Comments on: Nuremberg and Today http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/ Brian Baldowski Sun, 20 May 2012 21:39:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Brian Baldowski http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-44 Brian Baldowski Sun, 11 May 2008 13:21:21 +0000 http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-44 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-43 Jeremy Clifton Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:13:43 +0000 http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-43 Speaking of ... <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/john-howard-a-war-criminal/2008/04/26/1208743295720.html" rel="nofollow">John Howard a 'war criminal'</a> 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? 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?

]]> By: Jeremy Clifton http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-41 Jeremy Clifton Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:08:33 +0000 http://www.baldowski.org/2008/04/22/nuremberg-and-today/#comment-41 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. 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.

]]>