Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by say

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Well I'm glad to see you here with simpler explanations as well. I was feeling outclassed by factual knowledge. Do you have a source about the torture?
edit on 20amWed, 20 Nov 2013 05:54:16 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

buster2010
Most of the evidence used to convict the Nazis was gathered under torture. So no it shouldn't be historical record because if you torture a person enough they will say what you want.


Couldn't agree more.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
Nuerenberg trials imo were an utter disgrace committed by the allies.


What would have happened in war crimes trails if Nazi Germany had won? The crimes of the allies are not something to be ignored but they are not comparable to what the Nazi's would have attempted or committed had they access to the same resources. The allies did not even come close to prosecuting ALL the crimes of Nazi Germany or it's many willing executioners and had the allies been as vindictive as some seem to believe they could have kept the hangmen busy for quite a long time.


Heck prisoners who had surrendered willingly and in good faith were sentenced.


Because they knew that whatever the allies did to them the odds of survival were MUCH better than continuing to fight them or being captured/surrendering to the SU. Also at that point of the war your own commanders did not have to put up with a great deal of nonsense from you either so just getting away from your own firing squads were a legitimate motive for moral men. You know you are in the wrong country when your enemies may treat you better than your own regime.


Allies also proved that forgiveness is no longer a human virtue, and were no better
than the Nazis themselves


I can not agree with that either. The allies were not blameless in how the war started or how it ended up being fought but the Nazi's can and should be held responsible for their massive crimes against humanity in the east. The western allies despite their many faults simply did not commit atrocities of the same magnitude even thought one can argue that they have since the second world war gone on to do just that. I do not however think this was readily apparent during the second world war and i am not sure that the western allies were certainly going to behave like that post where as i am fairly certain that Nazi Germany under Hitler would have done just so.

Stellar
edit on 20-11-2013 by StellarX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


"That is part of why war is bad for everyone and why people who like freedom at home can't afford to make much war ( or allow for much in the way of standing armies) and certainly can not afford a empire. Leaders who are allowed to make war on foreigners will sooner or later make war on their own people if only to make sure that they can keep fighting foreigners for this or that bit of wealth or real estate they don't yet have."

I don't think recent history can really be taken as an example of a naturally occurring set of circumstances considering the manipulations involved and the intentions of those doing the manipulating. There are many ploys afoot to bring about world collectivism, and those which involve developing negative public perception of capitalism and essentially all forms of extant sovereign government are at the top of the list. These involve globalists within such federal governments, and the capitalist economic system deliberately doing the worst things imaginable so that those among the people who are not aware of the reality of things will view such actions as indications of the evil nature of existing governments and of capitalism. Then, there are the Peter Josephs and the Benjamin Fulfords who point out the deliberate evils of their fellow travelers, just in case you missed it, and propose that the only way for man to survive is to institute a system identical to Alice A. Bailey's new world order. Benjamin Fulford, grievously insulting the intelligence of the viewer or reader, claims to be opposing and defeating the new world order while proposing to bring about, with the White Dragon Society, exactly what the new world order was claimed to be in the first place.

As far as leaders making war against the people, it would be completely impossible according to the United States Constitution. Given that that is the case, and given that it appears that they are attempting to create the impression that it is happening in the U.S. anyway, it should be clear that the republic defined by the constitution no longer exists.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by buster2010
 


Well I'm glad to see you here with simpler explanations as well. I was feeling outclassed by factual knowledge. Do you have a source about the torture?
edit on 20amWed, 20 Nov 2013 05:54:16 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Shattering the Nuremberg Consensus


If you had a halfway decent history teacher in school you should have learned about this. It was the treatment of the prisoners that led to the laws that are against torture.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Interesting, yeah I learned about it and even took a course specifically on Nazis and the Final Solution in college, but I don't have as detailed of a memory of other people on this thread. Thanks for the link.





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join