Nuremberg Trials

War criminals getting what they deserve

then why did they have to lie in the prosecution

I came here to tell you you're wrong

jews had their heads shrunk in the holocaust and nuremberg is proof

based

It was a kangaroo court made up of generals and high ranks from the victorious army as to judge their fallen enemies, or just give it a veneer of credibility as they raped the country once more of its riches, of course eagerly working hand in hands with the corporation that previously had helped the nazi but decided to turn coat when shit got unprofitable. I mean it ain't for no reason the very company who supposedly made Zyklon B is still up and running, or IBM.

It was a fucking circus, basically it was the victorious military high rank acting as judge, jury and executioner of a people that had their image twisted by decades of massive propaganda all over the world by Jews. A shitload of the whole holocaust shit we take as facts came way, WAY after the war had ended and said info comes from peoples who only have interest as for the nazi to be perceived as the ultimate evil as to legitimize their own atrocious military actions, which ranged from false flag to summary execution of PoW (which the nazi didn't do) to raping & looting entire cities which housed no military personnel. A circus from start to end, with no true victor except (((them)))

Of course jews being jews they couldn't help themselves and backstab the very anglo allies that allowed their little fraud of modern Israel to see the light of day by bombing the military high ranks they had stationed in Palestine (Whaddiya know, Jews created modern terrorism! go read bout the King David Hotel) in a attempt to convince the brits to give the Jews the authority over the region.

it was a show trial with 'confessions' extracted via torture.
If they tortured Goring long enough he would have told them he was the Easter bunny.
I am embarrassed that my nation fought the German Third Reich.

Attached: nurenberg.png (575x3834, 1.69M)

Many laws were invented to persecute at the trials. Yes invented.

>Nuremberg
How do you go from 'Nürnberg' to 'Nuremberg'? Fucking retards.

Why don't you read the actual transcripts.

Ohlendorf came across as being very credible in the transcripts, he was not involved in gassing but definitely in mass executions of Jews.

people being tortured until they told the story the judges wanted to hear, not, tell the story that actually happened

They tortured them to force confession, its on record.
They threatened the families of the men on trial if they went back on their confession during trial.

I wouldn't even trust the transcript to be honest, and knowing Jews its probably filled to the brim with dishonest semantics as to twist what the nazi said into a usable form for them. I mean they eagerly do that shit unto my people, whom literally never did them any wrong and actually only good beyond the occasional anti-semite (which is a natural reaction to their shitty behavior) whom more often than not just got his word taken out of context by some SJW or Jews playing shemantics.

from what i understand these were special trials where no evidence was needed. the witnesses were threatened and tortured into confessions. many decided to make dog whistle confessions such as claiming 2 million people were gasses at non existent gas chambers at an internment camp that held 40k people max

A show trial, nothing more than that

>illuminati
Classical well-poisoning tactic. Well played, leaf.

The judge didn't even understand german. Luckily our history teachers were as objective as possible about the timeline

So riddle me this you inbred niggers

The Jews wanted to kill every German but after the war they let them do their own thing. They put on a show trial where they tortured them and then they recorded all of that shit. They didn't lie on the transcripts, no just straight up told the truth about the sham so that a bunch of inbreds could "discover the truth" 70 years later. You niggers are retarded.

Hermann Goring and Heinrich Himmler didn't commit suicide, that's for sure, they were beaten to death in their cells.

The Nuremberg trials were less of a criminal proceedings and more an entering into record of all the details of Nazi crimes.

That's where that "rules of evidence dispensed with" quote you see floating around here comes from - the Court wasn't bound to only consider what would have come out in a real criminal trial, but instead to allow everything to be entered into the record, because the Nuremberg trials were deliberately a public event to investigate the Nazi regime.

Think of them more like an inquiry than criminal proceedings.

That said, they weren't show trials. The high conviction rate was just because the Nazis were all unquestionably guilty. But even so, some people did launch successful defences.

