This is just propaganda - how objective will this tribunal be when you know what kind of “wars of aggression” the UK, Israel or the US have done and are still doing?
And no this is not whataboutism - it’s about truthfulness and moral standing. Invasion if Iraq and Afghanistan, decades of foreign policies, occupation and oppression of Palestinians, meddling and regime change of countries. If it’s only a crime of aggression if the other side does it, then it’s simply a farce or a show trial that will not prevent future crimes of aggression.
You are first and foremost responsible for your own actions. And only then responsible for holding others responsible.
Just to avoid catching ire for adding nuance, I want to preface everything by stating that the nazi regime was obviously a criminal scourge upon humanity, and it’s perpetrators entirely irredeemable. If the nazi regime was ever falsely accused of anything, it will always just be irrelevant little details, in the face of the sheer bulk of provable horrors committed by them, their collaborators, and the weight is on the shoulders of everyone within their borders, who was of legal age and sound mind, and who didn’t do anything to resist.
With that out of the way, the descendants of the Allies should stop swallowing the propaganda of their forefathers raw, and instead try to take an honest, critical look on this part of their past.
The fact of the matter is, the Nürnberg trials were a farce, more a show trial and a kangaroo court, of Victor’s parading around the defeated, conducted on a legal basis that didn’t exist, with many punishments (executions) being violations of the inalienable human rights that were soon after proclaimed by the victors, as an encodification of the core values that they claimed to espouse.
The trials were a mockery. Surely, it would have been possible to prosecute and punish anyone deserving of it, by the laws of the pre-1933 Weimar Republic, which, contrary to popular belief today, was not abolished in a legal manner in the first place, and so would still have jurisdiction.
Anyway, the Nürnberg trials are an awful ideal to shoot for - especially when we today finally (and fairly recently) have managed to establish a proper International Criminal Court, with authority and legal basis to dispense real justice against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Recognise that court, and insist on it carrying out justice. When you ignore thst court in discourse, and choose to hold up an 80 year old mock trail as the standard of justice, that just makes it all the easier for any future victor to quickly carry out their own kangaroo courts, executing based on what’s politically convenient, while slowing the path towards a legal world order.
That’s a very good take too. I just saw this video Why Justice for Ukraine AND Russia Goes Through South Africa which has another interesting take - that admission of guilt and confessing the truth towards the victim is sometimes better for reconciliation than a trial that is about the court prosecuting and the accused defending, denying and finding excuses. But I doubt that either is realistic in the near future.
So you think countries should recognize and punish themselves for “being the bad guys”?
I think people and journalists should be educated and informed so they can see it for the theater it is. If the people of a democracy can’t see the evil their own countries have been doing or do not have the means to change anything, then those leaders pointing the fingers at others for the same shit becomes nothing but a distraction.
EDIT: Also that’s a curious reaction to getting called out. All you had to say was “I’m not a tankie, I’m sorry for using their rhetoric” and this whole thing would’ve been cleared up.
This is just propaganda - how objective will this tribunal be when you know what kind of “wars of aggression” the UK, Israel or the US have done and are still doing?
And no this is not whataboutism - it’s about truthfulness and moral standing. Invasion if Iraq and Afghanistan, decades of foreign policies, occupation and oppression of Palestinians, meddling and regime change of countries. If it’s only a crime of aggression if the other side does it, then it’s simply a farce or a show trial that will not prevent future crimes of aggression.
You are first and foremost responsible for your own actions. And only then responsible for holding others responsible.
Just to avoid catching ire for adding nuance, I want to preface everything by stating that the nazi regime was obviously a criminal scourge upon humanity, and it’s perpetrators entirely irredeemable. If the nazi regime was ever falsely accused of anything, it will always just be irrelevant little details, in the face of the sheer bulk of provable horrors committed by them, their collaborators, and the weight is on the shoulders of everyone within their borders, who was of legal age and sound mind, and who didn’t do anything to resist.
With that out of the way, the descendants of the Allies should stop swallowing the propaganda of their forefathers raw, and instead try to take an honest, critical look on this part of their past.
The fact of the matter is, the Nürnberg trials were a farce, more a show trial and a kangaroo court, of Victor’s parading around the defeated, conducted on a legal basis that didn’t exist, with many punishments (executions) being violations of the inalienable human rights that were soon after proclaimed by the victors, as an encodification of the core values that they claimed to espouse.
The trials were a mockery. Surely, it would have been possible to prosecute and punish anyone deserving of it, by the laws of the pre-1933 Weimar Republic, which, contrary to popular belief today, was not abolished in a legal manner in the first place, and so would still have jurisdiction.
Anyway, the Nürnberg trials are an awful ideal to shoot for - especially when we today finally (and fairly recently) have managed to establish a proper International Criminal Court, with authority and legal basis to dispense real justice against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Recognise that court, and insist on it carrying out justice. When you ignore thst court in discourse, and choose to hold up an 80 year old mock trail as the standard of justice, that just makes it all the easier for any future victor to quickly carry out their own kangaroo courts, executing based on what’s politically convenient, while slowing the path towards a legal world order.
That’s a very good take too. I just saw this video Why Justice for Ukraine AND Russia Goes Through South Africa which has another interesting take - that admission of guilt and confessing the truth towards the victim is sometimes better for reconciliation than a trial that is about the court prosecuting and the accused defending, denying and finding excuses. But I doubt that either is realistic in the near future.
I’m not sure what your point is frankly.
So you think countries should recognize and punish themselves for “being the bad guys”?
Do you see any country as having the “required moral standing” to judge others?
I think people and journalists should be educated and informed so they can see it for the theater it is. If the people of a democracy can’t see the evil their own countries have been doing or do not have the means to change anything, then those leaders pointing the fingers at others for the same shit becomes nothing but a distraction.
What a hexbear style of argumentation. Nice alt LOL. You’re telling me Russia and China should be allowed to prosecute anyone?
Removed by mod
I think you’re just reading things I didn’t say bud.
Yeah, okay. Totally not gonna be surprised when I see you get posted to !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works
EDIT: Also that’s a curious reaction to getting called out. All you had to say was “I’m not a tankie, I’m sorry for using their rhetoric” and this whole thing would’ve been cleared up.
Removed by mod
Ok 👍