OtherSheep wrote:Mortimer wrote:With regards to the Nuremberg tribunal what the MSM and Hollywood continue to leave out is that at the time (1945-46) a lot of prominent people condemned the proceedings including well known judges and jurists.
I doubt that any of those mediaites will like it when their accuser is their judge, their jury and their executioner. They'd've been a lot more honest if they'd slung all the ropes they could buy over a large forest full of trees, and just have at it. It's not like the dog and pony show fooled anyone who was ever awake and alive.
It continues to fool a myriad of people that believe the trial to be fair, warranted and objective in conduct and outcome.
But then most people don't know neither history nor documentation of the Nuremberg IMT. I doubt many would understand the legalese therein anyway.
One needs to understand the vested interest that lead to the trial as well. It's simply a fact that a war with such great losses for all sides would require some post-facto justification and legitimation. Otherwise public opinion could turn on governments within a few years. Best to accuse the enemy of all kinds of atrocious stuff, so you can always claim to have fought evil, which then justifies everything.
It also fitted with the aim of re-educating the Germans. In fact that may have been the main reason after all. Janowitz mentions this in his famous article.
The critique of the trials didn't really echo via the media although some of it was published in articles. It wasn't what people wanted to hear. Many officers and jurists did indeed disagree with the conduct of the trial:
https://archive.org/details/Doenitz-at- ... eappraisal