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.
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.