MovieChat Forums > Nuremberg (2000) Discussion > Trial was a complete joke

Trial was a complete joke


Why did they bother with this joke of a trial? The defendents sentences were predetermined before the trial, it was just a display of the allies
so-called 'moral superiority', well I ask, why were the British not put on trial for deleberatly targetting German civillions, or the Americans put on trial for there sick little nuclear experiment against the Japanese, and, once again, targetting civillions not milliatry personel? Or the Russians, what is there to say, America should have done the world a favour and bombed the communists off the face of the world, I guess though, they didn't have the guts to bomb a country that could defend itself, it only wanted to attack defenceless Japanese civillions and not another super power that would bomb back.

reply

Gee, d'ya think if the Axis had won they would have bothered with trials, sham or not? Those ovens would've been working overtime from Los Angeles to New York.

reply

Probably, but the allys should not have wasted everyones time, they would have got back to work, not stuffed around with pointless little showings of 'moral superiority', which, as I have already pointed out, is an absoulute joke.

reply

[deleted]

Little showings of 'moral superiority'; like not trying to exterminate an entire people? I suggest you read a little history my friend. It is incumbent on all of us to know what has recently happened, know our history, and make sure this never happens again. Your attitude does not make me optimistic.......

reply

Lets start by making sure innocent civilians don't have neuclear war heads dropped on them, or we could make sure that the allies never again join forces with the greatest evil that has ever existed on the face of this earth. Lets make sure these things never happen again.

"People that dont believe in anything will never understand those who do"

reply

You really dont like the Soviets do you?

The Allies weren't put on trial because they won! How many other victorious nations have put themselves on trial through history?! Would you?

The bombing of German cities was aimed at the destruction of German manufacturing ability - either by destroying them factories themselves or rendering them without labour - the technology of the day didn't facilitate the pin-point accuracy that is heralded (often without justification) today! as for the controversial bombings of Dresden, etc - at the time it was felt that with the Soviets (the guys you hate) advancing in the area, dresden became a legitimate target as it was a city of a reasonable size, and of importance with regard to the relocation of german forces.

That is why we weren't put on trial for that!

As for the Atomic bomb, how many Allied servicemen and Japanese civilians do you think would have been killed if we had invaded the main islands?


Just as an aside - exactly why do you define the Soviets as the greatest evil that has ever existed on the face of this earth? and as a related point - is there greater evil on other planets?!?! does this mean we should never again send astronauts into space?!

reply

Wow, what an incredibly stupid post.

No, the trial was NOT a complete joke.

First, there were several defendants at Nuremburg who were acquitted, which obviously means all the verdicts weren't predetermined.

Yes, for some of the defendants it was obvious what the verdict would be. Why? Because they were guilty as hell!

Even if you already know the person is guilty as hell, you give them a trial anyway. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

"well I ask, why were the British not put on trial for deleberatly targetting German civillions?"

What victorious nation has ever put itself on trial, genius?

The purpose of bombing civilian targets was to destroy the enemy's warmaking capability. If they don't take out the enemy's ability to make war than the war would just keep going endlessly.

No, it wasn't right, but it was the only way to win and end the war.

"I guess though, they didn't have the guts to bomb a country that could defend itself, it only wanted to attack defenceless Japanese civillions and not another super power that would bomb back."

Okay, aussie, that was just stupid. Are you saying the Japanese couldn't defend themselves? The war between the US and Japan was brutal. More US troops died in the Pacific than in Europe, and many US troops were killed by civilians pretending to surrender.

Couldn't bomb back? What the hell was the Pearl Harbor attack? Or the invasion of the Phillipines? Or China? Or Indochina? Didn't the Japanese bomb those places?

And how about Germany and Italy? Are you saying they couldn't defend themselves? Yes, they could. There was a very real possibility that the Allies could have lost WWII.

And the atomic bombs weren't a "sick little experiment". They were the lesser of two evils. The alternative to the bombs was an invasion of Japan which would have killed way more Japanese than the bombs did, in addition to the estimated one million US casualties, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed in the invasion by US firebombing.

Plus, Hiroshima was bombed because it was one of the first cities the US would have to take if the Allies did invade Japan.

Tell me, aussie, what would you have proposed? Rules prohibiting the Allies from attacking civilian targets? Sure, that's worked out so well in Vietnam and so well for the current war in Iraq what could possibly have gone wrong if they were doing it against a massive military force?

The bottom line is that wars can't be won with rules. Especially these unrealistic ones the Geneva convention tries to impose. They pretend that if you make rules for war it won't be as bad, but in reality it can make it worse in some ways. Why do you think the US had such a hard time in Vietnam and is having such a hard time in Iraq? Because when there's rules, the enemy just takes advantage of them.

