Posted on 05/08/2015 6:28:49 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
"Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces, Reims: Nazi General Jodl, representing Admiral Doenitz, strides into the 'war room' where Allied Generals await him and his party. After the surrender terms are understood, Jodl fills a third of a page with his scrawly signature, this his associates sign. U.S. General W. B. Smith the Allied Chief of Staff signs as do the remainder of the Allied Generals. In an adjoining room, General Eisenhower, wreathed in smiles, forms the signature pens into a V for Victory sign. Unconditional surrender is an accomplished fact." scenes of peace signed at red scholhouse in Reims, France, by Gen Jodl and Gen. Smith.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I thought Gen. Jodl’s execution at Nuremberg was a bit over the top. I think a sentence similar to what Doenitz and Raeder received would have been more appropriate.
“I thought Gen. Jodl’s execution at Nuremberg was a bit over the top. I think a sentence similar to what Doenitz and Raeder received would have been more appropriate.”
Wikipedia:
Jodl was accused of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity. The principal charges against him related to his signature of the Commando Order and the Commissar Order, both of which ordered that certain prisoners were to be summarily executed. Additional charges at his trial included unlawful deportation and abetting execution. Presented as evidence was his signature on an order that transferred Danish citizens, including Jews and other civilians, to concentration camps. Although he denied his role in the crime, the (disunited) court sustained his complicity based on the given evidence. The French judge, Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, did not agree in the case of Jodl.
And this also from Wikipedia:
“On 28 February 1953, the Munchen Hauptspruchkammer (main denazification court) declared Jodl not guilty of the main charges brought against him at Nuremberg. In doing so the court cited the French co-President of the Tribunal, Henri Donnedieu de Vebres, who had in 1949 called the verdict against Jodl a mistake. His property, which had been confiscated in 1946, was returned to his widow.”
Yes, but Henri Donnedieu de Vebres dissented because the French were concerned that some of their own senior officers could be likewise indicted and convicted in some future tribunal for committing the same and/or similar crimes; e.g. the arrest and transport of Jews to the German concentration camps and death camps. The German court decision did not establish precedent applicable to international law.
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.
Well I think Donnedieu along with a number of others considered the punishment excessive which is why the court later declared he was not guilty of the major charges against him. Jodl was not entirely innocent but nor was he ruthless war criminal like Himmler, Heydrich, or Eichmann.
I agree about Jodl. I have yet to see what direct hand he had in war crimes.
They made up a definition in 1945 (I know various forms of "war of aggression" were bandied about in the '30s, which amounted to nothing) to use at the trials. The only wrong war is a war that you lose...And Germany lost. That alone was enough for the allies to do what they wished to punish Germany. But it was nonsense to cook up a wishy-washy definition practically on the spot in order to lend a veneer of international legitimacy to the proceedings.
I disagree that the only wrong war is one you lose. I’m no expert, nor am I catholic, but I’m pretty sure the just war concept differentiates between a “good” war and a “bad” one.
“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.
The UN was officially established October 24 1945. Trials started in November, the legal basis for which had been put together in August.
"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."
War is the opposite of peace, but if it's a crime then every country on earth is guilty. What is war? What is the difference between war and "police action?" Or self-defense? A declaration of intend to wage war? 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.
"That is a false statement. Only a handful of signatory nations had violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact at the time of the Nuremberg IMT."
Again, the Kellogg-Briand Pact contains no provisions for punishing offending nations, so it can't be used as a basis to do so.
"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."
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 “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."
There were no enlisted Commissars. Originally they automatically held a rank equivalent to the commander of whatever unit they were attached to. 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?
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.
“known to man to get ready” = “known to man so get ready”
“Well I think Donnedieu along with a number of others considered the punishment excessive which is why the court later declared he was not guilty of the major charges against him.”
Adolf Hitler’s Commando Order”
1. For a long time now our opponents have been employing in their conduct of the war, methods which contravene the International Convention of Geneva. The members of the so-called Commandos behave in a particularly brutal and underhand manner; and it has been established that those units recruit criminals not only from their own country but even former convicts set free in enemy territories. From captured orders it emerges that they are instructed not only to tie up prisoners, but also to kill out-of-hand unarmed captives who they think might prove an encumbrance to them, or hinder them in successfully carrying out their aims. Orders have indeed been found in which the killing of prisoners has positively been demanded of them.
2. In this connection it has already been notified in an Appendix to Army Orders of 7.10.1942. that in future, Germany will adopt the same methods against these Sabotage units of the British and their Allies; i.e. that, whenever they appear, they shall be ruthlessly destroyed by the German troops.
3. I order, therefore:
From now on all men operating against German troops in so-called Commando raids in Europe or in Africa, are to be annihilated to the last man. This is to be carried out whether they be soldiers in uniform, or saboteurs, with or without arms; and whether fighting or seeking to escape; and it is equally immaterial whether they come into action from Ships and Aircraft, or whether they land by parachute. Even if these individuals on discovery make obvious their intention of giving themselves up as prisoners, no pardon is on any account to be given. On this matter a report is to be made on each case to Headquarters for the information of Higher Command.
