Saddam, Himmler, Goering & Donetz

[Supercharts]

In 1947 the Allies put Nazi Germany on trial.
Many Nazis were hung.
I'm sitting here wondering if any people from the U.S.S.R. or Europe ever went and demonstrated at Nuremberg to allow Heinrich Himmler, Herman Goering and Karl Donetz to be sentenced to "life" in prison instead of being hung.
Did they have demonstrations in the streets? Did anyone say that it was better that they were sent to prison for "life" instead of being put to death?
Anyone have any documentation on anti-death demonstrations from 1947?

[Clancie]

I don't know the answer to your question, Supercharts, except to say that there were public arguments about whether or not the people on trial were actually war criminals....and also whether or not the new international trial process by the victorous nations was fair to the defendants.

And I've heard, from relatives who were around then, accounts of various "kitchen table" arguments about whether some of them should have been hanged or not, whether some received just prison sentences or not, etc. etc.

So, no, I don't think this is really anything new.....

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Supercharts
In 1947 the Allies put Nazi Germany on trial. Many Nazis were hung. I'm sitting here wondering if any people from the U.S.S.R. or Europe ever went and demonstrated at Nuremberg to allow Heinrich Himmler, Herman Goering and Karl Donetz to be sentenced to "life" in prison instead of being hung.

I don't know, but the situation is different. In 1947, the war was over and its objectives had been achieved. Himmler and friends had nothing to contribute. But if Hussein can be convinced to give some good intelligence on WMD's or lack thereof, or anything else that may save lives and settle questions, then I don't have a problem offering him life if he talked. Life in prison would be a living hell, especially for someone like him.

Jeremy

[Supercharts]

Good point

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Many Nazis were hung.

In Art galleries?

If you really want to kill Saddam why not just do it? Why not just take him outside right now and put a bullet into him?

On the other hand, If you want to do it and also want to be able to say you had a right to do it then you are going to have to find some process that gives you the right....know of any? You may have to create a new process, as in Nuremburg? Anyway...do as you will and expect to be judged on your actions.....Thats all I can say.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by The Fool

In Art galleries?

If you really want to kill Saddam why not just do it? Why not just take him outside right now and put a bullet into him?
***


I do not recall expressing any idea about "Art Galleries" nor wanting to put a bullet into Saddam. Please provide the quote. TYVM.

[geni]

Originally posted by Supercharts
In 1947 the Allies put Nazi Germany on trial.
Many Nazis were hung.
I'm sitting here wondering if any people from the U.S.S.R. or Europe ever went and demonstrated at Nuremberg to allow Heinrich Himmler, Herman Goering and Karl Donetz to be sentenced to "life" in prison instead of being hung.


Doenitz wasn't hung. He got ten years.

Sentences were announced in the afternoon for the convicted defendants. Again, Lawrence began with Goering: "The International Military Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging." Goering, without expression, turned and left the courtroom. Ten other defendants (Ribbentrop, Keitel, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, and Seyss-Inquart) were also told they would die on a rope. Life sentences were handed down to Hess, Funk, and Raeder. Von Schirach and Speer received 20-year sentences, Von Neurath a 15-year sentence, while Doenitz got a 10-year sentence. The trial had lasted 315 days.



source (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nurembergACCOUNT.html)

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by geni


Doenitz wasn't hung. He got ten years.





source (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nurembergACCOUNT.html)
Well, that destroys my argument. :(

[Clancie]

Posted by Supercharts

Well, that destroys my argument
Well, if -that- was your argument, I guess you'd better know that Himmler committed suicide before he went on trial.

And Goering wasn't hung either. He was sentenced to death by hanging, but he killed himself with a cyanide capsule in prison....

[Reginald]

Probably not the three best choices for examples.

Donetz did 11 odd years in prison so didn't hang.
Himmler killed himself in 1945 before trial.
Goering was sentenced to hang but killed himself.

Saddam is something of a rarity. They don't often come quiely.

Mussolini-lampost.
Ceausescu-Hastily shot.
Hitler-suicide and burnt.
Pol Pot-heart attack on hearing he was about to be handed in for trial, burnt on old tyres next to a latrine.

[geni]

Originally posted by Reginald


Mussolini-lampost.
Ceausescu-Hastily shot.
Hitler-suicide and burnt.
Pol Pot-heart attack on hearing he was about to be handed in for trial, burnt on old tyres next to a latrine.

And Stalin and Mao old age. Biggest killers in history get away scot free.

