Archive for the 'history' Category

More on Nuremberg

Published on April 26, 2008 in history. 2 Comments

The most interesting part of the book I am reading is the viewpoints of the different groups.  Generally, religious leaders, the newsmen, and the military favored the trials.  Some even said the trials didn’t go far enough.  Many felt that if Germany was to be tried for waging an aggressive war against Poland, so should Russia, since they invaded from the east as Germany came in from the west.  Russia, though, sent a judge and lawyers to help at the trials.  Where were the consequences of their actions.

Many lawyers, legal scholars and even politicians opposed the trials for various reasons.  Many felt the German leaders should be summarily executed, not given trials.  Others though pointed out, rightly, that there was no international legal precedent for the trials.  The charges were for crimes that did not become illegal until the London Conference that set up the tribunal.  German leaders therefore couldn’t be held liable because they did nothing illegal, under international law.

Another point that was well made is the fact that German leaders were prepared to die.  They knew the ultimate outcome of the war was either victory or death.  The trials were a bit of a reprieve for them then.

Also the point was made that the Russians, being on the victorious side, obviously would not be tried, even if they should have been.  No one was going to try to hold them accountable for their actions.

So the point is, the trials were ex post facto prosecutions that did not extend to all the parties responsible for the beginning of the war.  Nice summary.

Invaders

Published on March 3, 2008 in history. 2 Comments

In discussing the Native Americans in Austin’s history class, I thought about the specialized treatment Americans have tried to show Natives throughout American history.  What many people never point out about the Europeans moving to the New World was the fact that it was an invasion of a new land.  The colonies were the foothold the Europeans needed to begin establishing the invasion.  A characteristic I have noticed about successful conquest of lands is the gradual nature of the process.  Few invaders who try to sweep the indigenous people out of the land in one fell swoop succeed.  It is the slow invasion, where people take over a small section at a time, that works.  The conquered people of the land, after it has been controlled by the new people, then have a choice between assimilate or die.

With natives, though, we laid the ground work for invasion then tried to negotiate for the land.  That doesn’t work.  Now we are apologizing to the Natives for successfully defeating them.  It seems ludicrous.  How many other invaders have ever apologized to the people they defeated.  I have never heard of the Normans telling the Angles and Saxons “I’m sorry for taking your land.”  The ultimate point is, if the people of a land are too weak to defend themselves from invasion, they should assimilate.  Not expect apologies.  But America has decided to feel sorrowful for doing something that has happened for centuries before we even began conquering the land we now occupy.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5 access attempts in the last 7 days.