JAPANESE WAR CRIMES



  • were the JAPANESE punished enough for their actions?
    rape of nanking bataan death march etc.
    seems the germans paid a high price but did japan?


  • Customizer

    Well,

    They have always “Officially” denied that these things ever happenned(Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, Chemicle weopons used against the Chinese), much less apologized for them.  What do YOU think?

    I believe an admission of guilt and an apology for their wrongdoings would help the Japanese PEOPLE understand the dangers of blindly following their leaders into doing things not acceptable to world opinions.

    The same applies to any nation/group.

    “Tall Paul”



  • I agree with you 100% “Tall Paul”.  War is Hell!!  and the entire world could learn a lesson from the P.O.W.'s and what they had to endure
      W.W.1 was supposed to be the war that ended all wars



  • I used to live in China and spent a chunk of time in Nanjing. In a single word, No, Japan wasnt punished for their actions, as they have never had to accept blame how could we claim they’ve been punished. The first step would be admiting wrong doing and instead they vehemently deny having any part in these crimes. Perhapse some of the members who live in Europe or have travled to Europe could comment, but I would imagine that the feeling I get when I walk through the Nanjing war memorial, which is built on the site of one of the largest mass graves from the Rape of Nanjing, is much the same as what walking through a concentration camp feels like. Abbhorent sadness, disgust, and horror at the realization that this actually happened. This is only one facet of the numerious crimes Japan commited in China, there was also unit 731 in Manchuria where horrible biological and medical experiments were conducted on Chinese civilians and allied P.O.W.s.
      There were also a number of crimes that are far to personal that get overlooked. My friends grandfather was a solider in the army that fought to defend Nanjing, and i was lucky enough to get to sit down and talk with him while I was living in China. He told me about how he and a friend of his(from the same home town) had to escape from the city after the defense collapsed by swimming across the yangtse. His friend was captured by the Japanese because he wasnt as strong of a swimer and was tortured by the Japanese on the river banks. He could hear his friend screaming from across the river as the Japanese baynotted him and set him on fire. After escaping Nanjing he made his way home only to find the village destroyed by the Japanese. His father had been shot by the Japanese, his mother died in the fire from the Japanese setting their small house on fire. His sister was raped and beaten by Japanese soliders, and perhapse worst of all was the fate of his small 3 year old brother who a Japanese solider beat to death with a rock.
      No, the Japanese have not been punished enough for what they’ve done and denying any wrong doing means any “punishment” they did recieve wasnt enough.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Insert Quote

    were the JAPANESE punished enough for their actions?
    rape of nanking bataan death march etc.
    seems the germans paid a high price but did japan?

    Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East

    Twenty-eight Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class A crimes, and more than 5,700 Japanese nationals were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly entailing prisoner abuse. China held 13 tribunals of its own, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.

    There is an Irony however… In 37 and 38, when the Japanese were raping, pilliaging, killing, and exploiting people in China…  Only ONE other country came to the table, gave a damn, and did it’s best to end the bloodshed…  That country, was NAZI GERMANY.

    John Rabe for example, a member of the party, was responsible for creating a Safe Zone in the city of Nanking, and creating a psuedo international committee to try and stay civilian executions etc…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/international/asia/15letter.html?pagewanted=all


  • '12

    When you are guilty, you plead guilty and take responsibility.  The Germans did that.  The Japanese are starting to do so.  It took them 70 years after the fall of Hong Kong to say sorry to the allied POWs who were captured and brutalized, this a short matter of day(s) ago.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Japan+apologizes+POWs+treatment/5829793/story.html

    A passage that stands out from that article is:

    One atrocity that stands out for MacDonell happened during the final stages of the Battle of Hong Kong, when Japanese forces stormed a hospital near where he was stationed and bayonetted wounded Canadians who were being treated, killed doctors and raped and dismembered nurses.

    A Canadian historian said the apology is “extremely significant” since explicit expressions of guilt for things done during the war are rare from Japan.

