Nuremberg executions

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Stone called the Nuremberg Trials a "sanctimonous fraud" and a "high grade lynching". Justice William O Douglas called the series of trials spanning 1945 to 1949 as an illustration of "power over principle". Hangman M/Sgt John Woods told Time magazine "10 men in 106 minutes, that's fast work". Strangely enough it's hard to find the total of Nuremberg executions. The popular figure seems to be around 500 and maybe close to 1,000 while it's easy to find that the Japanese artosities resulted in 93 executions of war criminals. Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,461
Points
2,040
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Stone called the Nuremberg Trials a "sanctimonous fraud" and a "high grade lynching". Justice William O Douglas called the series of trials spanning 1945 to 1949 as an illustration of "power over principle". Hangman M/Sgt John Woods told Time magazine "10 men in 106 minutes, that's fast work". Strangely enough it's hard to find the total of Nuremberg executions. The popular figure seems to be around 500 and maybe close to 1,000 while it's easy to find that the Japanese artosities resulted in 93 executions of war criminals. Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
Due to the unconditonal surrender, the allies were perfectly within thier rights to line up those seen as war criminals and shoot them out of hand. the fact that they didnt do that shows a certain respect for law in general, even if it was imposed ex post facto.


What would you have done with captured Nazi's after the war? What if Hitler himself had been captured, instead of taking the cowards way out via a bullet in the mouth?

Nuremberg was one of the most fair things ever done by the vanquisher over the vanquished, with regards to total surrender. The fact that the most hated men in the world were given even the slightest due process, and the fact several of them were aquitted, shows that the trials were taken seriously.
 

MikeK

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
15,924
Reaction score
2,473
Points
290
Location
Brick, New Jersey
[...]Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
I understand some of the Japanese were adjudged war criminals and were hanged or imprisoned because they waterboarded American and British prisoners.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
They didn't go nearly far enough.

Not in Germany and not in Japan either.

Every high ranking NAZI in the military officer corps, and every high ranking NAZI administrator in the government ought to have been hanged.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,117
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Stone called the Nuremberg Trials a "sanctimonous fraud" and a "high grade lynching". Justice William O Douglas called the series of trials spanning 1945 to 1949 as an illustration of "power over principle". Hangman M/Sgt John Woods told Time magazine "10 men in 106 minutes, that's fast work". Strangely enough it's hard to find the total of Nuremberg executions. The popular figure seems to be around 500 and maybe close to 1,000 while it's easy to find that the Japanese artosities resulted in 93 executions of war criminals. Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
when you quote from sources you are required to provide links. certainly even a racist loon should be able to copy and click...

here... let me help because you left out the rest of the section...

Nonetheless, most observers considered the trials a step forward for the establishment of international law. The findings at Nuremberg led directly to the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), as well as the Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War (1949). In addition, the International Military Tribunal supplied a useful precedent for the trials of Japanese war criminals in Tokyo (1946-48); the 1961 trial of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann (1906-62); and the establishment of tribunals for war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia (1993) and in Rwanda (1994).
Nuremberg Trials — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

glad to be of assistance, nazi trash.
 

ginscpy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,950
Reaction score
218
Points
48
Photos of the main executed Nazis in the original trial (Keitel, Jodl, Ribbentrop, Streicker and about 7 others - were published in Life Magazine - in full uniform that they were hanged in - with cut offf ropes still around the necks - and with blood oozingout of the mouths.

(heard the hangings were "sloppy')
 
OP
whitehall

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Stone called the Nuremberg Trials a "sanctimonous fraud" and a "high grade lynching". Justice William O Douglas called the series of trials spanning 1945 to 1949 as an illustration of "power over principle". Hangman M/Sgt John Woods told Time magazine "10 men in 106 minutes, that's fast work". Strangely enough it's hard to find the total of Nuremberg executions. The popular figure seems to be around 500 and maybe close to 1,000 while it's easy to find that the Japanese artosities resulted in 93 executions of war criminals. Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
when you quote from sources you are required to provide links. certainly even a racist loon should be able to copy and click...

here... let me help because you left out the rest of the section...

Nonetheless, most observers considered the trials a step forward for the establishment of international law. The findings at Nuremberg led directly to the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), as well as the Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War (1949). In addition, the International Military Tribunal supplied a useful precedent for the trials of Japanese war criminals in Tokyo (1946-48); the 1961 trial of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann (1906-62); and the establishment of tribunals for war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia (1993) and in Rwanda (1994).
Nuremberg Trials — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

glad to be of assistance, nazi trash.
Actually the liberal justices on the Supreme Court were the first to recognize how bad the UN judicial system administered by authorities outside the US could be if they were in charge of capital punishment. Lefties should agree with me. I'm shocked that they authorize lynchings but then again I'm not so shocked.
 
OP
whitehall

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
The Tokyo war crimes tribunals lasting from 1946 to 1948 got scant coverage in the media. Of the 80 defendants only 28 were sentenced to death. The Nanting trials in China resulted in a couple of executions. Maybe it was the guilt factor in the American incineration and obliteration of two Japanese cities with Atomic weapons that tempered the lust for vengeance that seemed to permeate the nuremberg trials.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,329
Reaction score
13,654
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Stone called the Nuremberg Trials a "sanctimonous fraud" and a "high grade lynching". Justice William O Douglas called the series of trials spanning 1945 to 1949 as an illustration of "power over principle". Hangman M/Sgt John Woods told Time magazine "10 men in 106 minutes, that's fast work". Strangely enough it's hard to find the total of Nuremberg executions. The popular figure seems to be around 500 and maybe close to 1,000 while it's easy to find that the Japanese artosities resulted in 93 executions of war criminals. Was justice really served? Did the popular media demand blood or were the Allies showing their political clout to Russia while ignoring Japanese criminals?
Actually, the number of criminals executed as a result of the far east trials was probably also about 1000. The difference was that each country tried the criminals it had in custody.

But let's get real here. The war had cost 70 million lives, many of them civilians and a lot of them executed in violation of their human rights.

The world wanted justice. They wanted someone to pay for all that misery.

Also, the world had learned it's lesson from the last war. At the end of WWI, the Kaisers of Germany and Austria were allowed to abdicate, and live in exile. None of the ministers or generals who instigated the war were held to account for it. (Save, maybe the Russian leaders, who were executed by their own people.) There was no disincentive for the next generation of politicians and military leaders to start a new war.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,458
Points
2,165
The war crime trials were legit.

That notorious Hard Righters here use liberal sources and pundits is very ironic.

Shaddup and cut haircuts.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top