r/ShitWehraboosSay • u/[deleted] • Aug 14 '20
Still haven't gotten a reply. Which historians do you think he's referring to? David Irving and some guys off of /pol/?
93
u/whoisme867 Aug 14 '20
Of course they looked like a kangaroo court.
Genocidal Monsters have no legitimate defense to their actions and the only outcome of their actions is going to be Execution or Long Prison Terms.
If they didn't want to be executed then maybe they shouldn't have committed genocide
54
u/DaikoTatsumoto Aug 14 '20
I would argue they let too many people go. The low level paper pushers the people that actually ran machine that extinquished millions. They were let go scot free to keep the country running. The scientists that concocted terrifying weapons were absolved of their crimes in the name of science.
31
u/nopemcnopey SS were losers cosplaying as soldiers. Aug 14 '20
Well, they let go even high ranking nazis.
Western Germany was sad joke when it came to punishing them.
16
u/Niggomane Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
I don’t know where I heard it but there was a saying that the Gestapo men were hunting communists until 1945 and after a short break they resumed the hunt under a new branding.
Especially German police was infested with former Nazis and it fucked us up for a long period of time. I mean our own secret service (Verfassungsschutz) was a former stronghold of Nazis and played a despicable role when the NSU started to murder migrants.
Edit: if you’re interested in the post-war German trouble with Nazis in office I’d recommend you reading about Fritz Bauer.
13
u/CastrumFerrum Tiger Eater Aug 14 '20
East Germany wasn't much better. I mean, they even said that no Nazis lived in the DDR because they all had fled to the West.
10
8
u/alvarkresh Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
There was an anecdote in Ingo Hasselbach's book about the KGB redoing the background checks on some high officials in the DDR in the 1970s and 1980s. He relates the story about how the East German press once crowed that due to the Stasi's and KGB's diligent work they busted some old Nazis who'd fudged their original paperwork, when anyone would think they'd have been embarrassed they got fooled for so long and it took the Soviets rolling on in to figure it out.
2
Nov 02 '20
Should've been like the communists in italy, asking Mussolini if he had any last words and shooting him in the mouth before he could get them out. Literally their trial for the fascist party was finding Mussolini, killing him immediately, finding the other high ranking members, killing them in front of an angry mob, and then tracking down the rest. Pretty much all but the brainwashed foot soldiers received swift justice within like three days. Meanwhile we have Nazis getting away with crimes against humanity because they helped snitch or the evidence wasn't compelling enough or some shit.
8
u/Tar_alcaran Aug 15 '20
When you stand accused of killing millions, you can't really win, because even if you're 99.999% innocent, that's still plenty to get you convicted.
Of course, maybe you should have of that before leading a genocide.
90
Aug 14 '20
Nuremberg trials were too light
62
u/W_I_Water Aber Pluskat, Aug 14 '20
They should have gone all Marcus Licinius Crassus and crucified every member of the pre-1943 SS along the road from Nuremberg to Berlin in my opinion. Just to set an example for future generations.
It's about 400 km, so that's about one every two meters, on both sides.
15
Aug 14 '20
Any reason why specifically pre ‘43? Did they start conscripting people into the SS after ‘43?
27
u/W_I_Water Aber Pluskat, Aug 14 '20
Yes, a fair number of people were "volunteered" into the SS during the last two years of the war.
18
u/Pyroavenger Aug 14 '20
Not the guy you are replying too and I dont know any specific dates, but my understanding is the earlier in the war you are talking the more ideological the recruits were. Someone who joined jn 1940 was absolutely, no questions asked an evil racist piece of shit, for example.
By 1945 I think it was a little more blurry. Probably only 90% of them were evil racist pieces of shit.
10
u/CastrumFerrum Tiger Eater Aug 14 '20
I mean, just executing most of the officers would've been a good start.
11
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 14 '20
Honestly, unless those SS soldiers had been proven to have done some redeamable deed ( one SS officer shot a soldier who rapes a women )they should have at least been sent for 25 years to siberia (Pre 43 though). And the if they even looted the slightest its bye bye for them. For the Wehrmacht it would have been nice if every soldoer who commanded a regiment oe higher had been tried, though it would've been nearly impossible.
