we lost the war.鈥 Is this a valid assessment?
Has the Nuremberg decision come back to haunt us? Us Yanks (Brits too?) are always being urged to 鈥渟upport our troops鈥 fighting in Iraq even if you don鈥檛 agree with the foreign policies that put them there. Can this be done in the shadow of Nuremberg? -
Message 2
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 9th October 2005
"Has the Nuremberg decision come back to haunt us? Us Yanks (Brits too?) are always being urged to 鈥渟upport our troops鈥 fighting in Iraq even if you don鈥檛 agree with the foreign policies that put them there. Can this be done in the shadow of Nuremberg?"
As well you know when asked to "Support our troops" does not mean "support the policies that put them there" or "support the war crimes committed in Abu Ghraib.
It means support our fellow men and women who are half way around the world fighting for our way of life and Iraq/Afghanistan's freedom. It doesn't mean lets rip off their oil, as some have suggested is our motive.
It would seem to me on occasion that the biggest whiners are from countries that were asking, where's the Yanks, where's the Yanks, when it was THEIR freedom being threatened.
The Nuremberg defendants were on trial for their crimes against humanity. Many Germans were good hard fighters who killed plenty of our service members. That is not a war crime.That is why they were not put on trial. Any American soldier has the legal right to refuse an illegal order. All American service members are schooled on the Geneva Convention.
The "Shadow of Nuremberg " is, commit a war crime and you will suffer the consequences. -
Message 3
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 10th October 2005
Nuremburg was primarily run on the basis of charging the Nazis with waging aggressive war - contrary to the 1926 Treaty outlawing it. It also struck down the Nazi defence on the invasion of Norway - they claimed "preemptive self-defence" - as a figleaf to cover aggression.
Bush and Blair should thus be on trial for the same thing in Iraq. The US refusal to submit to the ICC also makes a mockeryt of their claims about spreading "freedom and justice". -
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 10th October 2005
Hi Expat,
"All American service members are schooled on the Geneva Convention."
The reality of the Second World War is somewhat different to this statement, they may well have been schooled on it, but didn't follow it.
Just as with British Servicemen, the Geneva Convention was impractical, or just ignored in the field.
My Fathers old RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) was on Sword beach in the first several waves, I had met this chap several times and chatted with him. He personally slit the throat of German POW's as they just didn't know what to do with them.
There are numerous accounts of allied troops ignoring the GC/
SS troops were executed out of hand by most of the allies.
In the Pacific campaign, there was an unofficial policy of 'No prisoners' particularly after Guandalcanal.
Had the result of the War been different, Allied troops would have been convicted of violations of the GC, and various articles of war just as Axis troops were and to think otherwise is a bit naive I think?? -
Message 5
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 10th October 2005
Hi trouveur,
I think it's important to note that many of the Charges the various individuals faced were created specifically for the Nurnberg Trials.
"Were all the defendants members of the German military? "
No, Albert Spear, for example was the armaments minister.
"What about the Soviet Union, our former WWII ally which quick became our Cold War adversary?" The soviets were less that benevolent to Axis POW's, from the 91鈥000 or so captured at Stalingrad, 6'000 saw Germany again. The War in the east was a far more brutal affair, the Norm was to shoot prisoners out of hand.
"One of the defendants, Herman Goering I believe, remarked, 鈥淭he only reason we are on trial is because we lost the war.鈥 Is this a valid assessment?" A completely correct and logical statement. Regardless of the Morality we now consider applicable to the Nurnberg trials, had the Axis won, it would have been 'Bomber' Harris, Winston Churchill etal on trial, and as I said, many of the charges were created for the trial.
"Has the Nuremberg decision come back to haunt us? Us Yanks (Brits too?) are always being urged to 鈥渟upport our troops鈥 fighting in Iraq even if you don鈥檛 agree with the foreign policies that put them there. Can this be done in the shadow of Nuremberg?"
Supporting the troops and supporting the government鈥檚 actions are not the same thing. The troops are everyday people just like yourself, they are there at the bequest of the lawfully, democratically elected government - They have no choice (Although they would have know that Conflict is a possibility when joining up). The legality of their actions once in the field is separate from the legality of the Governments decision to send them there (IMO) -
Message 6
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 10th October 2005
"My Fathers old RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) was on Sword beach in the first several waves, I had met this chap several times and chatted with him. He personally slit the throat of German POW's as they just didn't know what to do with them."
I don't get that at all. There were LCI's coming and going for days on Sword. What he did was the work of a coward. His choice of weapon hints at his character IMO.
He for sure wasn't alone. Unfortunately every army has his sort. To kill a guy with his hands up in the heat of battle I can begin to understand.
"In the Pacific campaign, there was an unofficial policy of 'No prisoners' particularly after Guandalcanal."
