What is your view of the Nuremberg Trials?

[Joe McCarthy]

Vengeance of the victors or justice well served?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/nuremberg_defendants.jpg

http://www.pappasontaxes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nuremberg-trials.jpg

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/photos/DefendantsHLSL.jpg

[Gamera]

Both in most cases (though that might be contradictory). What they did to Rudolf Hess however, was despicable.

[Joe McCarthy]

Both in most cases (though that might be contradictory). What they did to Rudolf Hess however, was despicable.

Do you believe Julius Streicher should have been tried?

[Gamera]

Do you believe Julius Streicher should have been tried?

I'm undecided, since I'm not aware to what extent his propaganda affected the German people. I would support a trial for all the marxist-leninist-maoist propaganda men Shining Path had, to put an example closer to home.

Streicher seemed like a man with severe mental problems to me.

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm undecided, since I'm not aware to what extent his propaganda affected the German people. I would support a trial for all the marxist-leninist-maoist propaganda men Shining Path had, to put an example closer to home.

Streicher seemed like a man with severe mental problems to me.

Well, essentially he was tried for publishing, however radical his rantings were.

[European Loyalist]

I don't know much beyond the basics of the Nuremburg trials.

But the Eichmann trial, which I have studied, I think was illegal in the first place and the legitimacy of his death sentence is very debatable. He was a bureaucratic cog really.

[Joe McCarthy]

"[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience."


Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148.

"Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, 'The winner is always right'."


Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17.

"It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority... The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority...the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration."


Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7.

"I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria."


Vice Admiral, Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39.

"No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."


U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190.

"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein."


Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168.

"I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials."


T.S. Eliot, English poet and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51.

"I shall always have doubts about the whole 'War Crimes Trials,' both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria."


George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111.

"My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy's leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug."


Major General J.F.C. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43.

"This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it."


Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII.

"I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations."


Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H., British historian and author.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87.

"It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people's sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier's death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me."


Reichsmarschall Herman Göring
David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506.

"I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future."


Honorable Justice Learned Hand
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1.

"I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since."


The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50.

"The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: "Nullum Crimen Sine Lege" - a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: "It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations."
In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called "war criminals" by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future.


William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx.

"The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy."


U.S. President, John F. Kennedy
John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190.

"The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."


Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42.

"I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure."


Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3.

"About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret."


U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191.

"I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges."


Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47.

"To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty on justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government.
If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government's orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence - the waging of successful war in the interests of their country."


Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39.

"My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority... The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral.
One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats."


Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67.

"The Tribunal claimed in theory the right -- it certainly had the power --to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal."


F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146.

[Joe McCarthy]

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


Robert Alphonso Taft (September 8, 1889 – July 31, 1953), of the Taft political family of Cincinnati, was a Republican United States Senator and a prominent conservative statesman. As the leading opponent of the New Deal in the Senate from 1939 to 1953, he led the successful effort by the conservative coalition to curb the power of labor unions, and was a major proponent of the foreign policy of non-interventionism. However, he failed in his quest to win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party in 1940, 1948 and 1952. From 1940 to 1952 he battled New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the leader of the GOP's moderate "Eastern Establishment" for control of the Republican Party. In 1957, a Senate committee chaired by John F. Kennedy named Taft as one of the five greatest senators in American history, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert La Follette


Taft condemned the postwar Nuremberg Trials as victor's justice under ex post facto laws, in which the people who won the war were the prosecutors, the judges and the alleged victims, all at the same time. Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards in favor of a politicized version of justice, in which court proceedings became an excuse for vengeance against the defeated.[10] His opposition to the trials was strongly criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike and is sometimes alleged as a main reason for his failure to secure the Republican nomination for president. Other observers, such as Senator John F. Kennedy in his bestselling Profiles in Courage, applauded Taft's principled stand even in the face of great bipartisan criticism.