    Yes, saying sorry and taking responsibility is good, even if 70 years later……

    Now as far as Nazi Germany standing up for China based on the actions of John Rabe…

    An interesting piece of history I was unaware of so a quick bit of research reveals Mr. Rabe was an employee of Siemens and yes a Nazi party member.  He was recalled to Germany after speaking out against Japan after Nanking to which he was indeed there.  He was then interrogated by the Gestapo, stripped of party membership, imprisoned but due to company connections released and transferred to the Afghanistan division of Siemens and waited out the war there.  He was under strict orders to keep his mouth shut.  Not exactly the type of proof one would need to support the claim of national aims vis-a-vis Germany standing up for China, but rather interesting.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    stripped of party membership

    THat’s not what I heard?  I read he quit the party.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe

    Yea, DENOUNCED is a little bit different than STRIPPED.

    He was recalled to Germany after speaking out against Japan after Nanking to which he was indeed there.

    There’s no evidence anywhere to support that claim :S  Though it’s hinted maybe even Adolf ordered it?

    He was then interrogated by the Gestapo, stripped of party membership, imprisoned

    AS I said before, he was never “stripped”  he was also never “imprisoned”, atleast not by the Nazis.  By the British and the Soviets YES.

    He was under strict orders to keep his mouth shut.

    There is some truth to that… he was told not to write about it to Adolf Hitler,  supposedly, again lack of citations… :S


  • '12

    The recall was by Siemens and he disobeyed to set up the safe zone, he along with others including Americans.  There are a few places on the net which claim he was stripped of party membership, but they seem to be in the minority.  More sites seem to claim he was told to hush up but was allowed to retain his documentation of the Japanese criminal actions.

    3rd parapgraph
    http://www.reeltalkreviews.com/browse/viewitem.asp?type=review&id=3370

    His heroic actions are those of a man who along with many other things happened to be a nazi, but they were the actions initiated by one mans’ conscious not at he behest of Germany or the Nazi party.

    I would say Norman Bethune showed a greater amount of heroism than Rabe and in China, his name carries an enormous amount of good will.  But it would be a stretch to claim it was Canada who was helping the Chinese because of the actions of Bethune.

    An interesting piece of history, thanks for highlighting it.

    I do think that Germany has done more to take responsibility than Japan has.  I also read in a few places the communists in China didn’t speak out as much about Nanking as it was the nationalist Chinese who were trying to defend against the Japanese.  The commies didn’t want anything that would make the nationalists look good or imply they played a part in defeating the Japanese.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    droping the a-bomb on civilians is quiet a punishment as well to say the war is over for you guys and this is what you get for it!..If you asked : is japan punished for its war crimes ?, so you have to asked is any other nation who joint war on any side punished for their war crimes as well??..The list of war crimes is long but to say this or that nation wasn´t punished hard enough or even punished at all is inappropriate!!..
    Look ,Germany still pays for WWII even the generation who really fought and joint is allmost gone…
    For example ,I don´t see the Romans still pay any tribute to the celtics and other nations…Or the allied forces to the people of Dresden, or france to russia for the drive to Moscow?..
    to stay on WWII topic ,correct me if I´m wrong but I think Japan tried to push forward and adress a commitment for the Geneva Convention to protect civilians during a war and was blocked by others and the beginning of WWII…
    I think the right Question is again what are we currently and in future times doing about war crimes?..



  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    I also read in a few places the communists in China didn’t speak out as much about Nanking as it was the nationalist Chinese who were trying to defend against the Japanese.  The commies didn’t want anything that would make the nationalists look good or imply they played a part in defeating the Japanese.

    This is actually incorrect. The Nanjing war memorial was opened and recently revonated under the communist goverment. I was just there in October and they devote lenghty exhibits to the defense of the city, the nationalist commanders who were in charge of the citys defense, and the heroic actions of the KMT soliders who fought there. There was also a section that was devoted to the Battle of Shanghai and the actions of the KMT forces in the “heroic defense” of Shanghai. About 5 years ago there was a thawing in the stance that the KMT did nothing to defeat Japan and it was all Mao’s communist and alot of credit and attention (and even homage) has been paid to the forces of Chaing Kai-Shek and how they tried to resist Japan. If you want to see how far they’ve come you should watch the movie “The Founding of a Republic” and how they portray Generalissmo Chaing as a tragic, even simpathetic, figure who was just trying to do what eh thought was best for China the only way he knew how. Unfortunatley, the only way he knew how was backward and out-dated and it was time for Communism (or so they movie says). Yes, its a propoganda piece but still worth the watch.