Sad but true. It should also be said that the Japanese were not big on surrendering. If a Japanese soldier surrendered, and was able bodied he had an agenda.
"Had the result of the War been different, Allied troops would have been convicted of violations of the GC, and various articles of war just as Axis troops were and to think otherwise is a bit naive I think??"
I agree. -
Message 7
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi Expat,
鈥淚 don't get that at all. There were LCI's coming and going for days on Sword. What he did was the work of a coward. His choice of weapon hints at his character IMO.鈥
He was either in the first wave, or the second and didn鈥檛 have the time and wasn鈥檛 in a position to deal with POW鈥檚 鈥 Red caps wouldn鈥檛 have arrived until the beach was secure, at this time they were still taking the beach. US troops did much the same on Utah and Omaha.
In regards to using a knife, he was light infantry, so only had a limited amount of ammunition, and as he was in the first couple of waves, wouldn鈥檛 have known whether a counter-attack would have been expected, or if there were guaranteed ammunition supplies readily available; Knowing that, using a knife is the most logical choice? Does it really matter as to which method was used?
Having met this fella several times and spoken to him in depth, I can assure you a coward is one thing that he wasn鈥檛. You can鈥檛 get to the position of RSM in the parachute regiment by being a coward. He was a highly decorated, highly revered utterly professional soldier who was as hard as a coffin nail.
鈥淗e for sure wasn't alone. Unfortunately every army has his sort. To kill a guy with his hands up in the heat of battle I can begin to understand.鈥 I agree with you, civvies who real off sections of the Geneva convention generally have no conception of what battle is actually like鈥
Sad but true. It should also be said that the Japanese were not big on surrendering. If a Japanese soldier surrendered, and was able bodied he had an agenda. Again, I agree, was it Tinian where the Allies took 1 live prisoner (And he was badly wounded) from a garrison of 6000 plus?
I remember seeing a documentary about Nimitz鈥 Island hopping campaign, there was an instance when a Lance Corporal (Sorry, can鈥檛 remember the US equivalent) brought a Japanese prisoner to his CO, his CO 鈥榳ent ape鈥 told him to take the prisoner to HQ (Which was 30 minutes drive away), and hinted he expected him back in 15 minutes, the soldier took the Japanese prisoner into the woods, and shot him. What people fail to appreciate is the utter hatred that people had towards to enemy during this conflict in particular. They sit at home with no idea of what happens to people and during wars. We are neither worthy, or in a position to judge these men for what they did, especially by today鈥檚 standards, which many people seem to do. -
Message 8
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Supporting the troops and supporting the government鈥檚 actions are not the same thing. The troops are everyday people just like yourself, they are there at the bequest of the lawfully, democratically elected government - They have no choice (Although they would have know that Conflict is a possibility when joining up). The legality of their actions once in the field is separate from the legality of the Governments decision to send them there (IMO).听
The Nuremberg defendants were all high ranking military officers, plus Spear who was a civilian but a highly placed minister of Hitler鈥檚 cabinet. Nobody below the rank of colonel (again, correct me if I鈥檓 wrong). And yet there were hoards of German lieutenants, sergeants and privates鈥攔ank and file grunts like you and me鈥攚ho carried out the atrocities 鈥渂ecause they were ordered.鈥
Where along the chain of command does responsibility for one鈥檚 own actions stop?
I remember during the Vietnam era, thousands of young American draftees refused induction into the service on grounds of conscience. They did so at great risk. Veterans returning from 鈥楴am were often greeted with shouts of 鈥渂aby killer鈥 from war protestors. Sentiment was strong that the war was immoral, and all those who participated, from the President on down, were culpable.
You don鈥檛 hear that today vis-脿-vis Iraq. Conventional wisdom is 鈥淓ven if you don鈥檛 support the war, you can still support the warrior.鈥 It鈥檚 okay to condemn the likes of Bush and Cheney but not the individual man or woman in uniform toting a gun in the field because 鈥渢hey are only doing their job.鈥
Nuremberg. Where does the buck stop? -
Message 9
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi trouveur,
鈥淣uremberg. Where does the buck stop?鈥 Articles of war dictate the conduct of the individual soldier in the field, he is subject to them. A common view point via the new mediums available for war coverage was that the situation in Vietnam was somewhat different, as many people believed that soldiers en mass weren鈥檛 conducting themselves within the various articles of war as proved with William Calley etal.