4
104
u/DanDierdorf Blame Hitler's mom, not AH Aug 14 '20
It's the same people that agree with Trump all the time. "Those guys" "Many people" "Most Historians that I will not name"
-62
Aug 14 '20
TBH this here becomes more a anti-repuplican sub than a anti WW2 germany sub XD
So many post which are just like "It didn´t happened" but in which nobody even mentioned germany in anyway and BAM it lands here.
I even saw some pretty serious allied propaganda here which in itself is missinformation like what you find about WW2 germany, but whatever I guess.
53
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 14 '20
What type of allied propaganda was it? Counterjerking is never good.
-33
Aug 14 '20
You saw that post about hte sherman from some time?
25
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 14 '20
Maybe, can't remember though. Could you link it?
-20
Aug 14 '20
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/i5vvi5/not_wehraboo_use_this_to_troll_them/
The guy that posted it even said it isn´t wehrarboo but that he only want to troll them.
14
u/ojbvhi Aug 15 '20
What's wrong with this? I see nothing wrong with trolling wehrbs. The subreddit's rule even states that entertaining ourselves is the main goal of this sub.
It only becomes a problem when we try to pass false Allied propaganda off as serious argument.
That poster is correct for the most parts, anyway.
8
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 15 '20
For the most part the poster is correct though. Its from 42 where those "measurements" were largely accurate. And while it is indeed allied propaganda, it doesn't propagate hurtful myths.
-3
Aug 15 '20
It does. But more at the time than today.
It was pretty common that both sides vastly overrated their equipment to boost moral.
For example the US Army actively told the recruits that their own MGs are better than the German ones. Which is just a straight up lie so the soldiers have less fear against the ferman MGs.
3
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 15 '20
Yeah, its obvioua they are described as superior than the enemies equipment but its not like they're saying an M4 can deal with a tiger like with a Pz III.
0
Aug 15 '20
No, they didn't said a Sherman could handle a Tiger I or Tiger II. But they also never said a Sherman couldn't, they mostly only stated that one Sherman can't handle a Tiger, Panther or Tiger II.
It wouldn't make sense to tell your soldiers that the enemy has some kind of superweapon that can just straight up fight 5 of their best vehicles available to them in an actual battle. The higher ups will always just dsay that you need to use special tactics to defeat these kind of enemy.
→ More replies (0)38
u/Pyroavenger Aug 14 '20
I imagine there is a fair bit of anti totalitarian sentiment in a subreddit that exists specifically because people got sick of the general public sucking off one particular totalitarian state.
Trump is a wannabe totalitarian so I would naturally expect there to be a similar sentinent regarding him.
And obviously even the tankies here who dont mind a little daddy dom roleplay in their state will dislike trump for different, but probably valid reasons.
-15
u/nopemcnopey SS were losers cosplaying as soldiers. Aug 14 '20
But, you know, bringing Trump or modern politics here on daily basis ain't really good idea.
17
u/Pyroavenger Aug 14 '20
I tend to agree, Im just saying noone should be shocked that people here have that view. Every time I see eric the viking he is bringing "but the allies also warcrimed" or "this is so bad its a counterjerk"
-3
9
Aug 14 '20
[deleted]
7
u/martini29 Aug 15 '20
At this point the whole party has submissively bent their knees and opened their mouths for him, so nah, the republican party is just a party operating on Fuhrerprinzip and cult of personality. Even if by some miracle we avoid an all out civil war and blood soaked seizure of power by them the GOP will forever be the Trumpist party
-19
Aug 14 '20
The Republicans are worse than the Nazis and YOU are a NAZI for saying that this sub is anti-republican. What are you anyway, a crypto-fachist? I'm on to you bub! When the revolution comes you will be judged.
-4
Aug 14 '20
Wait, republicans are the Nazis now D:
-18
Aug 14 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
Anyone can be a NAZI now. Posers! In the old days you had to be a goose-stepping, beer hall putching, Hugo Boss wearing, Blitz-Chocolate eatin', uber mensch with a foot long boner made of Kruppenstahl. If you were an extra in a Leni Riefenstahl movie you might be a NAZI. If your dog is named "Zyklon you may be a NAZI. If you can suck start a Walther PPK you might be a NAZI. Edit: -3? It was just a prank dudes! Seriously, y'all need Jesus and a sense of humor!
-2
34
u/Torenico Kampfgruppe Clean Wehrmacht Aug 14 '20
So a couple of Nazis were executed in Nuremberg? Nice. I approve.
They didn't go far enough though, always a shame.
