“The UN was officially established October 24 1945. Trials started in November, the legal basis for which had been put together in August.”
The United Nations came into existence on 1 January 1942 at the Arcadia Conference with the Declaration of United Nations by 26 governments. See for one example the Wikipedia article:
1942 “Declaration of United Nations” by the Allies of World War II
The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization began under the aegis of the US State Department in 1939.[7] The text of the “Declaration by United Nations” was drafted by President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt aide Harry Hopkins, while meeting at the White House, 29 December 1941. It incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. “Four Policemen” was coined to refer four major Allied countries,United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and China, which was emerged in Declaration by United Nations.[8] Roosevelt first coined the term United Nations to describe the Allied countries.[b] The term was first officially used 1–2 January 1942, when 26 governments signed the Declaration. One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.[9][10] By 1 March 1945, 21 additional states had signed.[11]
A JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, CANADA, COSTA RICA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, YUGOSLAVIA
The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,
Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,
DECLARE:
(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.
(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.
The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contributions in the struggle for victory over Hitlerism.[12]
During the war, the United Nations became the official term for the Allies. To join countries had to sign the Declaration and declare war on the Axis.[13]
“Trials started in November, the legal basis for which had been put together in August.”
The basis for those trials were being formulated along with the plans for organizing the United Nations at the White House on 29 December 1941. The United Nations was envisaged at that time as a means for carrying forward the enforcement of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty while utilizing the Articles of Interpretation of the Paris Peace Pact, Budapest, 1934 and to replace the defunct League of Nations.
“War is the opposite of peace, but if it’s a crime then every country on earth is guilty.”
Your statement is false, so your conclusion is invalid and false. War is not a crime. A war of aggression as defined by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty and subsequent international law is a crime.
Not every party who has committed a crime is arrested, prosecuted, and punished for committing that crime or crimes. Nonetheless, those parties who are unfortunate enough to be arrested and prosecuted for committing crimes may indeed be convicted and punished for those crimes. The Tu Quoque defense is a logical fallacy and is not a valid excuse for committing a crime or crimes with impunity.
“What is war? What is the difference between war and “police action?” Or self-defense? A declaration of intend to wage war?”
They have definite meanings which you obviously have completely failed to learn or respect. Consequently, your statements and conclusions are grossly incorrect falsehoods which merit no further consideration.
“If so, then England and France, not Germany, should have been on the block...Except that the Kellogg–Briand Pact contained no provisions for punishing signatories who violated it, rendering it moot for all intents and purposes. Wishy-washy.”
All of which comments on your part are complete nonsense and hogwash. The provisions for the punishment of signatories who violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact were formalized under international law and the Law of Nations by the Articles of Interpretation, Budapest, 1934. Prior customs of the Law of Nations as the Articles of Interpretation particularized authorized and perhaps even required Britain and France to lawfully fulfill their obligations under the mutual defense treaties and the terms of the Armistice of 1918.
“Again, the Kellogg-Briand Pact contains no provisions for punishing offending nations, so it can’t be used as a basis to do so.”
The international adoption of the Kellogg-Briand Pact made the Law of Nations applicable to the fulfillment of the terms of the Peace Pact. Some of the ways in which the Law of Nations was applicable to the enforcement of the Peace Pact were particularized by subsequent international treaties, the League of Nations, and by the Articles of Interpretation, Budapest, 1934. So, your claim about the Kellogg-Briand Pact having no provisions “for punishing offending nations” is a strawman argument and a logical fallacy having no merit.
“The ancient Law of Nations declined as an actual legal system hundreds (if not more) of years ago, and it was based around the idea that “might makes right,” a notion that the Nuremberg trials completely disavowed. “Crimes against humanity” was made up for the trials as a catch-all.”
The ancient Law of Nations is thousands of years old and still very much in effect today as it was in effect in 1939 to 1948. So, your comment to the contrary is entirely false. The principle that “might makes right” is the exact opposite of the purpose of the Law of Nations since ancient times. It was under the Law of Nations that a Roman commander was sued by the enemy Celts in the Roman system of law, found guilty, and surrendered by the Romans to the Celts for punishment. The Roman commander and the Roman nation possessed the ability to impose the doctrine of “might makes right” in that case, but Rome instead respected the Law of Nations and put the Law of Nations before the power to exercise the doctrine of “might makes right.” You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
“”Crimes against humanity” was made up for the trials as a catch-all.”
Crimes against humanity have been recognized since before the Romans practiced such Laws of Nature and Laws of Nations. During the Gallic Wars the Romans under the command of Julius Caesar granted the enemy Atuatici a customary right in the cause of humanity to spare their city and themselves from punishment if they would surrender the city before a Roman battering ram first struck the city doors. The range of what was in effect recognized as crimes against humanity were quite limited in comparison to the modern era, yet they did exist throughout the ancient era and served as the precedent and foundation for the broadening of what is accepted as crimes against humanity in the 20th and 21st Centuries. So, you once again are repeating what history unambiguously demonstrates is an utter falsehood no matter where it came from.
“There were no enlisted Commissars. Originally they automatically held a rank equivalent to the commander of whatever unit they were attached to.”
The Soviets were constantly changing what they did and did not define as a “Commissar” and a “Political Commissar”, with the “Political Commissar” title being retired in 1942. Accordingly, the German Commissar Order of 6 June 1941 became an inaccurate determination by 1942 due to the changes in Soviet organization and nomenclature. Consequently, the German forces often applied the punishments of the Commissar Order of 1941 persons who appeared to be Bolshevist Communist Party members and/or leaders regardless of whether or not they were Officers and enlisted men of the Red Army or some form of political leader in the NKVD or other position formerly performed by what was known as an actual Commissar.