鈥淭he Nuremberg defendants were all high ranking military officers, plus Spear who was a civilian but a highly placed minister of Hitler鈥檚 cabinet. Nobody below the rank of colonel (again, correct me if I鈥檓 wrong).鈥 Actually, many weren鈥檛 military personnel at all, the Nurmberg trials were in effect two separate trials, the first involving all leading Nazi鈥檚. the second more specifically to the 鈥楧eath doctors鈥 etc. Of those that weren鈥檛 military personnel were;
Rudolf Hess - Deputy to the Fuhrer and Nazi Party Leader Ernst Kaltenbrunner - Chief of RSHA, Konstantin von Neurath - Minister of Foreign Affairs (until 1938), then Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia, Franz Von Papen - Reich Chancellor prior to Hitler, Vice Chancellor under Hitler, Joachim von Ribbentrop - Foreign Minister, Wilhelm Frick - Minister of the Interior, Hans Fritzsche - Head of the Radio Division, Walther Funk - Minister of Economics, Alfred Rosenberg - Chief Nazi Phiosopher, Hjalmar Schacht - Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics before the War, Baldur von Schirach - Hitler Youth Leader, Arthur Seyss-Inquart - Austrian Chancellor, then Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, Julius Streicher - Editor of 鈥楧er Sturmer鈥
Then of course there is the 鈥楯ustice Trial鈥. The trial of sixteen defendants (members of the Reich Ministry of Justice or People's and Special Courts), raised the issue of what responsibility judges might have for enforcing unjust albeit binding laws
鈥淎nd yet there were hoards of German lieutenants, sergeants and privates鈥攔ank and file grunts like you and me鈥攚ho carried out the atrocities 鈥渂ecause they were ordered.鈥濃 And they were brought to trial, just not at Nurnberg.
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 hear that today vis-脿-vis Iraq. Conventional wisdom is 鈥淓ven if you don鈥檛 support the war, you can still support the warrior.鈥 It鈥檚 okay to condemn the likes of Bush and Cheney but not the individual man or woman in uniform toting a gun in the field because 鈥渢hey are only doing their job.鈥濃 Absolutely! The democratically elected government, the one that the majority of Brits, or Yanks as the case may be, voted for, orders them. It is not up to them where they serve, what they do, only how they do it.
鈥淲here along the chain of command does responsibility for one鈥檚 own actions stop?鈥 Every soldier, if it鈥檚 an un-lawful command, it is their duty to object, or make others aware that it is illigal. -
Message 10
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi Mani,
You for sure know more about this than I, but I think the first waves on Sword were Marines, 1st Bn South Lancs, and 2nd Bn The East Yorks.The British 6th Airborne were already inland kicking major butt before the first guy hit the beach. I'm sure sorry about your gun collection. I think the same happened in Australia.
Cheers. -
Message 11
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi Expat,
He wasn't in the Paras then, much like myself and my old man we started out in Infantry regiments, in our case, the King's regiment before 'Graduating' to the paras.
Incidentally, where are you an expat from? I take it you're living in the states somewhere? -
Message 12
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
鈥淎nd yet there were hoards of German lieutenants, sergeants and privates鈥攔ank and file grunts like you and me鈥攚ho carried out the atrocities 鈥渂ecause they were ordered.鈥濃 And they were brought to trial, just not at Nurnberg.听
I met a former SS *officer* who spent several years in a Russian prison after the war. But I鈥檝e never heard of enlisted men who were tried at Nuremberg or elsewhere. I always thought they just returned to civilian life. Some even emigrated to the US or UK.
The democratically elected government, the one that the majority of Brits, or Yanks as the case may be, voted for, orders them. It is not up to them where they serve, what they do, only how they do it.听
But suppose it鈥檚 the 鈥榳here鈥 and the 鈥榳hat鈥 that they consider objectionable? As Norman Schwartzkopf said, regarding some of the US Army鈥檚 tactics in Desert Storm, 鈥淭here鈥檚 no nice way of killing people.
鈥淲here along the chain of command does responsibility for one鈥檚 own actions stop?鈥 Every soldier, if it鈥檚 an un-lawful command, it is their duty to object, or make others aware that it is illegal听
Then it would seem the onus of responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the grunts. If a foot-soldier knows a command to be illegal (i.e. counter to GC), but follows it rather than object, then he/she can be held accountable.
鈥淏ut without him how would Hitler have condemned them at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone.
He's the one who gives his body as a weapon to a war
And without him all this killing can't go on鈥
-excerpt from the song 鈥淭he Universal Soldier鈥 by Buffy St.Marie (circa 1963). -
Message 13
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi trouveur,
鈥淚 met a former SS *officer* who spent several years in a Russian prison after the war. But I鈥檝e never heard of enlisted men who were tried at Nuremberg or elsewhere. I always thought they just returned to civilian life. Some even emigrated to the US or UK鈥欌 The Nurmberg trials were specifically (In the case of the first trials) for leaders of the Nazi state. Many people think that the Nurmberg trials were the only ones. The rank and file were court martialed in specific War crimes courts, and served their sentence, or hung (If appropriate). Many members of the German military continued staying in Britain for many years after the war as effectively slave labour re-building Britain. After this period, many stayed on. When I was growing up in Manchester, the local mechanic, Junther, was an Ex-German POW, and of course there鈥檚 the legendary Bert Trautman 鈥 The Ex-Manchester City Goal keeper.