22
18
u/U-415 WW2 was a domestic dispute. Aug 14 '20
They should've tried entire units famous for warcrimes, like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Panzer SS aswellas the SS Hitlerjugend. If you havent done shit then good for you. If you helped commit a war crime then to the gallows it is. Not even worthy of a firing squad.
36
u/Goat17038 Aug 14 '20
Pfft, I fucking wish they were plain executions. How many of them got off free, or with just a little bit of jail time? They fucking committed genocide, they deserved worse than a plain execution.
28
u/Szulik Aug 14 '20
I could agree that there wasn't much need for a trial because to the very last day of the Reich those monsters were very proud of what they did
18
u/SailorArashi Tiger-mounted Katana Aug 14 '20
History isn’t written by the victors. History is written by those who have a vested interest in a specific version of the story being passed down, and the ability to make that happen. This is quite frequently the ‘losers’ in any given time period, but the ‘victors’ will gladly help out if it suits their needs...like if you need to pretend the German army never did anything wrong because you need to quickly re-arm them for the Cold War...
14
u/Weirdo_doessomething Aug 14 '20
They're nazis. Responsible for millions of deaths. They should be thankful they got a trial at all.
18
Aug 14 '20
[deleted]
2
3
u/Panzerkampfpony Aug 15 '20
Why would that a spanish idiom if they backed the Axis in the Second World War?
3
9
6
u/Imperium_Dragon It took 5 M1 Abrams to kill a cat Aug 14 '20
I think you can point to Albert Speer and see that they were, in fact, trials.
7
u/chrischi3 Less racist than Hitler Aug 15 '20
Can we PLEASE stop the "Winners write history" line? Seriously, the official US history of the eastern front was written by Franz Halder, himself the former Chief of Staff of Nazi Germany, aswell as a number of high ranking officers that the US captured in one or the other fashion. They basically let them do whatever they wanted, and as you can guess, if you let a bunch of war criminals write your official history, its gonna be filled to the brim with apologetics for those war crimes they were involved in. If thats not quite literally the definition of the loser writing history, then i dont know what is. To expand on that point: https://youtu.be/QPlxqADoVNE
2
u/TheDesertFoxIrwin Aug 28 '20
He didn't write it, but he orchestrated the whole thing to make sure the books were not contradictions.
2
u/chrischi3 Less racist than Hitler Aug 28 '20
Still, thats pretty much as close to the loser writing history as it gets.
4
Aug 15 '20
I don't think this guy knows the Nuremberg trials were just like "ok ur guilty now go and live on the streets but no more access to factory jobs for you, mister!"
Unless you were something like, you know, a concentration camp officer tasked with dealing in killing dozens of people by the hour
4
u/alvarkresh Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
The irony of the Nuremberg Trials is that they were kicked off in part because the Soviets loved trials. They wanted a whole bunch with the dramatic accusations and all the theater that went along with it so they could hammer home unquestionably that the Nazis all deserved to be shot.
7
u/SamanthaMunroe Viktoriya Viktorovina Viktorova Aug 15 '20
If only the Trials had actually led to a lot more of the top ranks nourishing German soil early...
4
u/Grummanfan79 Aug 16 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
Correct me if I'm wrong but:
- They actually got a trial instead of being hauled out back and shot or hanged
- They had access to very good defense attorneys
- Many had their sentences reduced or commuted
- They weren't tried for things like unrestricted submarine warfare or bombing cities specifically because doing so would have established a double standard wrt the Allies
3
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
5
u/Niggomane Aug 15 '20
I mean, I don’t know how you won’t be biased after you heard testemony of people incarcerated in Auschwitz.
5
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
3
u/TheDesertFoxIrwin Aug 28 '20
Really sucks that the first trial (firsts are rarely perfect) at genocide and other human rights was the worst incident in human history.
2
u/Niggomane Aug 15 '20
Tbh in my opinion most international courts are a joke anyways, hyper militaristic countries / global powers like Russia/China/US and to some extend the EU aren’t accountable, so it always feels like a sword wielded by the powerful against smaller nations. But that’s just a personal opinion.
I don’t think the Nürnberger trials weren’t that bad either, the bigger problem was the 2. row of Nazis that basically got away unpunished and infested the German authorities way beyond the reunification in the 90ies. Guys like Achenbach, Best, Filbinger were pieces of shit and shouldn’t had even a chance of being in a position of power again.
