After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. Wears War brings to you each week a quote from the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by the trials. All of these people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the trials.
These trials are important to understand because they were subsequently used to formulate new international laws and international criminal courts that govern us today. As the most objective encyclopedia of our times, Wikipedia, states: “The typification of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be used afterwards by the United Nations for the development of a specific international jurisprudence in matters of war crime, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, as well as for the creation of the International Criminal Court.”
Let us consider who really edits Wikipedia and why so many factual aspects of WWII and the Nuremberg trials are being hidden from you. Such as the man the “Nazi’s” murdered but miraculously appeared in the gallery to watch his murderer’s trial, or that Warren Buffet’s father was disgusted by the trials… sorry Wikipedia, we have thousands of quotes to debunk the Nuremberg trials and their ever changing rules and procedures.
Hon. Lydio Machado Bandeira de Mello, Dr. Juris.
Brazilian educator, jurist and author of more than 40 works on law and philosophy
Professor of Criminal Law, University of Minas Gerais, 1952-1971; Professor of Comparative Criminal Law, 1959-1971.
“I disapprove of everything which was done in that counterfeit court in which the victorious side in the war arrogated to itself the roles of accusing party, indicting part, and judge against individuals pre-selected from the losing side of the war. No trial ought to be held contrary to the fundamental norms of procedural penal law dictated and established by the consensus of men of good will.
There is a basic rule for a fair and valid judgment, based on human rights, namely: Nobody may be judged by a court interested in the condemnation of the accused. Therefore, no court set up by the victors of a war has sufficient moral capacity for judging persons pre-selected as scapegoats among the losers of the war. The victor has hatred towards the defeated who were provoked to fight him, and usually he committed the same crimes as his adversary. If the victor would hang his own war criminals, together with those of the defeated nations, then one could speak of justice. However, even so, it would be usurping the role that should fall to a super-national or world state. Without the existence of a world state, of a world penal code, of a world code of penal procedure, of a super-national judiciary power, and of an army capable of imposing discipline and obedience to the Law on recalcitrant nations, the term ‘war crime’ has no legal meaning. Acts of law are acts of defiance of the law, of disobedience to reason, and today a warring people kills multitudes of civilians (in the majority, women and children) and destroys irreplaceable property acquired by generation after generation. And today’s weapons are so atrocious, so ingeniously invented to destroy and to burn, that Dante would regard the verses of his Inferno as inadequate to express the indescribable torments that such weapons bring about.
A nation that spreads over another a sheet of inevitably deadly gasses or eradicates entire cities from the earth by the explosion of atomic bombs, does not have the right to judge anyone for war crimes; it has already committed the greatest atrocity, equal to no other atrocity; it has killed—amidst unspeakable torments—hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Let us consider the existence of a world state and a world penal code, and then the designation ‘War Crime’ takes on legal meaning: a ‘War Crime’ would be any act of major atrocity, of unnecessary cruelty, of patent inhumanity, prohibited by the world penal code. And such offense may have been committed both by officials or soldiers of a victorious side and by officials or soldiers of a defeated side. However, even so, defendants would have the right to justify their acts before a world court which would judge them impartially, invoking, in their favor, the same causes impeditive of condemnation that a criminally indicted citizen can invoke in his own national courts. He would have the right: (a) to deny the allegations; (b) to contest or invalidate the evidence brought against him; (c) to allege and prove the bias of the judge; (d) to prove that he acted in lawful defense of his country (or of his troops) with the requisites of lawful defense which the world penal code would establish; (e) to prove that he acted in a state of necessity, i.e. that he practiced a considerably lesser evil in order to avoid a considerably greater evil; (f) to prove that he acted in compliance with an order from higher authority to which he could not refuse obedience, because it was invested with the requisites established by law.
When a group of victorious nations seizes and condemns for war crimes individuals pre-selected among the leaders and mentors of the defeated nations, this is not a judgment—it is a reprisal.”
Quote from the book Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal edited by H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, 2nd edition, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993.
A Small Sample Of ‘War Crimes’ By The Allied Nations Prior, During & Post-WWII That Have Never Been Tried By An International Criminal Court:
These crimes committed by the Allied nations are just the tip of the iceberg. The victors not only re-wrote history, they exonerated themselves by re-writing the norms of procedural penal law to apply internationally and nationally across the west. The west no longer enjoys the great and hard earned traditions of legal ‘norms’. Instead national and international laws not only change rapidly, but they expand almost daily in terms of their insidious reach into our lives, traditions and national interests.
This is how the survivors of the USS Liberty attack in 1967 came to be treated as badly as any forensic historian who dared question the Holocaust evidence.