NAZI War Crimes Trail Hypocritcal?

I know this may inflame some people, but I wanted to see how people would react to this, as this is how I feel on the matter.

I do not support the NAZIs or anything but the entire trial seems kind of rediculous.

There were 4 charges waged agaist the NAZI defendants.

I. Conspiracy To Wage A War Of Agression.
II. Waging A War of Agression, or "Crimes Against Peace"
III. War Crimes
IV. Crimes Agaist Humanity

I am not doubting that these were commited. The problem I have with all this is that the trail was overseen by a joint panel of Soviet, American and British judges.

The Soviets were as guilty as Germany for all 4 of those counts during the course of World War II. They joined in the invasion of Poland, and they invaded Finland. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did. How could they possibly justify punishing the NAZIs for doing the same.

The British at the time had the largest empire of all time. Your telling me they did commit any wars of agression to get it? As for charge IV, the British "invented" the concentration camp during the Boer war less than 50 years prior, wher ethey stuck and starved Boer woman and children in order to get the men to stop fighting.

The Americans were the closest to being innocent of the charges they laid upon the NAZIs, but they mericlessly bombed German cities and Japanese cities and killed hundreds of thousands in both countries. ALthough these countries brought it upon themselves, that does not justify civilian deaths, and contrary to popular belief, Japan surrendered due to Russia finally declaring war on them, and they new they could not fight and win on both fronts. The japanses leaders thought at the time that Hiroshima and Nagisaki where the results of a huge air riad, similar to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more than 100 000 people, more than either Nuclear bomb did. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagisaki was a moot point..

It all seems like making Charles Manson the judge for Timothy McVieghs trail. War is hell, but a trail?

Let me know what your think of this all

The phase "to the victors the spoils" springs to mind.

And at the end of war, people were more interested in what was being discovered in Germany and extracting revenage of the remaining Nazi leaders.

And the Russians were a major part of winning and suffered millions of deaths aside from what Stalin did to his own people.

Being the victors enable us to determine what history is written.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Freedom ERP]

Just one thing...

Originally posted by Tenebrous
The Soviets were as guilty as Germany for all 4 of those counts during the course of World War II. They joined in the invasion of Poland, and they invaded Finland. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did. How could they possibly justify punishing the NAZIs for doing the same.

Because the crime was committed, and needed to be punished. That the Soviets did it too is no reason to let the Nazis off the hook for it. What you should be asking, rather than "why punish the Nazis" is "why NOT punish the Soviets, too"

exactly my contention...its not the waht the NAZI's did was any far from unpunshishable, but that those doing had no right and were being hypocritical about doing so.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
The Soviets were as guilty as Germany for all 4 of those counts during the course of World War II.
--
The British at the time had the largest empire of all time. Your telling me they did commit any wars of agression to get it?
--
The Americans were the closest to being innocent of the charges they laid upon the NAZIs, but they mericlessly bombed German cities and Japanese cities and killed hundreds of thousands in both countries.

I can see your point, however I do have to disagree with one major generalization. The blood that is on the hands of a country, is not the burden of each citizen. If America as a country drops a bomb on Japan, I certainly think an American judge can govern the proceedings of a trial to hold those accountable for what they are guilty. Whether the defendant is a Nazi, American, British, etc., I would believe that the judge would look at their actions rather than the details.

They weren't guilty because they were nazi's, they were guilty because of what they did as nazi's.

The countries themselves may of had their hands dirty along the way, but that doesn't mean the citizens have to bare the burden.

Personally, I don't view this as hypocritical at all.

Had the judges been the one to press the button, then I could see it. But they weren't. Just because they inhabit a country that did press the button, doesn't make them guilty.

I agree that the Nuremburg trials were a bit hypocritical, especially in Russia's case. The thing that actually started WW2 was Germany and Russia's invasion of Poland. This is because after WW1 both Britain and France promised to defend Poland from any future aggression. So when Germany attacked Russia, it was seen as two great evils killing each other. In my opinion the West would have preferred Germany to win, this is probably why the Americans only joined the war once Russia got the upper hand.

I think that Churchill actually wanted to continue the war against Russia, but with the number of tanks and troops Russia was pouring into Germany, Roosevelt felt that the war had gone on long enough. So the Allies basically sacrificed all of eastern Europe (including East Germany) and gave Russia a place at the proceedings to secure peace. A war between the Allies and Russia would have been a blood bath, although the US did have the A-bomb.

As for the actual trials, I think the main purpose was to set a precedent for international law and to set the record straight for what is acceptable behaviour in war time. They also led to the formation of the International Criminal Court.