鈥淏ut suppose it鈥檚 the 鈥榳here鈥 and the 鈥榳hat鈥 that they consider objectionable? As Norman Schwartzkopf said, regarding some of the US Army鈥檚 tactics in Desert Storm, 鈥淭here鈥檚 no nice way of killing people.鈥 But there鈥檚 a legal way to kill someone, there鈥檚 a difference? In regards to the 鈥榳hat鈥 and 鈥榳here鈥, you have a point in a conscripted army, but in the case of the British Army, we are all volunteers, and are aware of what can, and will happen.
鈥淭hen it would seem the onus of responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the grunts. If a foot-soldier knows a command to be illegal (i.e. counter to GC), but follows it rather than object, then he/she can be held accountable.鈥 Not at all, if and order comes down the 鈥榗hain of command鈥 it鈥檚 up to everyone along it. Yes, if an individual falls foul of the GC or any articles of war, then the individual is responsible as well as those who issued the order, and as proved, for example in the case of Kurt Meyer in the 2nd World War, you are accountable for the actions of the men under your command.
鈥-excerpt from the song 鈥淭he Universal Soldier鈥 by Buffy St.Marie (circa 1963).鈥 I thought it was Donovan????
But still even still, and overly simplistic argument. Sometime, war is necessary, whether we like it or not. -
Message 14
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Hi Expat,
He wasn't in the Paras then, much like myself and my old man we started out in Infantry regiments, in our case, the King's regiment before 'Graduating' to the paras.听
Ok Mani, I have it now. I guess a guy would have to prove his worth in the infantry before being allowed to try out for an elite unit.
Incidentally, where are you an expat from? I take it you're living in the states somewhere?
听
Scottish by birth, American by choice, Texan by the Grace of God.
-
Message 15
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005
Scottish by birth, American by choice, Texan by the Grace of God听
Often seen on a truck bumper in Dallas:
"I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as quick as I could." -
Message 16
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005
Hi Expat,
There aren't many that could join the paras straight away, the standards are just too high, I pout in three years in the Kings before going for the Paras.
Ah, Scots family, much like myself. Texan by the Grace of God? I've been to Texas only the once mind, I found they had the same Pride (Bordering on arrogance) as we have in Manchester! -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 13th October 2005
Hi All,
Good discussion this one!
Just a few points to add regarding this topic.
With regards to the comment about enlisted men being charged with war crimes, there are numerous examples of individuals being tried for crimes against humanity, although sorry I can't remember any names off the top of my head-there was the female SS guard at Belsen who was executed for her part in the crimes there, and there were several similar examples.
With respect to the issue of POWs being shot, there are many examples of this happening on the allied side, yet there is the notorious example of the Ardennes Offensive 1944 (Battle of the Bulge) where SS troops under the command of Joachim Peiper killed dozens of US POWs during their advance. No doubt Peiper used the same defence of "we had nowhere to put them" in his trial (I think he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the War Crimes Tribunal), so you have to say that justice is decided by the victors in some instances, just as Goering claimed.
As a further note, Sir Arthur Harris made a statement after the war saying that had the Allies lost, he would have been the one on trial as a war criminal.
Cheers
DL
BTW Mani, you got that spot on, I would think the likelyhood of joining the Paras direct from being a civvy and passing the training is very slim indeed. Not sure what the figures are like these days, but when I joined up (89) we had 56 start basic in our troop, and only 23 of the original 56 made it through, I think about 5 back-squadded and the rest simply couldn't hack it, so you'd be looking at about 5 getting through doing basic then P Company straight after! -
Message 18
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 14th October 2005
Hi DL,
There were only seven of us that made it through P Company (Can't remember if that was the norm). I was quite surprised I did actually. I was the only 'large bloke' (I'm 6' 4" and a heavy build), so thought I was disadvantaged in that aspect. But all it came down to was the attitude of never giving up, regardless of what was happening, or what I felt like. Plus there was always the factor that my old man got through it , and he would have bragging rights should I have failed!