  • @aequitas:

    The list of war crimes is long but to say this or that nation wasn´t punished hard enough or even punished at all is inappropriate!!…

    If you dont admit to do anything wrong and claim that instead you were the victim then you are not taking responsiblity for your action. You are showing no remorse and this means that you likely havent learned from your mistakes and that you would do the same things again if given the chance. This is what Japan has shown by claiming that it was the victim and not recognizing its own guilt, which is borderline sociopathic by the way.

    @aequitas:

    Look ,Germany still pays for WWII even the generation who really fought and joint is allmost gone…
    For example ,I don´t see the Romans still pay any tribute to the celtics and other nations…Or the allied forces to the people of Dresden, or france to russia for the drive to Moscow?..

    It the odl saying “The victors wright the history” here. The allies won the war so they get to depict their enemies as evil and anything they had to do to defeat them was the right thing to do while if their enemies did the same thing it was a horriffic act of violence, thats just the way it works.

    @aequitas:

    correct me if I´m wrong but I think Japan tried to push forward and adress a commitment for the Geneva Convention to protect civilians during a war and was blocked by others and the beginning of WWII…

    No, this is incorrect, Japan never signed or agreeded to the Geneva convention as it would require them to treat POW’s better then they did their own soliders. So I highly doubt and have seen no evidence to cinfirm that Japan would be trying to push such a thing threw. Also considering their actions towards occupied civilans drunig the war, I find it hard to believe the Japanese would be trying to find a way to protect civilians.


  • '12

    I stand by my claim that the Communist Chinese didn’t.  As we all know, didn’t and doesn’t are two entirely different things.  Didn’t refers to a past tense subject.  What I didn’t specifically state was when the didn’t ended or indeed seriously began to end.  Clyde, you state this warming began about 5 years ago, that prior period I do believe is covered by this statement.

    I also read in a few places the communists in China didn’t speak out as much about Nanking as it was the nationalist Chinese who were trying to defend against the Japanese.

    I had read somewhere this thawing began about 10 years ago, in any event, it is true that in the past the Communists didn’t discuss this incident in the way they do now for a variety of reasons.



  • Ok and thanks for a lesson in semantics 101, The communists didnt “discuss” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) the nanjing masscare at the level they do today right after the civil war, but they never denied it happened. On the contrary given that it was supposed to be defended by the Nationalists and the commanding General fled before the battle and the city suffered as it did, it was a great topic to point out to the Chinese people how bad the KMT goverment was, Rather then defend their own city they fled and let the people suffer. That jives pretty well with all the communist doctrine they would throw around back then. They never really pressed the issue with Japan itself back then because doing so would hurt trade with Japan which the communist goverment desperately needed (several times trade was disrupted during this period when mention was made of the crimes commited by the Japanese during the war).

    What has changed is a greater focus on the scarfice of the people (KMT or otherwise affiliated) during that period, and what they did for China as a whole (KMT or CCP). A much more honest appraisal of what took place, taking into account the actions of all involved equally has been the outcome which is a good thing. Also, China has placed a great emphasis on getting Japan to accept the responiblity for its actions which it, litteraly could afford to do in the past.


  • '12

    Ugh, you are now going to take issue with my usage of ‘discuss’?  What word would you suggest that I ought to use when referencing the action described as “state control of dissemination of information relating to a particular event”?

    Can we at least agree that in the ‘state slant’ on this topic has changed for the better and more historically accurate?  There seems to be a certain additional lack of freedom in expressing views in China as compared to more traditional forced lacks of expression of opinion in other states.



  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    Can we at least agree that in the ‘state slant’ on this topic has changed for the better and more historically accurate?  There seems to be a certain additional lack of freedom in expressing views in China as compared to more traditional forced lacks of expression of opinion in other states.