I can't see what killing Saddam would atchive. It would not stop other poeple doing the same thing and he is in many ways more useful alive than dead. Goering and Co were just left over bits of history. I still don't think that we should have killed them but 1947 is not today. Today it is important that we show we are better than Saddam. In 1947 we needed to show one thing never again.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Supercharts


I do not recall expressing any idea about "Art Galleries" nor wanting to put a bullet into Saddam. Please provide the quote. TYVM.
In my Country art is Hung, people are hanged....at least they were back before we outgrew capital punishment.

Do you really want to kill someone to demonstrate how wrong it is to kill people?.... He was complicit in rapes too, maybe you should rape him.

On the topic of your lack of recall, I asked "why don't you shoot S" I didn't state "you want to shoot S" ....did that clear things up?

[Zep]

In 1947, all the participants in the Nuremburg trails still had capital punishment in their laws. In 2003, only the USA of the three "Coalition of the Willing" partners who put men on the ground (USA, UK, Australia) retains capital punishment.

Personally, I'd like to see Saddam get gaol for life, not a clean death. Perhaps he could be used as a nerve gas guinea-pig... Or perhaps could be gaoled by Kurds in Kurdistan...

[Skeptic]

In my Country art is Hung, people are hanged....at least they were back before we outgrew capital punishment.

Well, actually, you didn't outgrow it, unless you have a 0 murder rate. It's just that it now only applies to the innocent.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic

In my Country art is Hung, people are hanged....at least they were back before we outgrew capital punishment.

Well, actually, you didn't outgrow it, unless you have a 0 murder rate. It's just that it now only applies to the innocent.
well, I've read it 5 times now and it still doesn't make much sense...have you been drinking paint thinners again?

Stick to simple slogans "skeptic". Its what you are best at.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Reginald

Pol Pot-heart attack on hearing he was about to be handed in for trial, burnt on old tyres next to a latrine.

Now, there's something I didn't know. Kind of a fitting end.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Fool

well, I've read it 5 times now and it still doesn't make much sense...have you been drinking paint thinners again?

Stick to simple slogans "skeptic". Its what you are best at.

I believe in the first sentence he's taking an opportunity to show what a pedantic git he can be. He doesn't realise that 'hanged' and 'hung' are interchangable w/r/t roping up someone.

In the second sentence, he is trying to say that his country got rid of the death penalty, and it's been going downhill ever since. As Skeptic himself implies in that post, it is the mark of a mature country when she outgrows the death penalty. But Skeptic, being somewhat juvenile of mind, still thinks the answer to all your troubles is to kill it or bulldoze it.

It's all the IDF training, y'know.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I believe in the first sentence he's taking an opportunity to show what a pedantic git he can be. He doesn't realise that 'hanged' and 'hung' are interchangable w/r/t roping up someone.



Nope, at least in English English, people are "hanged" meat is "hung", there's a clear distinction

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Don


Nope, at least in English English, people are "hanged" meat is "hung", there's a clear distinction

Fowlers says, as you and Skeptic do, that 'hanged' is the correct term for capital punishment, however:

This use is not erroneous but just less customary in standard English.

Fowler's Modern English Usage ed R W Burchfield, 1996 Oxford University Press

I've had this argument a million times over the 'net: Insisting upon 'hanged' instead of 'hung' is pedantry, and nothing more. I'd be more concerned with the interchanging of 'alternate' and 'alternative', since these are different words with clearly different meanings. The difference between 'hanged' and 'hung' is academic, and I bet many of those who insist upon using the 'correct' word can't even say why it's correct.

[The Don]

If Mrs Wheeler, my old first form (we were 11) English teacher were dead, your cavalier use of language would have her turning in her grave :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Many Nazis were hung.


Like horses?

[Jon_in_london]

Does anyone else think that Goering and Doenitz were really hard done by? I cant see that they did things that Allied commanders didnt also do.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Does anyone else think that Goering and Doenitz were really hard done by? I cant see that they did things that Allied commanders didnt also do.

Come to think of it, there's a dangerous gap in my knowledge of Goering. What did he actually do in WWII?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by toddjh:
I don't know, but the situation is different. In 1947, the war was over and its objectives had been achieved. Himmler and friends had nothing to contribute.

Not entirely true. Don't forget that both the US and USSR were eager to get their hands on high ranking Nazi scientists who probably should have stood trial. IIRC some high ranking Nazis also aided the CIA in the post-war years, and also escaped prosecution. I remember a documentary on the Nuremberg trials making the claim that the judicial process lost a lot of it's momentum once the cold war started in earnest, and the US and USSR had different priorities to prosecuting Nazis.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Come to think of it, there's a dangerous gap in my knowledge of Goering. What did he actually do in WWII?

Well, He was commander of the Luftwaffe.