In regards to POW's being shot, as I said above, 'Panzer' Meyer (I think) was arrested for the murder of several Canadian POW's. Although Meyer himself never committed the murders, and there was sufficient evidence to suggest he never ordered them, he was charged because of the conduct of the men under his command. If I remember rightly, he was accused of giving the direct order, although the evidence was given by a Pole who deserted from the German Army, and considered 'dubious' -
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 14th October 2005
Morning Mani,
I reckon that stubbornness is always the key to getting through any military courses, with basic it was a case of sticking it out for the first couple of weeks because so-called mates back home don't think you can hack it, then after that it was "well I didn't go through two weeks of hell for nothing", then it's the old military fallback, you stick it out because your mates are there. Mind you, no wonder you stuck at it, otherwise you'd have had to go through life with your old man calling you a crap hat!
Cheers -
Message 20
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 14th October 2005
I could think of nothing worse that having HIM call me a Crap Hat, he's obnoxious/arrogant enough with it!
It was bad enough him being a SM and having somewhat of a battalion wide 'reputation', for three years being called 鈥楳ad Dog鈥檚 Pup鈥 (my old man was known as 鈥楳ad Dog鈥).
but to give him extra ammo... It wouldn't have been nice. -
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 14th October 2005
Sounds a nightmare!
Would there be anything worse in a combat situation than running into a Para who goes by the name of "Mad Dog"? Makes you wonder...
Mind you, I think all airborne/special forces mobs have to have that certain level of insanity-I remember doing a special comms course which had one of the Hereford lot on it, and he was seriously loopy, on weekends we would all go on nights out, and he would usually end up on the roof playing a bugle very badly at 3am. Not all there...
Cheers
DL -
Message 22
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Sunday, 16th October 2005
Hi Mani,
it would be naive to think that no war crimes were committed by the allies..war crimes are committed in every war. However, there is no moral comparison between the war crimes carried out by the UK and USA in WW2 and those committed by the Germans because for the Germans war crimes were part of official policy and sanctioned by the Nazi Government (i'm particularly referring to the crimes committed by the wermacht in Poland and the Soviet Union). -
Message 23
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 16th October 2005
Interesting lesson from Nuremburg should have been that international law will stand above anyone, who relies on self-righteousness and the use of force. We all remember the stuff about int law not existing and now, Dubya reckons God puts him on the policy track. The interesting thing about many regimes defeated in war recently has been the international trial, where they are arraigned on international law offences, notably waging aggressive war and cimes against humanity, Examples include the Nazis at Nuremburg and Milosevic being tried at The Hague.
So, if we are looking at the trial at Saddam Hussein (due to start on Wednesday), obvious charges might be gassing 5000 Kurds at Hallabjah or waging aggressive war against Iran for ten years, including the use of prohibited weapons like gas.
Funny really - Sadddam is being tried in an Iraqi court. Problem number one with this is that the judges were sworn in under the existing constitution, which grants Presidential immunity! However, the most surprising feature is the nature of the only charges at present - namely the killing of about 150 people following a failed assassination attempt in 1982 (erm, don't tell anyone, but it was after they were tried and convicted by Iraqi courts, like the US system!).
So, why no international charges or court? Could be that would open up some interesting cans of worms and witnesses. So, Dubya has no regard for international law, does he? What does this religious zealot fear? -
Message 24
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 17th October 2005
Hi Gorman,
I would disagree with you to an extent, some of the crimes of the Wehrmacht Army and especially Waffen SS can be said to be state sanctioned; The summary execution of Political commissars, the execution of escaped POW鈥檚 (In direct violation of the GC), but it鈥檚 important to remember that the Soviet鈥檚 were a member of the 鈥楢llies鈥 and at various stages of the war committed state sanctioned war crimes 鈥 The mass execution of Polish officers in the Katyń Forest for example. Also the general condition that POW鈥檚 were kept in indicates state policy (only 5000 of the 90鈥000+ Prisoners taken during Stalingrad returned to German soil.
Also in the West, the SS were shot out of hand, the French, Poles and Canadians were particularly disposed towards this. There are many cases where Wehrmacht Panzer troops were executed out of hand as they were thought to be SS (their uniforms were also Black). In the east the Allied policy of no prisoners was even more widespread (and I鈥檓 not judging, in their position, it鈥檚 more than understandable). I personally don鈥檛 see the difference between being state sanctioned and the state turning a blind eye to unofficial policy.
Thanks
Mani -
Message 25
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 17th October 2005
Morning DL,
Ah, the Happy Hereford bunch, I'm pretty sure it's compulsory to be sectioned before even contemplating joining them. I've spent quite a lot of time with them over the years, and apart from one or two, I'd have to completely agree with you - Not all there - Fact.
Then again, when they're 'in the office' their insanity does tend to take a back seat. -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 17th October 2005
Morning Mani,
Yep got to agree, they are most unusual individuals to say the least! They must be when you look at some of their ops though. If I'm totally honest, Bravo Two Zero was an example of how to NOT run a long range recon mission! The middle of the desert, a couple of hundred miles behind enemy lines, carrying a ridiculous amount of kit ON FOOT? Suicide mission springs to mind!