>they let them do their own thing
wew

generally inquiries should not result in death sentences

>they weren't show trials

Nikitchenko presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he among other things sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev.

Attached: Russian_judges_at_Nuremberg.jpg (508x635, 57K)

nah they pursued the morgenthau plan and now Germany is not the world's 4th largest economy

Depends on what powers the inquiry is given when the terms of reference are set out.

If the inquiry is empowered to make orders that people be put to death then I see no reason why those lawful orders should not be carried out.

>The high conviction rate was just because the Nazis were all unquestionably guilty.

Guilty just the same way the fucking treasurer or kitchen chef were guilty of easing the process of mass execution?

You're a fucking clown

Those "war criminals" are the reason your family can afford potatoes with auschwitz tourism money

The trials just took place to show the world how evil the Nazis allegedly were.
Höss was forced into confessing, which lead him to talk about a concentration camp that didn't even exist.
Hess said he regrets nothing.
Legally the trials were bullshit, because the charges were only introduced after they "happened".

>Guilty just the same way the fucking treasurer or kitchen chef were guilty of easing the process of mass execution?
No, guilty of ordering it.

>*snap*

Yes, and Nikitchenko was one of a panel of judges. He wrote several dissenting opinions in matters where the defendants escaped the death penalty.

>yep

Martyrdom

History is written by the victor

Attached: 1528254641273.jpg (434x345, 50K)

>Being so fucking retarded

Holy fuck, I know you're Australian and surely pulling our leg, but please stop. But even then doesn't really surprise me that the literal descendant of a prisoner who was sent to Australia as a punishment (probably some minor thing, England was getting crowded back in those days) would be in favor of authority enforcing its own plan unto their populace, who gives a fuck about due process eh? If the queen deem them guilty, then they are!

>Kitchen chef
>Ordering it
>A kitchen staff having the authority to execute PoW during war time

You are fucking dumb, ain't ya? Do you bother to even think about what you write god damn?

Parliament is the body by which government is established and our elected representatives saw fit to, in concert with the Allies, establish an inquiry with the power to put certain people to death.

Knowing all of this, I see no grounds to challenge the lawful authority of the body making those orders, even if the orders themselves might be disagreeable.

Don't expect further reply.

Not saying it's not legal, but not moral that's for sure

>A certain gentlemen by the name if Einstein tearfully accused a German named Menzel of murdering his brother. The defendant pointed out that his brother was alive and well, and sitting in the court.

This reads like like some sort of half baked Jow Forums meme.

>parliament
>being representative
top meme 10/10

Attached: 220px-The_crisis_of_parliamentary_democracy_carl_schmitt.jpg (220x334, 27K)

I think that calling it immoral goes too far.

To argue that these people weren't guilty as sin is ludicrous. Everyone knew they were guilty and the only question was how to skin the cat, not whether or not it needed skinning. If we'd done what the soviets wanted they probably would have been broken on the wheel. Instead the Nazis got to make their cases, after a fashion, and when they were done they were given real sentences, rationally explained to them, and punished according to their crimes.

It's a lot more than they ever gave their victims.

But the trials' real purpose was to establish a record of the crimes of the Nazi regime, not to provide justice for Nazis.

You can argue that even Nazis deserve justice, sure, but justice is a subjective concept. Justice to the USSR was to just shoot them all in one day and then go home with their heads to stick on the Kremlin. There was no body of international law and procedure for how it ought to have been done in the first place - they were literally making it up as they went along, which is why holocaust deniers find that "but these aren't real court proceedings! it looks like they were just making it up as they went along!" is such a fertile and convincing argument.

The Nuremberg trials saved several Nazis from death, when you think about it.