This is what makes war so terrible. Those civilian bombings had to be done or the war would never have ended. If you can't kill civilians the enemy simply takes off their uniforms.

"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."

reply

[deleted]

No, they couldn't use an atomic bomb back, but they could sure as hell bomb back as they proved quite a bit in their invasions of East Asian countries.

They weren't a super power like post WWII US or USSR, but they were a major power.

"No, Sir. I didn't see you playing with your dolls again."

reply

Allowing Stalin's Russia-a worse tyranny than Nazi Germany-to take part reduced our moral superiority.Each defendant should have been tried separately by judge and jury preferably from a neutral country-I suggest Switzerland.

reply

You better read some real history. *This trial will be just a beginning and they will be prosecuting nazis for ever* or something like that? Really? I agree, but then they should prosecute a crapload of russians that did the exact same things in their concentration camps. That fat russian was moaning about how he lost 20,000,000 of his people but he forgot to say that a good number was killed by other russians just so they wouldn't give up in the middle of combat.
The russian *soldiers* literally raped half of germany's women when they managed to get their sorry asses over there by sheer numbers. The crimes of the russians in that war are almost on par with those of the nazis. How about the atomic bombs the americans dropped on innocent people? How about the crimes the good and just americans are commiting now ? (that joke of a trial was supposed to be a bright point that would start a new and peaceful era for humanity by the way). I would agree with this trial if they had continued by judging themselves, and hanging themselves as well of course.

reply

Dropping the atomic bomb saved thousands of British and American lives.

reply

America should have done the world a favour and bombed the communists off the face of the world, I guess though, they didn't have the guts to bomb a country that could defend itself
The United States had the atomic bomb in 1945, U.S.S.R. didn't have their own until 1949 (design was stolen from U.S.A.). America had almost 5 years to do exactly that!!! Read up on your history before making such a claim, BOZO! So many people with these "world opinions" are uneducated of the topic of their own discussion that it's almost comical sometimes.

reply

The trial was definitely a joke. Law experts all over to world criticized many of the verdicts because they actually made new laws for the trial and made them legally binding before they existed. That's just wrong.

reply

You said: "why were the British not put on trial for deleberatly targetting German civillions, or the Americans put on trial for there sick little nuclear experiment against the Japanese, and, once again, targetting civillions not milliatry personel?"

Fact: The Blitz was the sustained bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941, in World War II. While the "Blitz" hit many towns and cities across the country, it began with the bombing of London for 57 nights in a row. By the end of May 1941, over 43,000 civilians, half of them in London, had been killed by bombing and more than a million houses destroyed or damaged in London alone.

Fact: Nazi Germany Murdered Six Million Jewish Civilians during WWII

Fact: The Nanking Massacre, commonly known as the Rape of Nanking, was an infamous war crime committed by the Japanese military in Nanjing, the capital of the Republic of China, after it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army on December 13, 1937. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the violence lasted well into the next six weeks, until early February 1938.

During the occupation of Nanking, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000.


Analysis: You examples of the Allies "crimes" are downright silly in comparison to the most malignant, the most calculated, the most devestating crimes in the history of mankind, perpetuated by the Germans and the Japanese during WWII. You are at best a boob and at worst an apologist for murder, brutalities, torture and atrocities.

reply

What really gets me is that the majority of these neo-nazis and nazi sympathizers would not of been "selected for life" had they of been sent to the camps, but they're too stupid to realize that.

Mr. Revisionist, go look in the mirror: are you tall and slim? do you have blonde hair and blue eyes? is your face long and angular? If not, you and your family would have of been *gone* eventually.

reply

The trial was a complete joke, The U.S. killed many civilians with the atomic bomb. And Stalin was far worse than Hitler. Every country in the war intentionally killed civilians. Russia did mass gangrapes of German women, many of which committed suicide afterward. America used the Atomic Bomb on a second civilian target after the successful first bombing. And idiots continue to demonize German leaders that were bad enough that they don't need to be demonized in order to whitewash everything the victors of the war did. There was plenty of evil going around. It's unfortunate that people seem to have been brainwashed into thinking the jews were the only victims, and that Germany were the only evildoers of the war.

reply

The way the OP makes his claims are sort of nutty but the fact that the trials in Nuremberg and ESPECIALLY Tokyo were show trials is pretty much known by major historians. Citing that the bombing of Dresden was strategic for this reason or that reason would've meant d!ck to the Axis had they won. Dropping a nuke, strategic?! Get real, even if it did serve a purpose it was still to shock and awe, much like the Blitz.

Robert McNamara himself in the Fog of War says that we would've rightly been tried for crimes too had we lost.

So lets not try to mythologize the Allies as ultimate good guys. They had their share of criminal activity too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM < Proof

reply

[deleted]

If you can read this, thank a teacher;

If it is in English, thank a soldier!

Get a life and work on your spelling!

reply

I don't think this person is very old at all. Since Australia was not in WW II, he has a lot of nerve telling others how the US, Britain, France and the USSR were going to just hang them all. Some were not guilty, some were. I don't think he has any idea of what could have happened to his Australia if Hitler would have won, he could have been an undesirable and taken away.

I don't see it as being a moral superiority thing, does this guy even know what Hitler was and what he did, or what he ordered? If Britain would have lost, then their colonies would have been destroyed, villages taken over, men and women shot, anyone who was jewish, hell, we know how well Hitler thought of them.

As far as Japan goes, didn't the US give them 2 or 3 chances to surrender and informed about what would happen if they didn't? I hate that the A-bomb had to be used and people had to die like that. I am even more surprised that such a wise man such as the Japanese Emperor could have been reeled in by Hitler. That is what I would like to know.

You must be a vet, I am. I agree, there is such a thing as "spell check."

reply

No, I am not a vet, but a retired educator. I do have a long line of veterans in my family, including two children who served in Desert Storm. My uncle was career airforce and was killed in 1968. My great-uncle served under General Chenault with the Flying Tigers over China. He had died before they were finally recognized as bonafide veterans of WWII. I belong to several groups that support the war vets home in our area. One of my very best friend's father was on the Bataan Death March. He lived to come home. Most of then didn't. (By the way - Australia was in WWII. Details of their service with the Allied units can be found in Winston Churchill's 6 volume series on the war, starting with "The Gathering Storm". I have my great-aunt's set. It was purchased for $12.00 in 1948. The price is written on the frontpiece of the first volume.)

reply

Australia was not in WW II

How old are you Shannonphoenix? Australian republicans still use Churchill's refusal to release many Australians fighting in Africa to return so they could help defend the home country from Japanese attack as a reason for ending the monarchy

reply

Australian troops were in WWII. Churchill constantly consulted with Prime Ministers of both Australia and Canada.

reply

Australia was in WW2 from beginning to end.And the Japs had it coming-I wish we'd had the Bomb years earlier.Have people forgotten Changi Jail or the Bataan Death March?

reply

Australia not in WWII,

Twenty-two thousand Australians were captured defending Malaya, Singapore, and the Netherlands East Indies. Over 21,000 were from the Second AIF (particularly the 8th Division); 354 RAN; 373 RAAF officers; and 71 women from the Australian Army Nursing Service. Of these, 14,792 were captured at Singapore; 2,736 on Java; 1,137 on Timor; 1,075 on Ambon; and 1,049 at Rabaul.

Nearly 36% of Australian prisoners (8,031) died in captivity.


This is statistics from just one part of the world where the Ozzy's were active in the war.

You Just Brought A Gun To A Bomb Fight, Officer!!!

reply

< Since Australia was not in WW II..........>

Say what??? This has got to be one of the most assinine statements I have ever read on these boards. Of course the Australians were in WWII. Who do you think was the primary force fighting the Japanese in New Guinea, for crying out loud?

Also the city of Darwin, in the NT, was bombed by the Japanese as well. That sure sounds to me like the Aussies were in WWII.

reply

Wow. You are an idiot.

They had to show the world how f'ed up this was. Is that too hard for you to understand?

reply

If they were predetermined then why did Albert Speer get 20 years? The same for the lesser Nazi participants who got from 10 years to life. Granted you could say they were all ready going to hang Goering unless he rose up and miraculously somehow saved his skin.

So are you telling me that we bombed industry and the German war production so we could slaughter millions of Germans.
It was a price to pay in an effort to end the war. Do not forget that Germany bombed us first. Had they won the Battle of Britain they would most certainly have invaded.

The trial was necessary because they Murdered millions of their own people without remorse or any logical decision to do it. purely because one insane man tells you its the correct thing to do. I do not know a lot about Russian history but I agree that there inclusion into the trial was necessary and fair.

I do not think you can say lets have a trial for the English/Allies because we didn't set out to senselessly kill millions of innocent people we joined the war to Defend our nation from attack and to help other nations defeat The Axis.

"Your not a German are you" If you can give me one good reason why Germany had the right to go to war I'm all open. Its not like any of the Allied generals ordered the mass slaughter of there own people.

Also the Japanese would have suffered a much worse fate if the Allies invade I know dropping two nukes on the country was a bit overkill. However the Emperor Hirohito was simply not going to surrender. The incendiary bombs simply where not getting the message through.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Hirohito was the one who insisted on surrender.

reply

Hirohito was the one who insisted on surrender.

reply