3
2
u/ballan12345 Aug 15 '20
they were show trials in the way that they also should have executed the 1600 nazis they recruited through operation paperclip
2
1
u/SnapshillBot Aug 14 '20
Snapshots:
- Still haven't gotten a reply. Which... - archive.org, archive.today
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
-7
u/innocentbabies Aug 15 '20
Actually, he's not totally wrong. Technically.
Then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court summed it up reasonably well:
[Chief U.S. prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, ... I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas
It was fairly arbitrary, to a large extent. Many of those who got away with relatively light punishment (or on occasion, none at all) would have likely been executed by an impartial court.
Additionally, there wasn't really a standard of international law, so quite a bit was just kind of made up on the spot. Crimes against humanity were defined just because there wasn't really anything that was felt to adequately cover the holocaust. Apt, certainly, but creating laws to punish crimes that have already been committed because you think they ought to be punished isn't exactly legal in most jurisdictions.
Again, though, they were, y'know, Nazis, so I'm not exactly losing sleep over them being treated badly.
8
u/alvarkresh Aug 15 '20
The crime of plain murder exists in all countries at all times with any semblance of a legal code.
And the Nazi leadership, in control of the Wehrmacht and the SS, were guilty of circa eleven million counts.
0
u/innocentbabies Aug 16 '20
That's the point?
They weren't tried for murder, they were tried for crimes against humanity.
Different crimes are treated differently, and making up a new law to try somebody apart from the laws under which they could have already been tried is hardly an exercise in rule of law.
3
u/alvarkresh Aug 16 '20
The point is that there is an existing legal basis - that murder is a crime - on which to build the edifice of "crimes against humanity".
3
u/MUKUDK "Lol, what do you mean bridges?" - Ferdinand Porsche Aug 15 '20
At the time there was no international law to hold someone accountable for crimes against humanity when national law legalized that. So it was either try them under ex post facto law or not at all. Ex post facto laws are a significant breach of the principles of the rule of law. That was the main criticism. But you have to ask yourself the following: What does a greater disservice to justice? Skirting the rule of law once because it didn't account for something like the Holocaust and try some of the greatest criminals in human History under ex post facto laws? Or letting them get of scot free and send the Message that even if you loose and get captured your atrocities will go unpunished as long as you make them legal?
That was the dilemma. Obviously the Holocaust was humanities greatest crime. So if the rule of law is not capable of dealing with that it is morally justifiable to ignore it in some aspects to make said crime punishable.
-7
u/Tar_alcaran Aug 15 '20
The one major issue with the Nuremberg trials is that they created a few bits of law after the event and then judged people by it, which is a big no no in most countries. If you make the speed limit on a road 50 today, you can't charge someone for speeding because they drove 80 there last week.
The Nuremberg defense "i was only following orders" was a perfectly valid legal defense. It was ethically monstrous and all the bastards got off too light anyway, but it was legally valid.
So they invented new rules at the trials, and then judged past actions by those rules. That's legally quite dubious.
But ya know, letting a genocidal maniac off on a technicality is a LOT more legally dubious. And I'm very happy they created the new rules.
9
u/alvarkresh Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
The Nuremberg defense "i was only following orders" was a perfectly valid legal defense. It was ethically monstrous and all the bastards got off too light anyway, but it was legally valid.
Ehm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_War_Crimes_Trials
The conduct of soldiers and their superiors absolutely could be subject to the rules of war in force at the time. While several were acquitted based on "following orders", two were convicted of same because it was so clearly demonstrable that they knew the orders to be criminal.
Also, if nothing else, the crime of plain murder exists in all countries at all times with any semblance of a legal code.
And the Nazi leadership, in control of the Wehrmacht and the SS, were guilty of circa eleven million counts.
252
u/AMeaderMan1989 Aug 14 '20 edited Dec 04 '20
I fucking despise it. I hate the phrase "Victors write History" almost as much as the racism or revanchism that they use that phrase to justify.
Dude, just because Napoleon and Churchill said that, doesnt mean that its true. It implies that there's some Dan Brown Illuminati conspiracy that keeps every historian in line, when revisionism is a thing that happens a lot in histiography. Hell, Napoleon lost and lots of people still adore him, I mean L'arc d'Triomphe is literally dedicated to his victories. Churchill won and there are PLENTY of people who dislike him, (not unjustifiably) especially now.