Also it is full of courtroom art/sketches from the proceedings.
0: http://web.archive.org/web/20160709210523/https://www.svobod...
The only good thing, they show very clearly what kind of person people using them are.
The Soviets for sure, but are you really arguing that the US and UK (and Empire) were operating on the same industrial level? Incidents that come to mind for me would include the Bengal famine, and it was terrible, but it wasn't the systematic and controlled killing at which the Soviets and Nazis became so expert.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church...
The slave trade was certainly an industrial level, yes.
The Brits invented the modern concentration camp during the Boer War.
Especially given that I'm of a generation born near the end of Apartheid, we grew up with the "badge of honour" mentality around the TRC. But almost 30 years later, many of the victims of these crimes are left feeling like the perpetrators got off scott-free, for an often half-recounting of the event and not much more. It's not uncommon to hear references to Nuremburg when discussing the more henoius crimes described - for example, a doctor performing the sorts of acts those at Nuremburg were tried for, who was recently discovered to be a family GP in one of the Nation's capitals, quietly continuing his life. However, it's not an opinion I would say is particularly strong in those who have it, nor too commonly discussed - but it's an interesting weighing up of "an appropriate justice which would please all participants was difficult, or impossible to decide", versus "it's incredible that the participants and organisers were able to come to a decision that did what it said on the box, mostly".
I was particularly interested to see suggestions of a TRC (based on South Africa's own) introduced to deal with the after-effects of the 'Troubles' in Ireland, England and Northern Ireland - and it appeared to be a strong "NO" from all sides, which I found fascinating as it did not seem driven only by a need for appropriate retributive justice, but rather (in my opinon) seemed driven by the belief that we have the ability to draw finer lines as a group, and need not polarize our decisions between harsh, message-sending retribution and amnesty for participation.
All that being said I couldn't tell you which pick given the choice, but it certainly feels hopeful reflecting on just how much care in group decision making and inclusive participation has been displayed in the past in such events.
If they think they'll be given the Gaddafi treatment [0] then the rational thing for powerful monsters to do is go down swinging.
It is better to have systems to punish crimes, but it is also important to have meaningful amnesty even at the expense of fairness.
And then most of them were paroled less than half way through their sentences.
Most of them weren't even tried.
And of those that were, most of the ones who fought the charges weren't convicted, or were convicted of far lesser charges. Only a few got death sentences.
... For instance, the industrialists that bankrolled the Nazis, ran their factories with slave labour, and made posion gas for exterminating Jews and other victims of fascism got 2 to 7 years, with most of them being acquitted.
Of the four death sentences handed out in the SS trials, only one was actually carried out. None of them, including the people who got life sentences actually served more than 10 years!
If this is victor's justice, the victors did a shit job of actually punishing the losers.
I would beg to differ. The industrial magnates of this German era where all well aware of what their supplies were going towards: A 'total war' that didn't stop at exterminating anybody considered inferior.
Each individual case is certainly difficult but there is a line where you can and should be tried as an employee for participating in something which violates laws and or ethical boundaries. And this doesn't apply only to the manufacturing of something like Zyklon B nerve gas.
It certainly wouldn't help their case if they also used slave labour, and bankrolled the fringe party that went ahead to seize power, and unleash that horror upon the world.
'Just following orders' isn't a valid defense for a lieutenant, and it absolutely isn't a viable defense for a general. Or for someone like Krupp.
Zyklon A (the predecessor product) was banned after the first world war due to its use as a weapon in the war.
And Bruno Tesch - the inventor of Zyklon B - was executed in 1946 for knowingly selling the product to the SS for use on humans (at least according to Wikipedia).
In essence, the people in Germany knew very well what their leadership was doing and they supported it. Too few were ever held accountable.
This is not about vengeance (there isn't such a concept in the modern justice systems, right?). It is about accountability for your own atrocities. Germans grow up learning this in the hope it can prevent another event like the Holocaust.
This kind of accountability extends to everyone. Even scientists in the trenches who participate developing those technologies that might be misused.
That idea is absurd.
Are you absolutely sure you need to humiliate a nation even after you achieved total military victory?
That the Allies choose the Marshall over the Morgenthau plan was a good call so, even if the former would have worked as well including a complete purge of Nazis from Germany.
Observe that nobody was put on trial for the former.
It's a mistake to think you're not crushing a nation's pride and self-respect by exacting vengeance against your monsters. Their restraint was wise and showed they learned valuable lessons.
Could you give some examples?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_In...
SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past.
The book “Operation Paperclip” delved into this and other examples.
And the US knew of the slave labor used by Belgium in Congo to extract uranium for the nuclear weapons program which killed dozens to hundreds of Congolese but for some reason we never talk about that as it's always "hey, don't look over there, look at the evil Nazis instead".
> The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.
You can't have a fair trial when the prosecution gets to admit whatever evidence it wants, including evidence that would normally be inadmissable (eg. Hearsay, admissions made through coercion or torture, etc). The tribunal was effectively a show trial, and in my opinion they should have just dispensed with the theater and carried out the predetermined punishments.
So although the Nuremberg trials were fashioned as a court of law and followed legal-esque principles, there was no written law or could follow; it simply didn't exist.
Hence, the tribunal was considered by some lawyers to be a mockery of court. The verdicts were effectively known ahead of time and no laws could really be cited, no legal process to follow.
That said, I'm not sure what would be a better alternative.