I have been reading a book called Judgement on Nuremberg. It was written by a UNC professor William J. Bosch. His focus is not on the trials themselves but on American reaction to the trials. He draws from material in the public record and other works written about the trials. Some of the people he talks about raise some interesting questions. So far I have read through his Presidential and international law sections. The international law part really raised some questions. Mainly, I was wondering how the precedents set at Nuremberg would translate today and how many people would support trials of current leaders. One of the best points is that before Nuremberg war was considered a morally neutral event. It was considered a tool in a nations arsenal if they felt they could not achieve their ends any other way. The idea of trying leaders of the warring nations was unthinkable. But Nuremberg criminalized acts of aggression and placed the responsibility on the shoulders of the leaders of the nations who started wars.
How would it be viewed in today’s light. Should Bush and his allies be tried for starting a war, no matter the justification? What is the liability of the leaders of nations that start wars? Where does Osama Bin Laden fit into the scheme? Should he face a similar tribunal or should he only face judgement in the nations where attacks occurred? Who else should face judgement? It is pointed out that Julius Streicher, the head of an anti-semitic newspaper was sentenced and hanged though he never actually ordered anyone to do anything. He was the head of the leading propaganda machine that fueled the anti-semitic fire. Who else should face trial? CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, etc, all of these and more can be accused of fueling the war against Afghanistan and Iraq in some way. If there were trials, should they and the people who head their organizations face execution? It is interesting questions to ponder.
Ultimately I believe that the victor sets the story line. None of these will happen because we have basically won the war, it’s the rebuilding that has been the issue. Also, no nation on Earth would dare set a finger on Americans because they fear the American military and the allies we have on our side. so Nuremberg could not happen today, but it is interesting to debate “what-ifs.”
The Nuremberg trials were an absolutely ridiculous show put on so folks could pretend that justice was being served, etc. Whether or not Hitler had any justification for invading Poland (or any subsequent military actions) his actions put Europe back into a state of war. Then Germany lost. At that point, the Allies could do whatever they wanted … but they staged these silly trials wherein the results were, by and large, already clear. If they wanted to be rid of the Nazi leaders they should have just shot them without the trials. They gambled at war and lost, so they have to take whatever is meted out by the victors, same as happened with WWI. (You may think from recent discussions that I think that France and Britain didn’t have a ‘right’ to punish Germany as they did in the Versailles Treaty, but as far as I’m concerned as the victors, they did. My argument is that it was a boneheaded move on their part, though.)
You’re absolutely right that the victor sets the story line. Nobody would have seriously clamored for Germany’s leaders to be put on trial if they’d held the day in WWII.
Speaking of …
John Howard a ‘war criminal’
Even if somebody actually holds a trial, who is going to come and get George Bush and these other folks to carry out the sentence?
That was the final point of Judgement, does it matter who wins or loses? The winner writes the history. If Hitler had won the war would have been spun as a victory of the dominate race over the lessers who wishe to degrade and destroy them. The US would be a shell of itself and Europe would have gone through a long time of Fascist dominate rule. But that didn’t happen. We know the history that has been written.
Also, who is going to go to the person that just won a war and say you are a war criminal we need to prosecute you? The U.N.? They don’t have the power without the U.S. backing. Of course, in my opinion the U.N. is impotent anyway. I would love to see one example in which they prevented a war from occuring. The best they have ever done is delay them.