    Yes, that is what I was saying, but apparently when I express this setiment im an A-hole.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @aequitas:

    correct me if I�m wrong but I think Japan tried to push forward and adress a commitment for the Geneva Convention to protect civilians during a war and was blocked by others and the beginning of WWII…

    No, this is incorrect, Japan never signed or agreeded to the Geneva convention as it would require them to treat POW’s better then they did their own soliders. So I highly doubt and have seen no evidence to cinfirm that Japan would be trying to push such a thing threw. Also considering their actions towards occupied civilans drunig the war, I find it hard to believe the Japanese would be trying to find a way to protect civilians. quote of Clyde

    15th International Red cross-Conference in Tokyo in 1934

    The Tokyo Conference recognized the value of the draft and asked the ICRC to do everything necessary to arrive at a Convention on the subject.[27 ] The ICRC therefore transmitted the draft to the Federal Council, which undertook to consult the governments most directly concerned; several governments expressed their doubts and, in the view of Federal Councillor Giuseppe Motta, the French government in particular sent " a firm and definite refusal " .[28 ] In the circumstances, the Federal Political Department concluded that the auguries were insufficiently favourable for any real chance of success and refused to convene a diplomatic conference.
    source from :

    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmr9.htm



  • ……And? You have conspicuously left out what that resolution was. I did read the article so I know but the paragraph you posted dosnt mention any of that. Also just because the confrence was hosted in Tokyo dosnt mean the Japanese goverment had anything to do with it. They didnt, it was done by the red cross which is an international organization, with its member made up of people from all over the world and not working for or being representitive of any one goverment.

    Now more realisticly from wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Cross
    During the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), the Japanese Red Cross played a vital role in assisting Japanese civilians and wounded soldiers. However, as the Imperial Japanese Army tended to ignore the Geneva Convention, government and military restrictions hampered the ability of the Japanese Red Cross to assist the hundreds of thousands of European military and civilians interned in prison camps in the Japanese-occupied areas of Southeast Asia.

    So while a small group of people in Japan wanted to help and do the right thing, the overwhelming majority of the population, and importantly military and goverment leaders, didnt care to. Japan never signed the Geneva convention and being a member of the IRC is different and unrelated to the Geneva convention



  • @Gargantua:

    Insert Quote

    were the JAPANESE punished enough for their actions?
    rape of nanking bataan death march etc.
    seems the germans paid a high price but did japan?

    Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East

    Twenty-eight Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class A crimes, and more than 5,700 Japanese nationals were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly entailing prisoner abuse. China held 13 tribunals of its own, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.

    There is an Irony however… In 37 and 38, when the Japanese were raping, pilliaging, killing, and exploiting people in China…  Only ONE other country came to the table, gave a damn, and did it’s best to end the bloodshed…  That country, was NAZI GERMANY.

    John Rabe for example, a member of the party, was responsible for creating a Safe Zone in the city of Nanking, and creating a psuedo international committee to try and stay civilian executions etc…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/international/asia/15letter.html?pagewanted=all

    Thanks for the links. I gleaned the following points from the article.

    • The Japanese Army behaved brutally in Nanking.

    • The postwar Allied tribunal consisted of those appointed by Allied governments, thereby setting the stage for victors’ justice.

    • Victors’ justice actually occurred, as the prosecution’s main case was very weak.

    • Very serious Allied war crimes committed against Japan or the Japanese were ignored.


    Justice Radhabinod Pal, the Indian justice at the IMTFE, argued that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the use of the atom bomb by the United States from the list of crimes, and judges from the vanquished nations on the bench, signified the “failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate.” [17] In this he was not alone among Indian jurists of the time, one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than “a sword in a [judge’s] wig”.

    Justice B. V. A. Roling stated, “of course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully”.

    Pal’s dissenting opinion also raised substantive objections: he found that the entire prosecution case, that there was a conspiracy to commit an act of aggressive war, which would include the brutalization and subjugation of conquered nations, weak. About the Rape of Nanking in particular, he said, after acknowledging the brutality of the incident (and that the “evidence was overwhelming” that “atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population… and prisoners of war”), that there was nothing to show that it was the “product of government policy”, and thus that the officials of the Japanese government were directly responsible. Indeed, he said, there is “no evidence, testimonial or circumstantial, concomitant, prospectant, restrospectant, that would in any way lead to the inference that the government in any way permitted the commission of such offenses.” [17]

    In any case, he added, conspiracy to wage aggressive war was not illegal in 1937, or at any point since.[17]


    Making up laws after the fact (in this case laws against wars of aggression) and selectively applying them to vanquished nations only, seems entirely too convenient for the Allied prosecution.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    With that said Kurt Godel…

    That makes Jodl innocent.  But also… dead, by execution.