So I guess you may say he was responsible for the bombing of civillians but then again........

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, Goering used slave labour, which I assume other commanders didn't do.

Source (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Goering_judgment.htm)

The record is filled with Goering’s admissions of his complicity in ‘the use ‘of slave labour. "We did use this labour for security reasons so that they would not be active in their own country and would not ‘work against us. On the other hand, ‘they served to help in the economic war." And again: "Workers were forced to come to the Reich. That is something I have not denied."

Whether that calls for the death penalty or not is another question (keep in mind that I'm pretty much as anti-death penalty as it gets).

Then there is this:

Goering persecuted the Jews, particularly after the November, 1938 riots, and not only in Germany where he raised the billion mark fine as stated elsewhere, ‘but in the conquered territories as well. His own utterances then and his testimony now show this interest was primarily economic—-how to get their property and how to force them out of the economic life of Europe. As these countries fell before the German army, he extended the Reich’s anti-Jewish laws to them ; the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1939, 1940, and 1941 contains several anti-Jewish decrees signed by Goering. Although their extermination was in Himmler’s hands, Goering was far from disinterested or inactive, despite his protestations in the witness box. By decree of 31st July, 1941, ‘he directed Himmler and Heydrich to bring "about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe."

There is nothing to be said in mitigation. For Goering was often, indeed almost always, the moving force, second only to his leader. He was the leading war aggressor, both as political and as military leader; he was the director of the slave labour programme and the creator of the oppressive programme against the Jews and other races, at home and abroad. All of these crimes he has frankly admitted. On some specific cases there may be conflict of testimony, but in terms of the broad outline, his own admissions are more than sufficiently wide to be conclusive of his guilt. His guilt is unique in its enormity. The record discloses no excuses for this man.


(my bold- same source)

I don't know how much evidence there was that Goering actively pursued the 'final solution'. I imagine you'd have to look at the trial notes for that.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
IIRC some high ranking Nazis also aided the CIA in the post-war years, and also escaped prosecution.

Ditto Japanese germ-warfare experts.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Well, Goering used slave labour, which I assume other commanders didn't do.

Whether that calls for the death penalty or not is another question (keep in mind that I'm pretty much as anti-death penalty as it gets).

I don't know how much evidence there was that Goering actively pursued the 'final solution'. I imagine you'd have to look at the trial notes for that.

I know that Goering was an arch-Nazi and a total sh-t. I have no problem with him getting whatevers coming but I dont see doenitz as deserving any special punishment.

Link:


Doenitz tried to show his sinking of merchant vessels and failure to rescue passengers was same practice ff'd by Allies (Nimitz test. agreed)

debate in U.S. - prof. soldiers disagreed with Jackson's prosecution of Jodl and Doenitz as same as others - were soldiers defending their country

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
Ditto Japanese germ-warfare experts.

Don't know anything about Japanese germ-warfare experts, but in the case of Nazi scientists I can see where the allied powers were coming from, if the only other option was to let them fall into Soviet hands, yielding the technological upper hand to the USSR.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Supercharts
In 1947 the Allies put Nazi Germany on trial.
Many Nazis were hung.
I'm sitting here wondering if any people from the U.S.S.R. or Europe ever went and demonstrated at Nuremberg to allow Heinrich Himmler, Herman Goering and Karl Donetz to be sentenced to "life" in prison instead of being hung.
Did they have demonstrations in the streets? Did anyone say that it was better that they were sent to prison for "life" instead of being put to death?
Anyone have any documentation on anti-death demonstrations from 1947?

Just to toss in a bit of additional data:

Himmler killed himself after he was arrested, let alone his trial.
Goering killed himself after he was sentenced to death by hanging.

I think Dontiz was sentenced to 20 years, but it was later reduced to 10 years. And, I think it was a former US Navy Admiral Edward Beach in his book on the capture of the German U-Boat 505 during WWII that he wrote extensively that he thought the sentence Dontiz faced was unjust because US submarine commanders in the Pacific used many of the same tactics that the Germans used in the Atlantic.

Also, I would like to add, that in 1945 just about every country continued to use the death penalty, but now, most do not.

[LW]

Originally posted by Crossbow

I think Dontiz was sentenced to 20 years, but it was later reduced to 10 years. And, I think it was a former US Navy Admiral Edward Beach in his book on the capture of the German U-Boat 505 during WWII that he wrote extensively that he thought the sentence Dontiz faced was unjust because US submarine commanders in the Pacific used many of the same tactics that the Germans used in the Atlantic.