“Early in WW2 their role changed to primarily enforcing the Soviet version of political correctness (which of course they had done before), sans absolute military authority. They slaughtered their own troops if the soldiers retreated,thought the wrong thoughts, or simply if they had to make a point about something. They were scum, and summary execution was the proper treatment. If you want to keep harping on the defunct ancient law of nations — Jodl should have accused the Soviets during his own trial. How do you suppose that would have been received?”
I don’t have to suppose. The defense counsels tried to raise such objections, but those objections were dismissed by the Tribunal due to the IMT lacking jurisdiction under the terms of agreement organizing the Tribunal.
“Rather than making things easy and punishing Germany as the victor punishing the loser like things had always been done, and by the way you guys seriously violated every moral code known to man to get ready for one hell of a paddlin’ — the allies cobbled together a phony system to lend modern legal credence to the proceedings — which has given us all kinds of trouble down the road because it gave teeth to the terrible ideas that began with the League of Nations.”
When you say, “you guys seriously violated every moral code known to man to get ready for one hell of a paddlin’,” who and what do you mean by saying “you guys”? You appear to have some kind of agenda behind your efforts to deny the validity of the Nuremberg IMT.
"Your statement is false, so your conclusion is invalid and false. War is not a crime. A war of aggression as defined by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty and subsequent international law is a crime."
Again, the Kellog-Briand Treaty was a bunch of toothless BS. It doesn't really matter what the Kellog-Briand Treaty said since it had no provision for punishing nations who broke it.
"Not every party who has committed a crime is arrested, prosecuted, and punished for committing that crime or crimes. Nonetheless, those parties who are unfortunate enough to be arrested and prosecuted for committing crimes may indeed be convicted and punished for those crimes. The Tu Quoque defense is a logical fallacy and is not a valid excuse for committing a crime or crimes with impunity."
"Slippery Slope" is also a logical fallacy. Some of these so-called fallacies sure make a lot of sense.
"They have definite meanings which you obviously have completely failed to learn or respect. Consequently, your statements and conclusions are grossly incorrect falsehoods which merit no further consideration."
Prove it. Show me an authoritative definition of what constitutes war vs. self-defense vs. police-action. I'm not asking for the dictionary.com meaning. Show me a legally-binding source that defines a war, self-defense, and police-action.
"All of which comments on your part are complete nonsense and hogwash. The provisions for the punishment of signatories who violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact were formalized under international law and the Law of Nations by the Articles of Interpretation, Budapest, 1934. Prior customs of the Law of Nations as the Articles of Interpretation particularized authorized and perhaps even required Britain and France to lawfully fulfill their obligations under the mutual defense treaties and the terms of the Armistice of 1918."
The Articles of Interpretation drew conclusions entirely outside the scope of the treaty. Anyway, they were drawn up by the ILA, a non-profit "consultative" organization with no binding authority.
"The ancient Law of Nations is thousands of years old and still very much in effect today as it was in effect in 1939 to 1948. So, your comment to the contrary is entirely false. The principle that “might makes right” is the exact opposite of the purpose of the Law of Nations since ancient times. It was under the Law of Nations that a Roman commander was sued by the enemy Celts in the Roman system of law, found guilty, and surrendered by the Romans to the Celts for punishment. The Roman commander and the Roman nation possessed the ability to impose the doctrine of “might makes right” in that case, but Rome instead respected the Law of Nations and put the Law of Nations before the power to exercise the doctrine of “might makes right.” You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about."
The "ancient law of nations" is not a thing. It is not in force. It hasn't been in force for hundreds of years, if not longer. It is not and was not a legal code. And yes, it does support the notion that might makes right. You are born free, but you can be made a slave under Jus gentium. if you don't want to take my word for it, ask Ulpian. If you don't know, he was a Roman guy who's been dead only slightly longer than "the ancient law of nations."
"The Soviets were constantly changing what they did and did not define as a “Commissar” and a “Political Commissar”, with the “Political Commissar” title being retired in 1942. Accordingly, the German Commissar Order of 6 June 1941 became an inaccurate determination by 1942 due to the changes in Soviet organization and nomenclature. Consequently, the German forces often applied the punishments of the Commissar Order of 1941 persons who appeared to be Bolshevist Communist Party members and/or leaders regardless of whether or not they were Officers and enlisted men of the Red Army or some form of political leader in the NKVD or other position formerly performed by what was known as an actual Commissar."
NKVD, commissars, card-carrying party members -- if you were deep enough into the Soviet system that you could be taken or mistaken for a commissar, then summary execution was your just dessert.
"Crimes against humanity have been recognized since before the Romans practiced such Laws of Nature and Laws of Nations. During the Gallic Wars the Romans under the command of Julius Caesar granted the enemy Atuatici a customary right in the cause of humanity to spare their city and themselves from punishment if they would surrender the city before a Roman battering ram first struck the city doors. The range of what was in effect recognized as crimes against humanity were quite limited in comparison to the modern era, yet they did exist throughout the ancient era and served as the precedent and foundation for the broadening of what is accepted as crimes against humanity in the 20th and 21st Centuries. So, you once again are repeating what history unambiguously demonstrates is an utter falsehood no matter where it came from."
There was no legal definition for "crimes against humanity" before the Nuremberg trials. The ancient Romans didn't care about the Atuatici, it was just easier to take a city with no fight than to cut your way in. What do you think, they sat around sipping door-mouse soup and posca hoping that they didn't have to rape and plunder and enslave a bunch of Gauls?
"When you say, “you guys seriously violated every moral code known to man to get ready for one hell of a paddlin’,” who and what do you mean by saying “you guys”? You appear to have some kind of agenda behind your efforts to deny the validity of the Nuremberg IMT."
Who the hell do you suppose I mean by "you guys," Santa and his elves?