Prosecution of Nazi war crimes.

[Supposn]

Allied and other nation’s prosecution of Nazi war crime” or crimes against humanity after the Germany’s surrender.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Transcribed excerpts from the thread “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”:

Most people that are aware of the German political party’s actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka Nationalsozialist Party, aka Nazi Party, consider that name to be ironic. ...

... The [Nazi] Party was from its beginning funded primarily by Gemany's capitalists and they thrived under the Nazi administration.

Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.

AnotherLife, you’re equating the direct benefits derived by individuals from their own and the corporations’ they controlled directly participation with Nazi Party’s crimes of mass murders, tortures, and atrocities, with what you and others contend was the crimes due to the allies redrawing the map of Europe after World War Two?

Are you accusing some individuals of all allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes? ... Respectfully, Supposn

If we are looking for explanations, then we can find explanations for hitler too. I think it is more interesting to look at the prosecution itself. The victorious entente invented, that as long as you are a public servant, you have the license to commit the same crimes as the Nazis did. Therein lies those individuals that you are asking about. Is it logical to accept one criminal to prosecute another by a public servant title?

AnotherLife, I asked if you’re accusing ALL allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes as the Nazis and their accomplices were tried for?

Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

What precisely are you contending?

Respectfully, Supposn

The answer is a yes. Logically. The same crimes, only one year later. For example, the Nazis deported Jews in 1945. One year later, the entente countries deported the German, the Italian, the Hungarian, and so on. Same crime, almost the same place, one year later. The first one is prosecuted, the second one is excused. So the prosecutions and the criminal nature of the prosecutions themselves are of judicial interest, historically as well as for current practice, because they keep providing an ongoing license to restart European deportations any time as long as it is organized by the ww2 entente nations, currently.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My question was if you’re contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

There were significant differences within various nations as to the degree of Nazi power and authority and control within those nations. In some cases, Germany was not or was pretending not to be occupying the other nation.

There were differences as to the diligence, degrees, and extents consequentially detrimental to world within those nations other than Germany; there was certainly differences between the extent of official and unofficial support the Nazi’s obtained within differing other nations.

In some cases, post war governments did make some efforts, and did to some extent carry out their own prosecutions of those that were too helpful to the Nazis.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Allied and other nation’s prosecution of Nazi war crime” or crimes against humanity after the Germany’s surrender.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Transcribed excerpts from the thread “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”:

Most people that are aware of the German political party’s actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka Nationalsozialist Party, aka Nazi Party, consider that name to be ironic. ...

... The [Nazi] Party was from its beginning funded primarily by Gemany's capitalists and they thrived under the Nazi administration.

Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.

AnotherLife, you’re equating the direct benefits derived by individuals from their own and the corporations’ they controlled directly participation with Nazi Party’s crimes of mass murders, tortures, and atrocities, with what you and others contend was the crimes due to the allies redrawing the map of Europe after World War Two?

Are you accusing some individuals of all allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes? ... Respectfully, Supposn

If we are looking for explanations, then we can find explanations for hitler too. I think it is more interesting to look at the prosecution itself. The victorious entente invented, that as long as you are a public servant, you have the license to commit the same crimes as the Nazis did. Therein lies those individuals that you are asking about. Is it logical to accept one criminal to prosecute another by a public servant title?

AnotherLife, I asked if you’re accusing ALL allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes as the Nazis and their accomplices were tried for?

Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

What precisely are you contending?

Respectfully, Supposn

The answer is a yes. Logically. The same crimes, only one year later. For example, the Nazis deported Jews in 1945. One year later, the entente countries deported the German, the Italian, the Hungarian, and so on. Same crime, almost the same place, one year later. The first one is prosecuted, the second one is excused. So the prosecutions and the criminal nature of the prosecutions themselves are of judicial interest, historically as well as for current practice, because they keep providing an ongoing license to restart European deportations any time as long as it is organized by the ww2 entente nations, currently.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My question was if you’re contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

There were significant differences within various nations as to the degree of Nazi power and authority and control within those nations. In some cases, Germany was not or was pretending not to be occupying the other nation.

There were differences as to the diligence, degrees, and extents consequentially detrimental to world within those nations other than Germany; there was certainly differences between the extent of official and unofficial support the Nazi’s obtained within differing other nations.

In some cases, post war governments did make some efforts, and did to some extent carry out their own prosecutions of those that were too helpful to the Nazis.

Respectfully, Supposn

long meandering meaningless BS. Do you have any idea at all what you point is??