Still that's why I was always glad to be armoured-you can always be sure that you'll never run out of food and fags! Well, unless your panzer gets popped that is, then you're stuffed!
Cheers
DL -
Message 27
Posted by flembo2976 (U2274122) on Friday, 21st October 2005
this trial was a white-wash. The so called claims by the german defendants after their convictions were in ENGLISH?? Although most never spoke the english language.
-
Message 28
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 21st October 2005
Is that the reason why it was a white wash? Please expand on this as your logic is somewhat floored.
-
Message 29
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 21st October 2005
I suggest you look up the actual events, not just what you've been reading on your right-wing websites.
All defendants were wearing headphones throughout the trial, where they were listening to translations of any foreign languages being spoken. Probably the only practical solution since almost every nationality in Europe had a presence at the trials.
Are you seriously suggesting they didn't understand the proceedings?????
I am amazed at your level of ignorance. -
Message 30
Posted by General Zod (U1771421) on Friday, 21st October 2005
I'd rather have the US guarding freedom and democracy than the UN.
The UN is full of tyrannical dictatorships like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe. How can you possibly want to have those people have jurisdiction over the US?
The ICC is a sham and a fraud.
Nuremburg was primarily run on the basis of charging the Nazis with waging aggressive war - contrary to the 1926 Treaty outlawing it. It also struck down the Nazi defence on the invasion of Norway - they claimed "preemptive self-defence" - as a figleaf to cover aggression.
Bush and Blair should thus be on trial for the same thing in Iraq. The US refusal to submit to the ICC also makes a mockeryt of their claims about spreading "freedom and justice". 听 -
Message 31
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) ** on Friday, 21st October 2005
The "ICC is a sham and a fraud"
I admit that the Super Series was far from competitive, but the inability of the World XI to put up much resistance in the One-Dayers or the Test Match cannot really be put at the feet of the ICC. -
Message 32
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005
The "ICC is a sham and a fraud"
I admit that the Super Series was far from competitive, but the inability of the World XI to put up much resistance in the One-Dayers or the Test Match cannot really be put at the feet of the ICC.听
Thjodolf
From his posts Yoda is a yank so I suspect you will have to explain your post to him
I think he is wrong about the International Court. There are a lot of nasty groups out there, including the ones he's mentioned. However US opposition seems to be more due to their preference for ignoring laws and agreements when it suits them rather than any real concerns about the viability of international law.
Steve -
Message 33
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005
However US opposition seems to be more due to their preference for ignoring laws and agreements when it suits them rather than any real concerns about the viability of international law.
Steve听
It's a pity the quality of these boards is eroded by the same bigoted individuals with little or nothing of value to add to the debate. The U.S. has several reasons for declining to participate. One reason being the United States fully understands a fair trial for an American servicemember may be impossible in an international court. The opportunity to stick it to Uncle Sam would be difficult to overcome for some BIGOTED countries.
Any country that violates an international agreement can of course be held to account for it. To imply The United States is above international agreements it is signature to is ridicules. -
Message 34
Posted by General Zod (U1771421) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005
One reason being the United States fully understands a fair trial for an American servicemember may be impossible in an international court.听
that is the main point, Iran etc... would love to be able to do just that... there would not be any justice... -
Message 35
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005
However US opposition seems to be more due to their preference for ignoring laws and agreements when it suits them rather than any real concerns about the viability of international law.
Steve听
It's a pity the quality of these boards is eroded by the same bigoted individuals with little or nothing of value to add to the debate. The U.S. has several reasons for declining to participate. One reason being the United States fully understands a fair trial for an American servicemember may be impossible in an international court. The opportunity to stick it to Uncle Sam would be difficult to overcome for some BIGOTED countries.
Any country that violates an international agreement can of course be held to account for it. To imply The United States is above international agreements it is signature to is ridicules.听
expat
I notice you say 'may be impossible'. Think that is accurate BUT NOT the reason why the US has refused to get involved.
If the remark about bigoted individuals is directed to me I suggest you read your own posts! Don't know if the US has the same expression about pot and kettle.
Steve -
Message 36
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005
If the remark about bigoted individuals is directed to me I suggest you read your own posts! Don't know if the US has the same expression about pot and kettle.
Steve
听
Yes it was directed at you for one, I'm bigoted against bigoted individuals. -
Message 37
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Whoa!!!!
Time out gentlemen please!
This one's got a bit out of hand hasn't it!
There are some really weird suggestions on here, and the most frightening one from my point of view is the one saying something along the lines of "the US should be in charge of the UN".
Sorry but this is a big no-no!