    Thus, the United States government is guilty of Murder?  Or is it the internationally community that is to blame?



  • The “funny” thing that happened after World War II was the Allies keeping emperor Hirohito in charge until his natural death.



  • @Gargantua:

    With that said Kurt Godel…

    That makes Jodl innocent.  But also… dead, by execution.

    Thus, the United States government is guilty of Murder?  Or is it the internationally community that is to blame?

    The Allies conducted Soviet-style show trials after the war, against both the Germans and Japanese.


    Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. “(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” he wrote. “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”[61]

    Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”[62][63]

    Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”[64]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Criticism

    The above-described trials resulted in a very different outcome than might have been expected, had the trials been conducted by a trustworthy neutral government. (In contrast, the Allied governments which conducted the trials had a strong vested interest in making the Nazis look as bad as possible. The worse the Nazis looked, the better the Allied governments would look for having beaten them.) Also, there is this quote from The Guardian, one of Britain’s most prestigious newspapers:


    Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

    As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. . . . Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency. . . .

    The Foreign Office briefed Clement Attlee, the prime minister, that “the guards had apparently been instructed to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the object of reducing them to a state of physical collapse and of making them more amenable to interrogation”. . . .

    Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered “perfectly proper”, on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. . . .

    One victim of the cold cell punishment was Buttlar, who swallowed the spoon handle to escape. An anti-Nazi, he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. “I never in all those two years had undergone such treatments,” he said.


    Had a trustworthy neutral government conducted the postwar trials, it is highly unlikely that the above-described tactics would have been used to extort confessions for use at the Nuremberg Trials.



  • @KurtGodel7:

    @Gargantua:

    With that said Kurt Godel…

    That makes Jodl innocent.  But also… dead, by execution.

    Thus, the United States government is guilty of Murder?  Or is it the internationally community that is to blame?

    The Allies conducted Soviet-style show trials after the war, against both the Germans and Japanese.


    Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. “(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” he wrote. “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”[61]

    Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”[62][63]

    Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”[64]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Criticism

    The above-described trials resulted in a very different outcome than might have been expected, had the trials been conducted by a trustworthy neutral government. (In contrast, the Allied governments which conducted the trials had a strong vested interest in making the Nazis look as bad as possible. The worse the Nazis looked, the better the Allied governments would look for having beaten them.) Also, there is this quote from The Guardian, one of Britain’s most prestigious newspapers:


    Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

    As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. . . . Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency. . . .

    The Foreign Office briefed Clement Attlee, the prime minister, that “the guards had apparently been instructed to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the object of reducing them to a state of physical collapse and of making them more amenable to interrogation”. . . .

    Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered “perfectly proper”, on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. . . .

    One victim of the cold cell punishment was Buttlar, who swallowed the spoon handle to escape. An anti-Nazi, he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. "I never in all those two years had undergone such treatmdescribed tactics would have been used to extort confessions for use at the Nuremberg Trials.

    @KurtGodel7:

    @Gargantua:

    With that said Kurt GNuremberg," he wrote. “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”[61]

    Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”[62][63]

    Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”[64]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Criticism

    The above-described trials resulted in a very different outcome than might have been expected, had the trials been conducted by a trustworthy neutral government. (In contrast, the Allied governments which conducted the trials had a strong vested interest in making the Nazis look as bad as possible. The worse the Nazis looked, the better the Allied governments would look for having beaten them.) Also, there is this quote from The Guardian, one of Britain’s most prestigious newspapers:


    Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

    As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. . . . Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency. . . .

    The Foreign Office briefed Clement Attlee, the prime minister, that “the guards had apparently been instructed to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the object of reducing them to a state of physical collapse and of making them more amenable to interrogation”. . . .

    Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered “perfectly proper”, on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. . . .

    One victim of the cold cell punishment was Buttlar, who swallowed the spoon handle to escape. An anti-Nazi, he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. "I never in alldescribed tactics would have been used to extort confessions for use at the Nuremberg Trials.
    I don’t see a problem here
    the nazis got what they deserved


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts