That many evil things were done by the Nazis during WW II is axiomatic, however it is no less axiomatic that similar evils were perpetrated by the Nazis' adversaries, including Americans, British and Russian. To hold up the Nuremberg trials in any argument as Lavrov self-righteously does is unfortunate and hypocritical. Far better for al…
That many evil things were done by the Nazis during WW II is axiomatic, however it is no less axiomatic that similar evils were perpetrated by the Nazis' adversaries, including Americans, British and Russian. To hold up the Nuremberg trials in any argument as Lavrov self-righteously does is unfortunate and hypocritical. Far better for all parties involved to leave that period behind and refer to it as little as possible.
For example:
"Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. “If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here,” he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. “The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident,” he added.[12]
Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. “The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome … Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.” He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. “Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.” He concluded that “the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.” Wennerstrum left Nuremberg “with a feeling that justice has been denied.” "
.... elsewhere in the same article:
"Reports of widespread torture at the postwar American-run “war crimes” trials at Dachau leaked out, resulting in so many protests that a formal investigation was eventually carried out. A US Army Commission of inquiry consisting of Pennsylvania Judge Edward van Roden and Texas Supreme Court Judge Gordon Simpson officially confirmed the charges of gross abuse. German defendants, they found, were routinely tortured at Dachau with savage beatings, burning matches under fingernails, kicking of testicles, months of solitary confinement, and threats of family reprisals. Low ranking prisoners were assured that their “confessions” would be used only against their former superiors in the dock. Later, though, these hapless men found their own “confessions” used against them when they were tried in turn. High ranking defendants were cynically assured that by “voluntarily” accepting all responsibility themselves they would thereby protect their former subordinates from prosecution.[85]
One Dachau trial court reporter was so outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice that he quit his job. He testified to a US Senate subcommittee that the “most brutal” interrogators had been three German-born Jews. Although operating procedures at the Dachau trials were significantly worse than those used at Nuremberg, they give some idea of the spirit of the “justice” imposed on the vanquished Germans."
I read in other reports that all the defendants at Nuremberg had their testicles crushed so badly, and on nearly a daily basis along with other tortures, as to be no longer functional, moreover most of the interrogators were German Jews with intense animus. Also English Jews tortured Hoss for several days without respite until he signed the confession written in English, a language he neither spoke nor could read, and which became the centerpiece evidence of the whole Auschwitz tale for which no other concrete evidence was required other than often conflicting eyewitness testimonies without cross examination nearly all of which have since been confirmed false by Yad Vashem historians.
Not to mention that course the Russians were masters of show trials during the 20's and 30's, along with being experienced at murdering millions, some of which was ongoing whilst the trials were taking place. Two wrongs do not make a right. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials erased any moral superiority the Allies might have had by virtue of achieving victory. I cannot stomach the otherwise estimable Lavrov lecturing from on high using the twisted data and verdicts from Russian-led show trials to bolster his points. Especially since his government recently presided over the deaths of almost half a million mainly Russian-speaking Slavs. Not a good look given he and his leader lacked the diplomatic skills to avoid such a bloodbath.
you raise many disturbing questions and views here... i appreciate you raising them.. i am hopeful karl has more knowledge on this then i do.. i have basically none.. thanks..
Thank you, James. I know far less than karlof1, but I have knocked around revisionist history off and on the past few decades. I think part of the problem - and we see it in both Ukraine and Israel - is one side blaming the other whilst painting them as monsters is never better than partially justified and never does either side any real good - apart from providing favorable propaganda for the home team. The Ukraine crisis, though it has multi-century tangled roots, basically developed steadily since the US-backed coup in 2014. Eight years until the SMO started, during which time the Russians were unable to prevent what has now resulted in the deaths of about a half a million Russian speakers - their own people. Similarly in Israel they were involved in its creation - going against the votes of the Arab nations in the region who did not approve - and have basically enabled this catastrophe without, though they say all the right things now, being able to fix the injustice which they helped perpetrate. Lecturing the world about how bad the US Empire is, though justified, does no good for anybody on the ground, hundreds of whom are dying every day, just as in Ukraine.
I think ordinary folks should be critical about all world leaders on all sides. They don't have a great track record.
Random I make a point to carefully read your comments that interest me. My comment was meant for general discussion on the posted topic, cheers.
"A two state solution today is no longer a viable solution. Attempting to sell the idea is akin to a used car salesmen. Israel is a illegal militant state with its power base in the US Congress. Untill those dynamics change radically there can be no peace."
Any comments or reading suggestions are willfully excepted, thanks in advance.
thanks.. i was asked a few days ago what my solution for israel-palestine was and i said - get the usa out of israel... simple idea, but all this will have to be worked out in a much more complicated way then the simplicity of my statement.. i agree with you - ordinary folks need to be more critical about all the news information they receive and question whether they are getting a complete view on any or at least both sides of it.. generally we/they are not.. on that topic - here is my favourite link-article from today that i encourage others to read..
That many evil things were done by the Nazis during WW II is axiomatic, however it is no less axiomatic that similar evils were perpetrated by the Nazis' adversaries, including Americans, British and Russian. To hold up the Nuremberg trials in any argument as Lavrov self-righteously does is unfortunate and hypocritical. Far better for all parties involved to leave that period behind and refer to it as little as possible.
For example:
"Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. “If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here,” he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. “The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident,” he added.[12]
Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. “The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome … Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.” He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. “Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.” He concluded that “the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.” Wennerstrum left Nuremberg “with a feeling that justice has been denied.” "
.... elsewhere in the same article:
"Reports of widespread torture at the postwar American-run “war crimes” trials at Dachau leaked out, resulting in so many protests that a formal investigation was eventually carried out. A US Army Commission of inquiry consisting of Pennsylvania Judge Edward van Roden and Texas Supreme Court Judge Gordon Simpson officially confirmed the charges of gross abuse. German defendants, they found, were routinely tortured at Dachau with savage beatings, burning matches under fingernails, kicking of testicles, months of solitary confinement, and threats of family reprisals. Low ranking prisoners were assured that their “confessions” would be used only against their former superiors in the dock. Later, though, these hapless men found their own “confessions” used against them when they were tried in turn. High ranking defendants were cynically assured that by “voluntarily” accepting all responsibility themselves they would thereby protect their former subordinates from prosecution.[85]
One Dachau trial court reporter was so outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice that he quit his job. He testified to a US Senate subcommittee that the “most brutal” interrogators had been three German-born Jews. Although operating procedures at the Dachau trials were significantly worse than those used at Nuremberg, they give some idea of the spirit of the “justice” imposed on the vanquished Germans."
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-nuremberg-trials-and-the-holocaust/
I read in other reports that all the defendants at Nuremberg had their testicles crushed so badly, and on nearly a daily basis along with other tortures, as to be no longer functional, moreover most of the interrogators were German Jews with intense animus. Also English Jews tortured Hoss for several days without respite until he signed the confession written in English, a language he neither spoke nor could read, and which became the centerpiece evidence of the whole Auschwitz tale for which no other concrete evidence was required other than often conflicting eyewitness testimonies without cross examination nearly all of which have since been confirmed false by Yad Vashem historians.
Not to mention that course the Russians were masters of show trials during the 20's and 30's, along with being experienced at murdering millions, some of which was ongoing whilst the trials were taking place. Two wrongs do not make a right. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials erased any moral superiority the Allies might have had by virtue of achieving victory. I cannot stomach the otherwise estimable Lavrov lecturing from on high using the twisted data and verdicts from Russian-led show trials to bolster his points. Especially since his government recently presided over the deaths of almost half a million mainly Russian-speaking Slavs. Not a good look given he and his leader lacked the diplomatic skills to avoid such a bloodbath.
you raise many disturbing questions and views here... i appreciate you raising them.. i am hopeful karl has more knowledge on this then i do.. i have basically none.. thanks..
Thank you, James. I know far less than karlof1, but I have knocked around revisionist history off and on the past few decades. I think part of the problem - and we see it in both Ukraine and Israel - is one side blaming the other whilst painting them as monsters is never better than partially justified and never does either side any real good - apart from providing favorable propaganda for the home team. The Ukraine crisis, though it has multi-century tangled roots, basically developed steadily since the US-backed coup in 2014. Eight years until the SMO started, during which time the Russians were unable to prevent what has now resulted in the deaths of about a half a million Russian speakers - their own people. Similarly in Israel they were involved in its creation - going against the votes of the Arab nations in the region who did not approve - and have basically enabled this catastrophe without, though they say all the right things now, being able to fix the injustice which they helped perpetrate. Lecturing the world about how bad the US Empire is, though justified, does no good for anybody on the ground, hundreds of whom are dying every day, just as in Ukraine.
I think ordinary folks should be critical about all world leaders on all sides. They don't have a great track record.
Random I make a point to carefully read your comments that interest me. My comment was meant for general discussion on the posted topic, cheers.
"A two state solution today is no longer a viable solution. Attempting to sell the idea is akin to a used car salesmen. Israel is a illegal militant state with its power base in the US Congress. Untill those dynamics change radically there can be no peace."
Any comments or reading suggestions are willfully excepted, thanks in advance.
thanks.. i was asked a few days ago what my solution for israel-palestine was and i said - get the usa out of israel... simple idea, but all this will have to be worked out in a much more complicated way then the simplicity of my statement.. i agree with you - ordinary folks need to be more critical about all the news information they receive and question whether they are getting a complete view on any or at least both sides of it.. generally we/they are not.. on that topic - here is my favourite link-article from today that i encourage others to read..
https://swprs.org/why-israel-created-hamas/