You have to ask? Jews jewin like always. You find a problem? 90% chance it's jewry. Involving America? 100% chance

Attached: 1526364567564865.jpg (674x672, 87K)

>our history teachers were as objective as possible about the timeline
in germany
what

how does he still have a job

even in france our teachers are just here to make us stop asking questions

>even in france our teachers are just here to make us stop asking questions

Attached: Lesqueen.png (272x204, 83K)

I wouldn't call being beaten until you sign a confession "getting to make my case". Also if the purpose of the trial was to simply establish a record, then you shouldn't be doing shit like forcing confessions, making shit, and other nefarious tricks.

your argument essentially is that it's justice because important people said as much, rather than justice because it follows along with our philosophical understanding of justice that's been developed over thousands of years
justice by authoritative fiat, rather than actual justice, where authorities sought to explicitly bypass actual justice while still referring to it as such

Guess who was there? This guy, D. Ewen Cameron, the guy who would go on to conduct MK Ultra experiments on unwitting/unwilling subjects at the Allen Memorial Institute in Montreal!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron

Attached: Donald_Ewen_Cameron_canmedaj01237-0046-a.jpg (455x687, 88K)

>slow clap

Attached: 5DA4E064-671E-42DC-BA16-AF67D88AAD7D.png (389x250, 122K)

Check em

>If they tortured Goring long enough he would have told them

Did they torture Goering? I don't think so. In fact they even weaned him off opiates, under medical supervision, with the hydocodne in his posession when he was detained. That doesn't sound like torture. And I was under the impression that remained true to his convictions.

>I am embarrassed

You can certainly be embarrassed about your inadequate grasp of the topics you're posting about.

t. know-it-all-leafposter

Attached: milky-way.jpg (243x207, 6K)

"Tribunals not criminal trials. No proof off evidence is needed.

>I wouldn't call being beaten until you sign a confession "getting to make my case"
Where are the proofs? A handful of interviews with unrepentant Nazi wives? These people were trotted into Court in front of the entire world without a mark on them.

>Also if the purpose of the trial was to simply establish a record, then you shouldn't be doing shit like forcing confessions, making shit, and other nefarious tricks.
Holocaust revisionism, and nothing more.

I'm interested in discussing the facts, not conspiracy theories. I'll defend the Nuremberg trials against legitimate criticisms with an open mind, but I'm not up for debating the reality of the holocaust or the hypothetical and unsubstantiated alleged tortures.

>your argument essentially is that it's justice because important people said as much
No, that's wrong. My argument is that it's lawful because it follows the law.

Your argument is that it's not justice because you didn't get the result you wanted.

Hitler killed more white people than anybody else in history, and you inbred clowns are defending his actions because he took a few low-ranking Jews at the behest of high-ranking Jews in the process.

How moronically retarded do you have to be to fall this low?

The Nazi regime was a Jewish puppet. It existed purely to kill white people and create an excuse for Israel's creation.

(People like Soros were all Nazi collaborators. Google 'judenrate'.)

>What went down at the Nuremberg Trials?

The Allies chose not to behave like the savages they had just defeated and flat out execute the leaders of Nazi Germany, but gave them a as-fair-as-could-be-expected hearing and a chance to defend themselves first.

Attached: AnneFrank_001-ALT.jpg (687x1117, 531K)

>No, that's wrong. My argument is that it's lawful because it follows the law.
lawful, but not justice, the distinction being between who makes the law and whether justice is followed when they do so
the law is the expression of justice set forth by the powers that be, so my point is even more spot on when you put it like that

>Your argument is that it's not justice because you didn't get the result you wanted.
if my argument was about the result I wouldn't be talking about the process, the entire point of justice (and discovery for the creation of records, for that matter) is that when you fudge the method the results become unreliable
I'm not a Holocaust denier in any case, and the Nuremburg trials were still horseshit, injust, cruel and failed to adequately accomplish anything they purportedly set out to do, while admirably accomplishing the very thing they covetously and actually set out to do

Cringe.
American education everyone

If you want to talk about justice, then sure. Let's talk about that.

There are a few kinds of justice but I think the two that apply in this discussion are procedural justice and retributive justice. I don't think that distributive justice or restorative justice are relevant, because nothing's being distributed and no restoration can be made.