[Joe McCarthy]

So, it seems to me, sad to say, that these were little more than glorified show trials in violation of Anglo-Saxon concepts of justice. Surely the Nazi scum needed to be punished, perhaps exiled somewhere, but we didn't need to pervert the law to do it. It also set a precedent that may one day be used against us, perhaps by the Chinese. I only refrained from voting very unjust because the Nazi aggressors were unquestionably guilty in a non-legal sense and it's hard to sympathize with them in any way.

[Smaland]

If I must speak plainly, I must say that the Tribunal was completely unjust.

The defendants were not under Allied jurisdiction at any time during the war. Even if they had been, they were subjected to ex post facto laws.

[Jake Featherston]

Do you believe Julius Streicher should have been tried?

No.

Streicher merely printed words on paper. That shouldn't be a crime. Where the First Amendment is concerned, I'm pretty much a universalist.

[Aptrgangr]

Vengeance of the victors or justice well served?

Vae victis!
It was both, and unfortunatly the Germans themselves were unwilling and incapable to execute those that betrayed Germany and were reponsible for the death of millions of Europeans, huge loss of property and endless suffering. Juridical dodges can not hide the fact, Göring, Keitel and Jodl were not just "following orders of superiors", they were exactly these superiors that helped to cleanse Wehrmacht from generals that opposed the Nazi wars of aggression, they did fall in the back of those German military leaders that ordered Wehrmacht troops to defend Jews from Nazi henchmen and protested against the inhuman treatment of people in the occupied countries, it was these guys that abandoned the German military heritage and implemented Nazi regulations to make the German army a tool for the the Nazi race war. So no, it did not affect some harmless guys. They should have been slaughtered the same way they slaughtered Germans youths for printing anti-Nazi pamphlets in universities, instead of being executed by hanging.
The only shame is that the Allies showed too much mercy for Nazi criminals in general - even helped them to escape to Latin America (because they needed anti-Soviet allies), but punished the civilians, conscripts and sergeants, who really were innocent, too severely.

[Supreme American]

Don't even start me on Nuremberg...

[Rollo]

Don't even start me on Nuremberg...

It would have made sense, had the Allies held themselves to the same standards.

Conducting the bombing campaign over Germany, and dropping the A-Bombs on Japan should have been investigated as crimes against humanity. Stalin, by the legal definition, committed a genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm) against the German people when he forced all of them out of Eastern German territories.


"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.



Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.


The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

The trouble is, the food situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#Food_policy) in Germany directly following the war, most likely resulting from the Morgenthau plan, which was endorsed by Roosevelt and Churchill, and thankfully abandoned later, can be regarded as part of that definition of genocide


In 1945 the German Red Cross was dissolved,[58][59] and the International Red Cross and other international relief agencies were kept from helping ethnic Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[60] The few agencies permitted to operate within Germany, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants[61] the U.S. State Department forbade it.[61]

In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that, German civilian adult death rates had risen to four times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels.[62] In early 1946 U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally bowed to pressure from Senators, Congress and public to allow foreign relief organization to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946 non-German relief organizations were finally permitted to help starving German children.[61] During 1946 the average German adult received less than 1,500 calories a day. 2,000 calories was then considered the minimum an individual can endure on for a limited period of time with reasonable health.



Of course, I don't deny German actions, but I think that the trial was a serious double standard, and the most exceptional example of Victor's vengeance

[Supreme American]

It would have made sense, had the Allies held themselves to the same standards.

Winners of wars are never dragged before war crimes tribunals. A major part of the point of a tribunal is to justify the victory of the victor and vanquish the vanquished.



The trouble is, the food situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#Food_policy) in Germany directly following the war, most likely resulting from the Morgenthau plan, which was endorsed by Roosevelt and Churchill, and thankfully abandoned later, can be regarded as part of that definition of genocide

I've heard about it, I don't know what all to think about it. My mother and her family were in a Displaced Person's camp from 1944/5 to 1951 in Saalfelden, Austria, and I was told that it was either feast or famine. In the famine times, they wouldn't have a bite for a few days at a time. When food was there, they hoarded. I don't think it was a plot to punish Germans, though I've had people tell me it was.