There are are many positive aspects to American society, but the main negative aspect is that the country has too much self-interest in its government. The likes of lobbyists working to twist things in order that some (no doubt rich) person gains at the expense of another. The level of sycophancy is frightening. All you have to do is look at the way "reconstruction" contracts were handed out by the Bush administration. When you look at this objectively, it is obvious that there is something wrong with the picture!
Admittedly also, the governments of Russia, China, France, the UK, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc are in an equally bad position to be "in charge of the UN". THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! Everyone gets a say, rather than massive exploitation of the world for one party's gain! Any idea of replacing the UN is ridiculous, since a nation-state would become too powerful and as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is out of the question to let any nation, let alone a nation whose government is riddled with corporate back-handers and corruption through lobbyists as the US clearly is to have a "World-Domination" position!
Utterly ridiculous.
Cheers
DL
BTW, Expat have you been recruiting Jedi masters to fight your corner? Sounds like you're turning to the Dark Side mate! -
Message 38
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Hiya DL,
It's great to see you back. I will not ask if you enjoyed your weekend. I hope you had some chips for me. I think what Jedi said was I'd rather have the US guarding freedom and democracy than the UN.听 i'm sorry but I have to agree with him. All you have to do is look at the way "reconstruction" contracts were handed out by the Bush administration. When you look at this objectively, it is obvious that there is something wrong with the picture!听
Some of that work had to be done like right now. There was no time for competative bidding. I don't know if you are aware of it DL but those contracts were funded entirely by the U.S. tax payer.It wasn't U.N. or Iraqi funds.
BTW, Expat have you been recruiting Jedi masters to fight your corner? Sounds like you're turning to the Dark Side mate!听
lol no..but I sure welcome him with open arms.
Cheers. -
Message 39
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Yeah the weekend was great,
Shame I'm back here in the rain again. Nisyros is just paradise. Undeveloped, unspoilt island, lovely property, price is reasonable, one small snag...
There's a sodding great volcano in the middle of the island!!!
(Dormant admittedly, but HOW dormant?)
Kos, well I love the place anyway, the mountains are beautiful, you can see forever up there.
Ref Yoda's statement-
"I'd rather have the US guarding freedom and democracy than the UN."
(shouldn't that be "guard freedom rather the US than UN I would" if he's Yoda?)
I disagree totally. I would rather have a strong UN SUPPORTED by the US, the planet isn't a big one, and the US and UN shouldn't be opposing each other. Yes they have disagreements, but who doesn't! They have to work together not against one another.
Your next point-
"Some of that work had to be done like right now. There was no time for competative bidding. I don't know if you are aware of it DL but those contracts were funded entirely by the U.S. tax payer.It wasn't U.N. or Iraqi funds."
I don't see how there was no time for bidding, they've done precious little reconstruction so far! And if that were the case, then Bush should have given the contract to a company with which he had no affiliation, purely to avoid allegations of corruption and "jobs for the boys"!!! Or was he too dumb to realise that one??
Yeah thought you might welcome an ally, and Yoda if you are reading, welcome to the boards! Not that we'll agree on much!!!
Cheers
DL of the Sith. -
Message 40
Posted by BIGBirdKiwi (U1540199) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Have to agree with you there.
-
Message 41
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
BigBirdKiwi!
Welcome back! Not seen you for a while on here!
DL -
Message 42
Posted by BIGBirdKiwi (U1540199) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Been spending my days on the cricketboard.
Having a good laugh at the American views on this particular thread. Makes it clear why the world is in so much trouble. -
Message 43
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Been spending my days on the cricketboard.
Having a good laugh at the American views on this particular thread. Makes it clear why the world is in so much trouble.听
When we need any more half witted comments from the Colonials we'll come ring your bell. -
Message 44
Posted by BIGBirdKiwi (U1540199) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Thanks, waiting for you to prove my point.
Been spending my days on the cricketboard.
Having a good laugh at the American views on this particular thread. Makes it clear why the world is in so much trouble.听
When we need any more half witted comments from the Colonials we'll come ring your bell. 听 -
Message 45
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Expat,
You were doing so well staying off the abuse, and actually forming rational arguments too!
Shame on you!! -
Message 46
Posted by BIGBirdKiwi (U1540199) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Did'nt really take a lot to bring out his true colours though did it.
-
Message 47
Posted by GoAussies (U1723230) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Quote from DL:
"I disagree totally. I would rather have a strong UN SUPPORTED by the US, the planet isn't a big one, and the US and UN shouldn't be opposing each other. Yes they have disagreements, but who doesn't! They have to work together not against one another. "
In an ideal world DL , the UN would be what it is supposed to be . Instead it is a bunch of self serving countries pushing their own agendas, wheeling and dealing to get what they want.