In particular, the British hanged Heinz-Wilhem Eck because he machine gunned survivors of steamer Peleus. On the other hand, Dudley "Mush" Morton received a Navy Cross from his partrol on Wahoo during which they machine gunned survivors of Buyo Maru (most of whom, btw, were not Japanese but Indian POWs).

In general, the definition of war crimes is quite problematic and occasionally it seems to be as simple as "something that the winners don't like". After WWII one Finnish long-distance patrolman (a NCO member of the long-distance patrol unit of the 14th division, can't remember his name) was tried for war crimes at the demand of the Soviet Union because he had shot a captured Russian soldier when they were ~30 km behind Soviet lines. A nasty thing to do, certainly, but the trial was pretty hypocritical since the official policy of the Soviet partisan units fighting in the same general area was to execute all captured Finns (both armed and civilian, about 150 civilians were thus killed) after interrogation if they could not be safely transported to Soviet bases.

[Tony]

Wasn’t the last person to be imprisoned in the Tower of London a Nazi war criminal?

[Thanz]

Is it me, or did anyone else think that the first line of the opening post was going to be "walk into a bar....."

[Skeptic]

I think Dontiz was sentenced to 20 years, but it was later reduced to 10 years.

Close; Donitz was sentenced to ten years. Speer and von Schirach got 20. None of them got their sentence reduced, although Raeder, Donitz's (nominal) superior, was released after a few years despite getting "life in prison".

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think Dontiz was sentenced to 20 years, but it was later reduced to 10 years.

Close; Donitz was sentenced to ten years. Speer and von Schirach got 20. None of them got their sentence reduced, although Raeder, Donitz's (nominal) superior, was released after a few years despite getting "life in prison".

Raeder was replaced by Doenitz after Hitler got pissed off at him for not being daring enough (perhaps this was because Hitler **** his pants every time his big ships were out?). In any case I can see no justification for punishing Doenitz and I think imprisoning Raeder is a travesty, he was never a Nazi and always behaved in the best possible traditions of any Navy.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think Dontiz was sentenced to 20 years, but it was later reduced to 10 years.

Close; Donitz was sentenced to ten years. Speer and von Schirach got 20. None of them got their sentence reduced, although Raeder, Donitz's (nominal) superior, was released after a few years despite getting "life in prison".

Sorry about that, you are correct. It has been a while since I looked at this material.

Here is something further about Dönitz that interested parties may want to note.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Karl-Doenitz

...

As one of the witnesses in his own defense, Dönitz produced an affidavit from Admiral Chester Nimitz who testified that the United States had used unrestricted warfare as a tactic in the Pacific and that American submarines did not rescue survivors in situations where their own safety was in question. Despite this the tribunal found Dönitz guilty of "crimes against peace", for which he was sentenced to, and served, 10 years in Spandau Prison, West Berlin. Of all the defendants at Nuremberg, the verdict against Dönitz was probably the most controversial; Dönitz always maintained that he did nothing that his Allied counterparts did not.

...

[hgc]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Sorry about that, you are correct. It has been a while since I looked at this material.

Here is something further about Dönitz that interested parties may want to note.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Karl-Doenitz

...

As one of the witnesses in his own defense, Dönitz produced an affidavit from Admiral Chester Nimitz who testified that the United States had used unrestricted warfare as a tactic in the Pacific and that American submarines did not rescue survivors in situations where their own safety was in question. Despite this the tribunal found Dönitz guilty of "crimes against peace", for which he was sentenced to, and served, 10 years in Spandau Prison, West Berlin. Of all the defendants at Nuremberg, the verdict against Dönitz was probably the most controversial; Dönitz always maintained that he did nothing that his Allied counterparts did not.

... Interesting connection from that to Saddam...

One of the news shows last night had on someone who is an international law expert. He said that it's possible that if the U.S. participates in the prosecution, and one of the charges is the gassing of Iranian troops, then Saddam could possibly use a tu quoque defense to counter it. In essense, the U.S. provided targeting coordinates to Iraq for at least one of these incidents, and how can the U.S. bring Iraq to the doc for a crime that the U.S. is also guilty of. Don't know much about the validity of the argument, but the parallel to Dönitz is interesting.

[Skeptic]

In retrospect, it seems that Donitz's prison time was more due to Hitler's surprise decision to make him the nominal "Fuhrer" at the last moment than to any horrific crimes.

But the "tu quotue" (sp?) defense is, usually, inadmissable, although it can be embarrasing to the prosecutors; just because somebody else committed a crime (or so you allege) is no defense for your crimes.

[Skeptic]

In retrospect, it seems that Donitz's prison time was more due to Hitler's surprise decision to make him the nominal "Fuhrer" at the last moment than to any horrific crimes.