 

[anotherlife]

Allied and other nation’s prosecution of Nazi war crime” or crimes against humanity after the Germany’s surrender.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Transcribed excerpts from the thread “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”:

Most people that are aware of the German political party’s actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka Nationalsozialist Party, aka Nazi Party, consider that name to be ironic. ...

... The [Nazi] Party was from its beginning funded primarily by Gemany's capitalists and they thrived under the Nazi administration.

Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.

AnotherLife, you’re equating the direct benefits derived by individuals from their own and the corporations’ they controlled directly participation with Nazi Party’s crimes of mass murders, tortures, and atrocities, with what you and others contend was the crimes due to the allies redrawing the map of Europe after World War Two?

Are you accusing some individuals of all allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes? ... Respectfully, Supposn

If we are looking for explanations, then we can find explanations for hitler too. I think it is more interesting to look at the prosecution itself. The victorious entente invented, that as long as you are a public servant, you have the license to commit the same crimes as the Nazis did. Therein lies those individuals that you are asking about. Is it logical to accept one criminal to prosecute another by a public servant title?

AnotherLife, I asked if you’re accusing ALL allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes as the Nazis and their accomplices were tried for?

Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

What precisely are you contending?

Respectfully, Supposn

The answer is a yes. Logically. The same crimes, only one year later. For example, the Nazis deported Jews in 1945. One year later, the entente countries deported the German, the Italian, the Hungarian, and so on. Same crime, almost the same place, one year later. The first one is prosecuted, the second one is excused. So the prosecutions and the criminal nature of the prosecutions themselves are of judicial interest, historically as well as for current practice, because they keep providing an ongoing license to restart European deportations any time as long as it is organized by the ww2 entente nations, currently.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My question was if you’re contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?

There were significant differences within various nations as to the degree of Nazi power and authority and control within those nations. In some cases, Germany was not or was pretending not to be occupying the other nation.

There were differences as to the diligence, degrees, and extents consequentially detrimental to world within those nations other than Germany; there was certainly differences between the extent of official and unofficial support the Nazi’s obtained within differing other nations.

In some cases, post war governments did make some efforts, and did to some extent carry out their own prosecutions of those that were too helpful to the Nazis.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your question is an open ended question. Do you consider the exterminated consequential or inconsequential for the detriment of the world? And did the war crime tribunals draw a quantity line of how many people do you need to kill or deport before you can get indicted?

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="anotherlife, post: 17260677, member: 41171]Your question is an open ended question. Do you consider the exterminated consequential or inconsequential for the detriment of the world? And did the war crime tribunals draw a quantity line of how many people do you need to kill or deport before you can get indicted?[/QUOTE]

Excerpts transcribed from the thread “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”:

Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?
What precisely are you contending?
Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My question was if you’re contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?
Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////////

AnotherLife, similar to many questions, there are no absolute answers. Yes; I do you consider the exterminated consequential or inconsequential for the detriment of the world.

If the war crime tribunals did question and draw a quantity line of how many people need to be killed or deported before anyone should be indict, I doubt that a conclusion could have ever been agreed upon. To some extent such philosophical questions can arise about a great many criminal prosecutions.

Are you suggesting we should cease attempting to operate justice and law operations? That by the way, is the forum where I should have transferred this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[anotherlife]

[QUOTE="anotherlife, post: 17260677, member: 41171]Your question is an open ended question. Do you consider the exterminated consequential or inconsequential for the detriment of the world? And did the war crime tribunals draw a quantity line of how many people do you need to kill or deport before you can get indicted?

Excerpts transcribed from the thread “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”:

Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?
What precisely are you contending?
Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My question was if you’re contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?
Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////////

AnotherLife, similar to many questions, there are no absolute answers. Yes; I do you consider the exterminated consequential or inconsequential for the detriment of the world.

If the war crime tribunals did question and draw a quantity line of how many people need to be killed or deported before anyone should be indict, I doubt that a conclusion could have ever been agreed upon. To some extent such philosophical questions can arise about a great many criminal prosecutions.

Are you suggesting we should cease attempting to operate justice and law operations? That by the way, is the forum where I should have transferred this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn[/QUOTE]

In an ordinary American criminal trial, the prosecutor is like a 3rd party, relative to the conflict between perpetrator and victim. In a war crime tribunal, there is no 3rd party, therefore war crime tribunals are not legally justifiable. War crime tribunals are justified by money and fire power, not law. And yes, all the prosecuting nations are equally guilty of the same types of crimes, all detrimental, but this is not new, has been established by obvious logic multiple times right after both world wars, in both journalism and politics.