The wishy-washy nature of some charges is laughable. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace? Yeah, it's called war. Planning/initiating/waging wars of aggression? Again, it's this little thing called war. Sadly, humans always engaged in it and every country that has ever existed is guilty of it.
Crimes against humanity? What exactly does that entail (rhetorical question)? Specific persons should have been charged with specific, concrete crimes. Anyone involved in the Holocaust should have been charged with however many million counts of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, or manslaughter, depending on the depth of their knowledge/involvement -- not some newly made-up and amorphous charge of "crimes against humanity."
Rather than just punish guilty parties as the victor punishing the loser, the desire on the part of the allies to lend international legal credence to the trials led to the legitimization of the idea pf international courts. Now the EU high-court is lording over Europe and the UN is ruling abortion to be a human right.
Now Jodl, specifically. If the allies wanted to deem certain organizations criminal, then the western allies should have officially recognized the criminal nature of the Soviet regime and thrown out the Commissar Order charge. To do less was a miscarriage of justice for political expediency.
If they really wanted Jodl dead, the Commando Order was the only legitimate way to do it. And as a military officer, and considering the nature of the charge, he should have been shot, not hanged.
“Bad results can come from good intentions, and such was the long term effects of certain aspects of the Nuremberg trials. Thanks to the Nuremberg trials and the mood that prompted them such as they occurred, we have the damn UN.”
The United Nations was responsible for organizing and predated the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT). The united Nations was inspired as a replacement for the defunct league of Nations. The League of Nations was recommended by President Woodrow Wilson during the First World War.
“The wishy-washy nature of some charges is laughable. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace?”
There was nothing “wishy-washy” about the “Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace” charge. Germany was a signatory to the Kellogg–Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris of 1928 and officially titled as the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy. Jodl was one of the officers of the German government who deliberately and brazenly breached Germany’s legal obligations to comply with the terms of the treaty.
“Yeah, it’s called war. Planning/initiating/waging wars of aggression? Again, it’s this little thing called war. Sadly, humans always engaged in it and every country that has ever existed is guilty of it.”
That is a false statement. Only a handful of signatory nations had violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact at the time of the Nuremberg IMT.
“Crimes against humanity? What exactly does that entail (rhetorical question)? Specific persons should have been charged with specific, concrete crimes. Anyone involved in the Holocaust should have been charged with however many million counts of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, or manslaughter, depending on the depth of their knowledge/involvement — not some newly made-up and amorphous charge of “crimes against humanity.””
Jodl was a specific person, and the charge of “Crimes against humanity” was based upon ancient customs of the Law of Nations. Just because the IMT specification of the charge had no international statute as its basis does not mean the charge was without a basis in international customary laws.
“Rather than just punish guilty parties as the victor punishing the loser, the desire on the part of the allies to lend international legal credence to the trials led to the legitimization of the idea pf international courts.”
Military tribunals are by their inherent nature international courts, and these international military tribunals have precedents stretching back in time for millennia of years. A Roman military commander stood trial before a Roman tribunal accused of violations of the Law of Nations by their enemies, the Celts. So, let us not falsely pretend the IMT was without legal credence and legal precedence.
“Now the EU high-court is lording over Europe and the UN is ruling abortion to be a human right.”
All human organizations are subject to improper governance. Such improprieties is what makes it necessary to establish and maintain an effective means for limiting the powers of government and remaining vigilant in securing those limitations.
“Now Jodl, specifically. If the allies wanted to deem certain organizations criminal, then the western allies should have officially recognized the criminal nature of the Soviet regime and thrown out the Commissar Order charge. To do less was a miscarriage of justice for political expediency.”
The “Commissar Order” was in fact a clear violation of the millennia old Law of Nations. Jodl knowingly violated the Law of Nations by ordering the summary executions and/or murders of disarmed enemy officers and enlisted men held prisoner without a proper military tribunal. The fact that one of the accusers, prosecutors, and judges was also likely to be highly guilty of similar violations does nothing to mitigate the fact Jodl committed the crimes. The Soviet Union and its officers were beyond the jurisdiction of the IMT, which is typical with respect to most international military tribunals. If the Soviet Union had carried through with its plans to invade Western Europe in 1945-1946 and failed, then we may well have seen another international military tribunal establish its jurisdiction and prosecute Soviet officers for their violations of the Law of Nations as well.
“If they really wanted Jodl dead, the Commando Order was the only legitimate way to do it.”
The charge regarding the “Commando Order” was not the only legitimate charge against Jodl under the Law of Nations. So, your premise is invalid.
“And as a military officer, and considering the nature of the charge, he should have been shot, not hanged.”
It is another ancient custom under military law and the Law of Nations to remove all military commissions, rank, and military honors from a criminal, so a criminal is not entitled to the military honors associated with military capital punishment. Instead, a former military person is sentenced as a common criminal and felon. This is also why a criminal has all military honors, insignia, and even the buttons stripped from the former military uniform before serving a criminal sentence.