Also he wasn’t Führer, but Reichpräsident. But you’re right, his conviction was officially for military crimes, not political ones. He wasn’t a politician and wasn’t very much involved in politics. Though I do remember reading that he blamed Speer for his conviction, believing that if Speer hadn’t convinced Hitler to name him his successor, he probably wouldn’t have been sent to prison. From Speer’s own account, Hitler asked him what he thought of Dönitz, and Speer confirmed that he’d probably do a good job.
I had forgotten this, but Googled around and found a reference to what I assume you are talking about:
[Moderator Warning]
constanze, political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. If this were a first offense, I would make this moderator note. Unfortunately remarks of this kind seem to be habitual with you, so I am making it an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
At the original Nuremberg War Crime Trials, 2of the 24 defendants (8%) were acquitted of all charges. Both had been active in other political parties competing with the Nazi party.
Three. You’re forgetting Hans Fritzsche.
Reading the Wikipedia page about the Nuremberg Trials was an eye-opening experience. I’m forced to conclude that even the Nuremberg Trials were more show trials than real justice. They made up their own rules of evidence, didn’t share evidence with the defense, and even tried some radio personality in place of Josef Goebels (at least that guy was acquitted). The Chielf Justice of the US Supreme Court declared it a “high-grade lynching.”
But it was a step up from Stalin’s suggestion. I read someting about during Yalta or one of those conferences, the leaders were discussing how to deal with the Gemans afte the war. Stalin said “Simple. We just shoot the top 50,000 Germans.”
FDR thought Stalin was joking and said “wouldn’t 49,000 be enough?”. Churchill had no illusions about Stalin. Apparently they settled on actual trials to determine who had behaved badly during the war, and agreed that just serving the government was not enough. That’s how they decided on “crimes against humanity”. They also had to show that you could not get off by claiming “I vas only followink orders.”
It was bound to be a mess. The concept of “war crimes” didn’t really exist prior to Nuremberg, so there was a real question about what law the defendants should be tried under. Lots of them never left Germany’s pre-war borders. What were they supposed to be tried for? After all, most of the things they did were legal under German law in effect at the time.
In the end, it was easiest to try them under Weimar-era and earlier law the Nazis hadn’t seen fit to repeal.
Didn’t Eisenhower suggest shooting every SS officer over captain, or something like that?
I don’t want to spread a scurrilous accusation, but I’ve read it (no cite). And a version that he was persuaded (at the time, obviously) to raise the cut-off rank?
Which is why none of the defendants were charged with crimes committed in Germany between 1933-1939. This was solely a war crimes trial.
Also not a proud moment of recent American military jurisprudence: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-03-05/news/9903050144_1_ashby-flinch-marine-corps
Nitpick: It’s “Chief Justice of the United States”: Who’s America’s top judge? - The Straight Dope
I was ordered to do so!
Did you read the first post?
No, apparently nobody ordered him to do so.
There’s no requirement that the accused should be tried by the ICC. According to the treaties, this is supposed to happen only if they aren’t properly prosecuted in their home countries.
Besides, not that many people have been prosecuted by the ICC, so it’s a bit difficult to assess what the “rules of the game” are.
Finally, a nitpick (or not a notpick, not sure). The World Court isn’t the same thing as the ICC we’re talking about here. The “World Court” (ICJ), which has been around for a long time, settles disputes between states (say, a disagreement between two countries over fishing rights in an area) and doesn’t prosecute individuals.
As I thought. Thus the USA properly prosecutes it’s own war criminals, there is no reason to send them to the ICC. constanze was wrong.
Of course there is always a argument that the prosecution is too lenient (or too severe.).