[Supreme American]

A short summary of my difficulties with Nuremberg (and offshoot trials such as Dachau):

1) Confessions by torture, deception, threats of harm to prisoner family members, threats of handing prisoners over to the Soviets.

2) Executing someone for publishing a newspaper insulting Jews. If this isn't un-American, what is?

3) US investigation/prosecution team laden with Jewish German expats with a bone to pick.

4) Lack of access to exonerating documentation and witness testimonies by the defense.

5) Application of ex-post facto laws, acts committed which were not illegal when committed. (This possibly includes the charge of 'waging aggressive war.')

6) Continued use of the trials as proof gassings were committed, though nobody was charged or convicted of gassing people, but rather mistreating prisoners, etc.

7) Repeated attempts by the Soviets, at the least, of introducing false evidence.



This kind of garbage is so scandalous and filthy that after I first discovered it and did a decent amount of reading about it, my American patriotism was dented for a time.

[Supreme American]

Conducting the bombing campaign over Germany, and dropping the A-Bombs on Japan should have been investigated as crimes against humanity. Stalin, by the legal definition, committed a genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm) against the German people when he forced all of them out of Eastern German territories.

I have to disagree that forced relocation equals genocide. That's a ridiculous idea. It's throwing into the same basket the Rwandan Genocide with relocations of Indians? That's irrational. My family were expelled/fled from Yugoslavia, they were not genocided. Were they robbed of their property? Yes. Genocide? Not hardly. Targeted for retaliation for being a member of a certain group? Yep.

The majority of the expulsions were decided on at Potsdam, to my recollection, done for the purpose of easing ethnic tensions and thus politically stabilizing the region. I don't think Potsdam included Yugoslavia where my mother lived, but rather in that case it was a combination of the German military ordering civilian evacuations knowing what Red Army/Partisan revenge meant as well as Tito's enacting the AVNOJ laws, which stripped all ethnic Germans of property and citizenship. Those left behind (not massacred) were put into concentration camps or shipped off to Stalin's coal mines. My mother's citizenship was stripped when she was 10 years old and she was stateless until her death. She carried a US Green Card.

[Supreme American]

I'm undecided, since I'm not aware to what extent his propaganda affected the German people. I would support a trial for all the marxist-leninist-maoist propaganda men Shining Path had, to put an example closer to home.

Streicher seemed like a man with severe mental problems to me.

I think it should be a no brainer that people should not be hanged to death for publishing a paper that sometimes insulted Jews.

[Rollo]

I have to disagree that forced relocation equals genocide. That's a ridiculous idea. It's throwing into the same basket the Rwandan Genocide with relocations of Indians? That's irrational. My family were expelled/fled from Yugoslavia, they were not genocided. Were they robbed of their property? Yes. Genocide? Not hardly. Targeted for retaliation for being a member of a certain group? Yep.

The majority of the expulsions were decided on at Potsdam, to my recollection, done for the purpose of easing ethnic tensions and thus politically stabilizing the region. I don't think Potsdam included Yugoslavia where my mother lived, but rather in that case it was a combination of the German military ordering civilian evacuations knowing what Red Army/Partisan revenge meant as well as Tito's enacting the AVNOJ laws, which stripped all ethnic Germans of property and citizenship. Those left behind (not massacred) were put into concentration camps or shipped off to Stalin's coal mines. My mother's citizenship was stripped when she was 10 years old and she was stateless until her death. She carried a US Green Card.

I never said that I believe it is genocide. I agree, it is stupid, that's just the international law that applies today.

[Supreme American]

I never said that I believe it is genocide. I agree, it is stupid, that's just the international law that applies today.

I know, I was expressing my opinion on your source. The rationale behind it is just dumb, and what's worse is that it takes away the right of a society to expel invaders.

[Joe McCarthy]

I know, I was expressing my opinion on your source. The rationale behind it is just dumb, and what's worse is that it takes away the right of a society to expel invaders.

True. One could say Eisenhower's expulsion of illegal aliens in the 50s was genocide by such a standard.

[Hevneren]

Too lenient.