So, IMO, they are no different to the US. -
Message 48
Posted by Gjc001 (U2303257) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Has the Nuremberg decision come back to haunt us? Us Yanks (Brits too?) are always being urged to 鈥渟upport our troops鈥 fighting in Iraq even if you don鈥檛 agree with the foreign policies that put them there. Can this be done in the shadow of Nuremberg?
听
The Nuremburg defendants were charged, amongst other things, with "waging a war of aggression", a charge which surely Tony Blair, George Bush, Defence secretaries and the respective Chiefs of Staff of the the armies involved would have been found guilty, as all are collectively responsible.
The troops themselves, unless committing specific acts against humanity or violating the Geneva Convention, could rest easy knowing that their actions would not see them before an International war crimes court.
Although, who would preside over such a court is an interesting question. My vote is the French and the Russians, and although Tony Blair, in the dock, would no doubt accuse his prosecutors of hypocrisy (with Algeria and Afghanistan in mind) the "but-you've-done-it-as-well" argument is unlikely to find favour, and neither did it at Nuremburg, especially where Hermann Goering accused the British of 'inventing' concentration camps during the Boer war. -
Message 49
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Aussie,
Agreed totally, unfortunately reality is very different.
Gjc,
Interesting points. As to whether Iraq could be judged in the same light as WW2, I disagree (at least from a UK point of view). By definition, the charge of "waging aggressive war" as used at Nuremberg was in reference to the Nazis policy of seeking "lebensraum", by invading and conquering neighbouring nations with the intention of occupying them permanently, and removing the civilian population to replace it with their own people. Poland was an ideal case- they invaded, they conquered then proceeded to deport the non-German population and ship in "ethnic Germans" to Germanify the land (many of whom didn't even speak German).
Although we don't really know the real cause of the Iraq war, and I doubt we ever will, this can hardly be viewed as a permanent occupation with a view to colonisation, so I don't really think "Aggressive War" as per Nuremberg can really be applied, whatever your views on Iraq.
As for putting the French in charge of such a court, no way. Iraq's problems (as with much of the Middle East) date back to the Sykes-Picot agreement in the First World War. This involved the British making an agreement with the Arabs that they would grant them independence if the Arabs fought alongside the British against Turkey.
The Arabs did so (as in Lawrence of Arabia), but the British instead decided to carve up the Arab lands between the British and French. Here lies the root of much of the mistrust in the Middle East towards the west. So, the French do in fact have to accept part of the blame for the situation.
As for your argument that the British invented Concentration Camps in the Boer War, this is true, we did. We Brits have a lot of blood on our historical hands. As for Goering using this as a defence, we did NOT invent the Death Camps, the Gas chambers, or industrialised genocide. These delights were a wholly German invention (perhaps with the exception of religious genocide, which first reared its head in Turkey, when the Turks massacred the Christian Armenians in 1915, although in reality it dates back to the Romans and the Carthaginians, through the Crusades, Mohammed's wars of Islamic expansion, the Spanish Inquisition, countless pogroms against the Jews, right through to the Serbs' murders of the Bosnian Muslims in the 90s and Rwanda's tribal genocide).
I hardly see "we did it once" as a defence either, we as a nation did a lot of bad things around the world, but that was the past, and we can't keep apologising for the Empire over and over again. It happened, there were a lot of bad things, but also many good things. I don't think there are any examples of British people massacring whole populations of people "just because they are different", and the US did exactly this to the Native Indian population in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
Just to add a note, I don't agree with us being in Iraq, we should have finished the job (and got rid of Saddam) in 1991, then got out and let them live in peace. This war is more about US policy on oil rather than to free the people in Iraq.
You also wrote
"The troops themselves, unless committing specific acts against humanity or violating the Geneva Convention, could rest easy knowing that their actions would not see them before an International war crimes court."
How gracious of you! Can you be any more patronising???!!
As an ex soldier with a fair bit of combat experience, how can you judge the actions of troops in combat so lightly? Do you have any experience of how horrific war actually is? If not, then I suspect you are one who will quite happily make judgements about a situation you are lucky enough never to have been in. You do not have the right to pass judgement so easily, since your opinion on a situation you have never experienced is worth nothing.
If you have been there and done that, then I apologise. If not, then don't pass judgement on something you know nothing about.
DL -
Message 50
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 24th October 2005
If the remark about bigoted individuals is directed to me I suggest you read your own posts! Don't know if the US has the same expression about pot and kettle.
Steve
听
Yes it was directed at you for one, I'm bigoted against bigoted individuals.听
And what does your shrink say about you're self-hatred?
Seriously expat, you're in no position to make wild allegations given the vehement hostility you show in many of your posts. I have expressed strong disagreement with you and with several US policies. On what basis do you assume this shows me as bigoted! Are you saying no one can disagree with YOUR opinion of history or current affairs.
Steve
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.