Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremyjh | Hacker News Reader

Was Germany a part of any such treaty? Or was it inappropriate for those Nazis to be held accountable for their crimes?

The Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.

Germany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “no” before you apply your own justice, but we’re still going to do everything in our power to defend ourselves.

What does that have to do with what is appropriate?

I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary. Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continued existence of the German State was in jeopardy, and probably the only way it could continue to exist in any form even after being divided was to go through the Nuremberg Trials first. Don’t forget Stalin and the USSR was out for blood and new additions to the Eastern Bloc.

Those are reasons it was feasible. It was appropriate for moral reasons, and the same is true of US leaders.

I would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure.

> and the same is true of US leaders.

The thing is, there isn’t enough in the way of shared morality between nations of the world to make this claim. From our perspective, the POTUS is imbued with the power to deal with foreign nations, and this includes both diplomatic and war functions, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to America. That’s what he is elected for, so imposing the ICC’s international justice on our elected leaders is in essence the same as trying to impose a foreign justice on America. We have our own laws, and govern our military with our own code of justice passed by our Congress, therefore we cannot abide by the ICC’s infringement on our sovereignty, nor will we tolerate a threat from it against our elected leaders.

You are becoming incoherent. By your own argument, the Nuremberg trials were not necessary. Anybody lacking the military might to defy the U.S. can be summarily executed without a trial. Anybody enjoying the support of the U.S. military is exempt from any courtroom regardless of their actions.

Then here you write that Nurenmberg was appropriate and necessary.

You don't seem to be able to hold the thread of your own argument.

If the alternative was to leave Germany to the Soviet wolves, allow France to colonize it, or disregard the events of the Holocaust and not thoroughly document what occurred, how, and under whose orders, then it was necessary.

If you don’t care about any of that, sure, you can make the argument the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary, but I’m not going to be the one to do it.

Do note that the key difference between America in 2025 and Germany in 1945 is that we’re not a diminished State without really any sovereignty left to claim and haven’t recently invaded pretty much the entirety of Europe with the intention of subsuming it into a greater Empire and spent the last 4 years systematically destroying the entire Jewish population therein. That’s some important context and shouldn’t be overlooked in your zeal to put American Presidents on trial.

"America" is a lot of things. Of course it is a sovereign nation. But let me here propose to you a different idea of America.

I was raised inside the United States. I have a very deep love for America. But the America I love is not a place. It is a collection of principles. It is an ideal. In as much as that ideal has been realized in the place I grew up, it makes that place America to me. But America the place and people have not been perfect executing America the idea. What group of humans ever were perfect? One of the beauties of America the place, and one of the things I cherish most about it is the constant willingness to put itself and its ideals on trial. I love an America that asks "What is right?" before asking "What are you going to do about it?"

I believe it is un-American to refuse to ask the first question, but constantly ask the second question without considering the first. Using the second question to intimidate all those who ask the first question is repugnant to me. It threatens the America that I love.

America is on trial whether you like it or not. The America I love will always be on trial as long as it exists. To end the trial would kill that America.

> I love an America that asks "What is right?" before asking "What are you going to do about it?"

Agreed, but I’ll put forth that the context for the first question also matters.

The context within this particular sub-thread which is within a larger thread regarding the ICC, the warrant issued againstNetanyahu and American sanctions on ICC staff is whether America and Americans as a non-signatory of the Rome Statute should be subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Actually it was originally Presidents, current and former, but there’s been some scope creep.

My answer is “No”. Your answer may be “Yes”, but I’m making the case for my “No”, not advocating for discarding all morality and total lawlessness and might-makes-right behavior, even if I think “might” is a mighty great deterrent for backing up that “No” to non-Americans that believe the answer should be “Yes” and would be willing to try out that “Yes” in the real world.

you are being dishonest. Only 161 people were convicted at Nurembourg trials, Nazi Germany's population was 70 mln (I am not even including Italy or Japan).

The rest of the Nazis were given amnesty and continued working for the USA, or continued living/serving as usual as part of West Germany's Wehrmacht forces.

The whole process was heavily politicized and completely sham, massive tortures were used to obtain "evidence" of guilt.

What sort of punishment do you think would have been appropriate for the systemic extermination of an entire race of people? And for starting a war that killed tens of millions? For an illegal coup against the government of a country (which is what the Nazis did in 33)?

How could you think that 161 convictions was enough for this? Far more than that had direct agency and culpability for those crimes.

don't you think that if there was some form of systematic extermination system, there should have been more than 161 people involved in it??????

this basic contradiction basically tells you that it was all bogus, either there was no systematic extermination, or there was not enough people brought to justice for their crimes.

How many people do you think are required to do anything systematic on the territory spanning from France to Belarus ?

161 people is probably the headcount of my local DMV office.

also, the fact that mainstream western history over-indexes on the plight of one ethnic group (6 mln dead), and completely ignores the deaths of Soviets (27 mln dead) or China (20 mln) pretty much seals this whole thing as bogus politicized process.

Typical eurocentric history rewriting, while simultaneously white-washing the crimes of the same white europeans

I am not even mentioning genocide of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki via nuclear bombs and genocide of civilians in Dresden: all three cities were basically civilian with no large military armies in there. Mostly women elderly and kids died

Israels leaders should be punished yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com