But the "tu quotue" (sp?) defense is, usually, inadmissable, although it can be embarrasing to the prosecutors; just because somebody else committed a crime (or so you allege) is no defense for your crimes.

By the way, I checked out the entry of "Albert Speer" in that encyclopedia. I was glad to see they didn't rely on his bogus (if famous) memoirs, but clearly stated that Speer, of course, knew--and was deeply implicated--in the holocaust, as well as being the king of Slav (and French) slave labor.

When you read Speer's "Inside the Third Reich", you get the feeling you're dealing with a real-life "Verbal", the character played by Kevin Spacey in the movie "The Usual Suspects". Claiming to be a minor criminal, "Verbal" talks endlessly about trivial details and weaves a very convincing story--but it's all lies, and he never so much as hints at the main point, namely, his real identity as Kaiser Soza, the major bad guy everybody is looking for.

Similarly, Speer's book is FULL of trivial anecdotes--what Hitler said at dinner, what food he likes, what jokes he would tell, how the other bigwigs dressed, etc., etc., etc.--but never admit the actual truth, namely, that he was deeply implicated in the holocaust.

In an ideal world, Speer should have been hanged, and Doenitz perhaps even acquitted. But the world isn't perfect.

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

In retrospect, it seems that Donitz's prison time was more due to Hitler's surprise decision to make him the nominal "Fuhrer" at the last moment
The most important charges against Doenitz were as admiral--that he had a policy of submarine warfare that violated international law.

It clearly stated that Speer, of course, knew--and was deeply implicated--in the holocaust
How so?


...as well as being the king of Slav (and French) slave labor.
He was responsible for armaments production, for which slave labor was used which Speer knew of (to what extent, is arguable still).

I'd be interested to know how you see him as "deeply implicated" in the Holocaust itself, i.e. in the systematic murder of 6 million Jews throughout Europe.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...

But the "tu quotue" (sp?) defense is, usually, inadmissable, although it can be embarrasing to the prosecutors; just because somebody else committed a crime (or so you allege) is no defense for your crimes. I think it applies if the authority behind the tribunal or the prosecutor has committed the crime for which you are being tried. It's not just anyone else. Of course, that very tribunal will have the authority to judge the objection, and in this case, no recourse for appeal. In this sense, a new Iraqi government is the best authority to try Saddam for, among other reasons, totally clean hands.

I wonder if and how the U.S. government will manage suppress evidence of its participation, ie., all the help provided to Iraq in the war against Iran. Not to mention the complicity, at least through knowledge, of the gassing of the Kurds. This incident merited little concern from the U.S. government until August 1991. Hmm, would that be after the invasion of Kuwait, and after Margaret Thatcher instructed Bush the Elder to don't just stand there, do something!

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Does anyone else think that Goering and Doenitz were really hard done by? I cant see that they did things that Allied commanders didnt also do.

Goering was in charge of concentration camps and secret police before Himmler.

[Mike B.]

The commander of the pocket battleship Graf Spree sunk 7 Allied ships without the loss of a single life, I believe. He gave the crews time to get off the ships.

The Royal Navy bottled him up in South America and tricked him into scuttling his ship. He then committed suicide.

In saluting his fallen crew he refused to make the Nazi salute and gave the traditional German naval salute from the old High Seas Fleet of the Kaiser.

I suppose it was soldiers like this that had nothing but contempt for the regime, yet felt a duty to serve their country.

I suppose he would stand up quite well with many Allied commanders as far as guilt of war crimes.

[LW]

Originally posted by Clancie

The most important charges against Doenitz were as admiral--that he had a policy of submarine warfare that violated international law.

And, as has been mentioned before, there were no essential differences between his policy and the policy that American submariners followed.


He was responsible for armaments production, for which slave labor was used which Speer knew of (to what extent, is arguable still).

Well, at least he argued that he didn't know anything about the nasty things that happened under his direct supervision.

I'd be interested to know how you see him as "deeply implicated" in the Holocaust itself, i.e. in the systematic murder of 6 million Jews throughout Europe.

Well, if you limit the word "Holocaust" to apply only to those Jews who were murdered in the death camps or shot to death and leave out those who were worked to death, then, yes, he probably didn't have very active part in Holocaust.

However, I wouldn't give that word so narrow definition and I would certainly include the slaves who were killed by work into the Holocaust victims. There were hundreds of thousands of slaves who were worked to death (including dozens of thousands of Jews, if you for some reason want to limit the word "Holocaust" to apply only for Jews) and Speer had to know about their conditions.

The only written analysis of Speer's knowledge that I currently have access to is in Peter Englund's Brev från nollpunkten but unfortunately that one is not translated to English.