[Odoacer]

I voted "yes and no," since it is certainly the case that many of those convicted by the court were indeed deserving of death. However, it was a false show of justice, creating law ex post facto to regulate acts of war. The major Nazi actors should have been put to death without it.

[Supreme American]

Too lenient.

They violated all semblance of civilization and rule of law. Not good enough?

[Bardamu]

If a war ifs fought where millions of soldiers and civilians die then the leaders of the losing side can also die. That makes sense. Why should the leadership keep their lives when some carpenter in a soldier's uniform gets blown to pieces by a tank? Total war should be total enough to include the people who led the war. What is objectionable is the mendacity of the Nuremberg show trials: the lies, double-standards, laws ex post facto, and confessions under duress of torture.

[HungAryan]

It was very unjust.
Also, the fact that the Jewish side won the war was also unjust.
The world would be so much better place if Hitler won.

And no, I'm not trolling.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

The Germans had all their heroes treated worse than mere criminals. Very unjust and disgusting.

The Szalasi trial too.

[HungAryan]

An African American soldier once said that he was being treated better as a POW in Germany than as a soldier in America.
So much for Nazi racism...

[Bardamu]

It was very unjust.
Also, the fact that the Jewish side won the war was also unjust.
The world would be so much better place if Hitler won.

And no, I'm not trolling.

For Europeans, and probably for most of the rest of the world, this is undoubtedly true, although Russians might not agree.

[HungAryan]

For Europeans (and Europids), and probably for most of the rest of the world, this is undoubtedly true.

Who cares? :p

Actually, the world would be better for Palestinians, Japanese and Thai people too.

[Loddfafner]

It has set a very interesting precedent.

[Bardamu]

Who cares? :p



Maybe had he not attacked Russia he could have kept from igniting a world war which he was bound to lose.

[Joe McCarthy]

An African American soldier once said that he was being treated better as a POW in Germany than as a soldier in America.
So much for Nazi racism...

Nazi racism was directed mostly at other whites. They treated Poles and Ukranians worse than we treated blacks, which indicates how retarded they were.

Germans had no particular reason to hate blacks. Unlike us they hadn't dealt with them for 300 years. Interestingly enough, German women in post-war West Germany had few qualms about dating our nigger troops, and had to be prevented from doing so by white American GIs who attacked blacks and US occupation authorities working in tandem with German police.

[Supreme American]

Nazi racism was directed mostly at other whites. They treated Poles and Ukranians worse than we treated blacks, which indicates how retarded they were.

I haven't read on that much and I don't know what to think of it. Of course, if it is true it is inexcusable and disgusting.

[Joe McCarthy]

I haven't read on that much and I don't know what to think of it. Of course, if it is true it is inexcusable and disgusting.

Nazi racism was inspired by American racial standards but they added an extremism ours mostly lacked plus the conspiratorial anti-Semitism. They did much to discredit our racial system by association.

[Hevneren]

They violated all semblance of civilization and rule of law. Not good enough?

Which is why the Nazi scum should've been treated harsher. The Nuremberg Trials were too lenient to these criminal filth.

[Hevneren]

For Europeans, and probably for most of the rest of the world, this is undoubtedly true, although Russians might not agree.

What a load of rubbish.

[Bardamu]

What a load of rubbish.

Attempting to compare a future that might have happened to one that did is inherently dubious but it is hard to see how an Axis victory could have been worse for Europe than what is occurring now, the results of an Allied victory. Europe is being rapidly colonized by Third World populations. It is doubtful national socialists would have done such a thing.

[Xenomorph]

The legal precedents for it were shaky at best, but considering the circumstances, it was quite civilized and humane. Had the Nazis won, they just would have killed all the Allied leaders in a day.


Attempting to compare a future that might have happened to one that did is inherently dubious but it is hard to see how an Axis victory could have been worse for Europe than what is occurring now, the results of an Allied victory. Europe is being rapidly colonized by Third World populations. It is doubtful national socialists would have done such a thing.

Had the Axis won, who knows where the genocides would have stopped? The current problems can be reversed by a few laws and policy changes; you can't bring millions of people back to life.