
Nuremberg: A Fair Trial? A Dangerous Precedent (1946) - vezzy-fnord
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-dangerous-precedent/306492/?single_page=true?hn
======
kwhitefoot
That was a great article. This paragraph in particular struck me as relevant
now just a short time after the reopening of the youth camp on Utøya:

========== If the Nuremberg trial of the leading Nazis should never have been
undertaken, it does not follow that we should not have punished these men. It
would have been consistent with our philosophy and our law to have disposed of
such of the defendants as were in the ordinary sense murderers by individual,
routine, undramatic, military trials. This was the course proposed in the
speeches of the Archbishop of York, Viscount Cecil, Lord Wright, and others in
the great debate of March 20, 1945, in the House of Lords. In such trials the
evidence and the legal issues would have a stark simplicity and the lesson
would be inescapable. ==========

This exactly what Norway did to Breivik, he was treated as the common murderer
that he is. No new law, no new tribunal, no grandstanding by the accused or
the accusers.

~~~
oska
Great comment. I feel this principle should be applied to all ‘terrorists’.
Try them under existing criminal law; no need to make new terrorist laws which
only help promote their standing as ‘terrorists’ and, by extension, the causes
they seek to promote.

The whole terrorism thing is essentially a ‘game’ between the authorities and
the self-perceived cause-warriors, with the general public being pulled in as
collateral damage (both as direct victims and, more broadly, as the losers of
individual and social freedoms). The people, acting in their own self-
interest, should refuse to let this sick, manufactured drama continue and that
means refusing _both sides_ their roles (as ‘terrorists’ or ‘defenders from
terrorism’).

~~~
malkia
Like recently with the morrocan guy and the french train. It could be that he
just wanted to the "good-ole" robbery.... Like the big train robbery... It was
never considered a terrorist act.

------
woodpanel
Maybe OT: I'm impressed by this piece of content! Impressed, because as a
millennial, not paying-for-content content-consumer, I barely can find such
in-depth texts, being sophisticated in finding the truth of the matter* and
presenting it to the public. The author basically seems to have been given the
space of todays cover-stories and the freedom of a columnist using it to swim
against the current in a nation-wide publicized high-profile medium.

This piece might have been scanned to be archived, but to be read and
understood by modern consumers, it might have been better to convert it into a
BuzzFeed-Style Top-10-List :-(

* not implying that he's correct, but he's seems to be honest

~~~
kwhitefoot
Most media don't carry articles like this anymore even if you do pay. The
Atlantic is one of the few exceptions. Up to the 1970s even the gutter press
in the UK would print long articles, not generally as temperate as this one of
course, but still expecting the reader to spend more than thirty seconds
reading it. Now it's mostly either soundbites or recycled (in some case within
the same article) with no editing, not even a grammar check. But guess which
media outlet gets the most page views, it's not The Atlantic of course but the
UK Daily Mail.

------
krebby
Anyone interested in this story might also be interested in Hannah Arendt's
Eichmann in Jerusalem (famous for its "banality of evil" thesis). She regarded
his trial as nothing more than a show, a kangaroo court, meant to act as
catharsis for the Jewish people and a world looking for a figurehead to blame.

------
ohsnap
Nuremberg was important because it provided a symbolic mechanism for Axis to
get a clean slate by sacrificing a few leaders. It was nothing more than
theatre, and was intended as such. It was also extremely effective.

------
JulianMorrison
Nuremberg, even if was fair, is a bit of sleight of hand in terms of who _wasn
't_ in the dock. Firebombing Dresden? No charge. The Red Army raping its way
to Berlin? Scot free. Japanese civilians incinerated in firebombing of cities
and then two nuclear bombs for pure intimidation AFTER they made overtures to
quit and with NO military target? Not even mentioned.

~~~
cjensen
> Japanese civilians incinerated...AFTER they made overtures to quit

That's nonsense. The fascist Japanese government hoped for a cessation of
hostilities because it was their only chance to stay in power and perhaps to
fight again. That's not "stopping" in a permanent sense. They had attacked the
US unprovoked[1], and there was no rational basis to believe they wouldn't do
so again in the future. The US didn't want to win the war, demobilize, and do
it all again in a few more decades; they required a permanent peace.

[1] Some will claim the US was provocative in its trade actions, but refusing
to sell oil to fuel the continuing rape of China is not a reasonable
definition of provocation.

~~~
coldtea
> _That 's nonsense. The fascist Japanese government hoped for a cessation of
> hostilities because it was their only chance to stay in power and perhaps to
> fight again._

If that's what you're taught in US school, maybe invest in some history books.
Preferably European ones, so they don't spread patriotic BS.

~~~
x0054
You mean so they spread European BS instead?

~~~
coldtea
I mean so that they are from an impartial source to the US/Japan sides.

(Coming from a greater scholarly tradition when it comes to history wouldn't
hurt either).

~~~
mikeash
Many European countries were involved in that conflict. The UK, France, and
Netherlands all had substantial territory conquered by the Japanese. Germany
and Italy were allied with the Japanese. The Soviets attacked Japan. Even
countries not directly involved with Japan probably still have strong opinions
if they were involved with Germany, what with the alliance. So that leaves,
what, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland for potential sources of
impartiality there?