4. Should individual members of these Commandos, such as agents, saboteurs etc., fall into the hands of the Armed Forces through any means - as, for example, through the Police in one of the Occupied Territories - they are to be instantly handed over to the S.D.
To hold them in military custody - for example in P.O.W. Camps, etc., - even if only as a temporary measure, is strictly forbidden.
5. This order does not apply to the treatment of those enemy soldiers who are taken prisoner or give themselves up in open battle, in the course of normal operations, large scale attacks; or in major assault landings or airborne operations. Neither does it apply to those who fall into our hands after a sea fight, nor to those enemy soldiers who, after air battle, seek to save their lives by parachute.
6. I will hold all Commanders and Officers responsible under Military Law for any omission to carry out this order, whether by failure in their duty to instruct their units accordingly, or if they themselves act contrary to it.
A Hitler
Alfred Jodl’s Message regarding Hitler’s Commando Order:
The enclosed Order from the Fuhrer is forwarded in connection with destruction of enemy Terror and Sabotage-troops.
This order is intended for Commanders only and is in no circumstances to fall into Enemy hands.
Further distribution by receiving Headquarters is to be most strictly limited.
The Headquarters mentioned in the Distribution list are responsible that all parts of the Order, or extracts taken from it, which are issued are again withdrawn and, together with this copy, destroyed.
Chief of Staff of the Army
Jodl
It is obvious from Jodl’s message that Jodl understood the Commando Order was an illegal order which must not be disclosed to public view where it could be used as evidence in a subsequent military tribunal. Jodl transmitted the Commando Order under his own signature despite knowing it was an illegal order. Pursuant to Hitler’s Commando Order and Jodl’s knowing compliance with the illegal order, an unknown number of lawful combatants were tortured and/or executed. Include were six British Royal Marine commandos captured during the Cockleshell Raid of 1942 and twenty-four Special Air Service combatants who were captured and then tortured and shot by the Gestapo in France. This leads to the question of how many lawful combatants do you believe Jodl’s orders had to kill unlawfully to incur his own death penalty for doing so?
How many of the Danish Jews whom Jodl’s orders to transport to the concentration camps had to be killed unlawfully to incur the death penalty for Jodl?
How many of the Dutch people had to die from starvation due to Jodl’s orders before you believe Jodl should incur the death penalty?
“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?
It is quite true Gen. Jodl transmitted a number of military orders from AH to Wehrmacht officers down the chain of command. Jodl’s signature on a some these orders s what lead to his death sentence. But the orders didn’t come from him. They came from you know who. Often Jodl and sometimes even FM Keitel tried to water down some of AH’s crazier orders behind the scenes. I did not say Jodl was innocent. . He remained loyal to the end and wound up on the scaffold. I think he should have received a sentence similar to the other military leaders on the docket such as Raeder and Doenitz IMHO. Others agree including the French judge at the IMT. Not to mention the other court which posthumously found Jodl not guilty of the major charges against him. So, I at least have some company in this regard.
“It is quite true Gen. Jodl transmitted a number of military orders from AH to Wehrmacht officers down the chain of command. Jodl’s signature on a some these orders s what lead to his death sentence. But the orders didn’t come from him. They came from you know who. Often Jodl and sometimes even FM Keitel tried to water down some of AH’s crazier orders behind the scenes. I did not say Jodl was innocent. . He remained loyal to the end and wound up on the scaffold. I think he should have received a sentence similar to the other military leaders on the docket such as Raeder and Doenitz IMHO.”
My question asking how many people had to die pursuant to unlawful orders signed by Jodl without his resigning his commission in protest before you will judge Jodl guilty of a capital crime justifying his hanging?
Jodl was right there in the middle of enthusiastically and unlawfully invading numerous nations alongside the other NZI leaders. For example, Jodl was an accomplice in cheerfully planning the invasion and conquest of Denmark and Norway. Note where the Nuremberg IMT reported:
By teletype of 28th October, 1944 Jodl ordered the evacuation of all persons in northern Norway and burning of their houses so they could not help the Russians. Jodl says he was against this, but Hitler ordered it and it was not fully carried out.
A friend of ours located here in the United States absolutely detests Germans. Her grandfather and grandmother lived on a rural farm in the area subject to Jodl’s order. German soldiers acted sadistically when they abused her grandparents and then dragged them out of their log cabin into the snow and viciously murdered them pursuant to those orders from Jodl.
So, as far as I’m concerned it makes no difference whether Jodl is responsible as a conspirator to unlawfully kill one person or one million people. He earned the death penalty either way and many times over as Jodl stood by as Hitler’s executioners hanged Stauffenberg by piano wire before a movie camera until he was all but dead and then repeatedly revived him to be executed by piano wire again several times until he could no longer be revived.
Stauffenberg was shot btw. On the evening of the July 20th Bomb Plot.
I guess we will have to disagree. I don’t doubt that Jodl was a high ranking staff officer who participated in strategy meetings and transmitted orders. I don’t claim he was innocent. I do not think he was a ruthless war criminal like Himmler, Heydrich, or Eichmann.
Yes Jodl could have joined the July 20th Bomb Plot. He would have suffered the same fate as the rest. Either way he choices weren’t good. I still think a punishment similar to what Doenitz and Raeder received would have been more appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.