In terms of retributive justice, I think the Nuremberg trials achieved that. The USSR would disagree with me, and their judge wrote several dissenting opinions. But you should note that he had to get help from the other judges to write them - they were the first he'd ever written in his career, because the USSR legal system doesn't have dissenting opinions. So I think we can ignore the USSR's opinion.

In terms of procedural justice, I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is. You say the procedure was unjust - okay, I'm prepared to entertain that. But why? What specifically was unjust about it? It was novel, sure, but novelty alone doesn't make it unjust. It had to be novel, there was no other way to do it. So which specific elements of the Nuremberg procedures made it procedurally unjust.

Note: I think that you are saying that the trials reached the right conclusion by the wrong methods. If this isn't a correct characterisation of your opinion, let me know.

kys you polish rat

they didn't actually, the Jews literally wanted Patton to kick the GERMANS out of GERMANY and he refused

Attached: 1527719658290.jpg (574x480, 136K)

>you have nothing goy, not even Hitler

demoralization faggot, fuck off

Hes right tho

war "crimes" were committed by all sides

kys you shill traitor

*snap*

>War crimes by one side excuse far greater war crimes by other side
Hello brainlet

see goerings final statement

Those were real assholes that were executed and imprisoned senpai

Maybe they shouldn't have turned all of Europe into a battlefield because of their dogshit ideology and allowed Communism to rule half the world

Fuck off mutts
S

Attached: 1523904770048.png (731x709, 48K)

Here you go OP. David Irving's Nurenberg: The Last Battle
fpp.co.uk/books/Nuremberg/NUREMBERG.pdf

enjoy your niggers, communist

>

Attached: 1528694491429.jpg (512x512, 97K)

>communist
Learn to read stupid mutt, it's your own fucking language
Thankfully there will be no niggers here, Germany, UK and France took them all

Westen Europe will burn, can't wait

Not enough g*Rmans were killed.

ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

The Nuremberg trials were a mock kangaroo court to placate the vocal minority. Hitler and all the other high rank nazi officers went to Argentina where their offspring live to this day.

Supposedly, the Allies showed footage of the holocoaster and those bitchasses started to cryor got sad

No, if they actually study German history they might see how Hitler ruined Germany, how he could have never invade Poland and still been somewhat successful (though the economy would have been in serious trouble), and how national socialism is as idealistic and failure-ridden as any political movement based on ideals. That they don't want to do.

Bayer not IBM. Still valid point though
cracked.com/article_15767_third-reich-to-fortune-500-five-popular-brands-nazis-gave-us.html

It's a weird coincidence that all the video tapes from those trials were given for safekeeping to Israel, who accidentally didn't store them properly and they all deteriorated beyond recovery. It really activates my almonds

Attached: Smug Hazuki.jpg (189x189, 13K)

The kikes ruined Germany

It's the same themes playing out over and over again, just like they are ruining America today. Only difference is the Germans weren't going to take it lying down, unlike cultureless American mutts.

>see
Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Regnery, 1949), p. 195.

>At Nuremberg, the German documents were in the custody of the Allied prosecutors, who did not permit defense attorneys to make their own selections of the material. Historian Werner Maser has pointed out that at Nuremberg "thousands of documents which seemed likely possibly to incriminate the Allies and exonerate the defendants suddenly disappeared... There is much evidence that documents were confiscated, concealed from the defense or even stolen in 1945." Other important documents suddenly "disappeared" when specifically requested by defense attorneys. Officials at the National Archives in Washington have confirmed to this writer on several occasions that the originals of numerous Nuremberg documents remain "lost" to this day. The Tribunal refused to allow in evidence several collections of German and captured foreign documents published during the war as German Foreign Office "White Books." Most of the 1,809 affidavits prepared by the Nuremberg defense have never been made public.
Interesting reading. Thanks user

I don't agree one way or the other

But based aus-user for having a logical discussion with reason and facts

good to see in this shithole

jews perverted the court from an anglo-saxon to a russian.

of course, that site has a number of other interesting reads as well if you're interested

hard cringe