Were the nuremberg trials legit or just a show trial

Every trial is show trial.

For Nuremberg trials to be legit, they should have put Stalin, Arthur Harris and Truman on the stand, but of course they didn't.

legit ofcourse
go back to pol polfags

>>1007332

It was show trial, but it had some amusing moments, such as Goering losing weight, sobering up and BTFOing the prosecution until Albert Cuck started talking, or when Nimitz testified on behalf of Doenitz, effectively destroying the Eternal Anglo's desire to prosecute Luftwaffe Commanders once Nuremberg was concluded.

>Ernst Kaltenbrunner suffered two brain hemorrhages at the hands of British interrogators and was denied a chance to recuperate, so his defense was badly mishandled.

Why was Rudolf Hess so autistic?

Not as legit as they could/should have been but still pretty legit

File: Hess.jpg (28KB, 450x358px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x358px

>>1007392

>Get your influence cut to pieces just before the war
>Spend most 90 percent of the war in British custody
>Clearly and undeniably mentally ill
>"lol nope, he's fine."
>Get life imprisonment for war crimes
>At the end of his life, he somehow manages to 'hang himself'

The Eternal Anglo everybody.

>>1007332
Victors justice, whether you see that as law or not depends on what legal theory you subscribe too.

>>1007418

Having Judges from the victors was a problem. The justices should have been from neutral counties. The prosecutors could represent the victors.

File: Nuremberg.jpg (355KB, 1610x1319px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1610x1319px

>>1007332
It was bullshit.
They didn't hang nearly enough people.
I can live with Donitz, and Konstantin cheating the hangman, but Speer and Von Schirach and Schacht shoulda been dancing on air for the Trials to even begin resembling justice.

But noooo, Chruchill wanted a Strong Germany to ward off the Russians.

>>1007368
Edgy, you know it was for Nazi war criminals and that the victors were not the ones on trial so it accomplished its goals. They needed the support of the United States and of the Soviet union so what retard would put on trial some of their most important figures?

>>1007466
>Von Schirach

Probably the most vilest of all the defendants.

File: harris did nothing wrong.jpg (31KB, 480x802px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x802px

>>1007368
Do it again, Bomber Harris

File: gvd.png (172KB, 432x391px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 432x391px

>>1007345

edgy fag detected

>>1007472
That anon was being snarky about Ethics, which trials are supposed to uphold. Tact is hard to detect sometimes, it's okay.

It was complete bullshit.

I think I have an infographic saved somewhere/.

>>1007332
A mix of the two. Of course, there's only so much legitimacy you can expect from a war crimes trial like that, but it seems a great deal of effort was done to give it a fair amount of legitimacy.

You do have questionable things - nobody being prosecuted for anything that the Allies also did (like strategic bombing), and the Brits and Soviets being fairly open in that they wanted all the defendants hanged, but the way the trials were conducted was far from a sham of a trial you'd expect. The defendants were all given legal counsel, and standard judicial procedures were followed. Hell, the fact that you had several men be acquitted of some (or even all) charges shows that they were at least somewhat sticking to procedure, regardless of the feelings of the rest of the world.

There's also the greater strategic perspective you have to remember - they wanted to de-legitimize the Nazis by rightfully convicting all their leaders of terrible crimes. Anything less than an airtight trial would undermine the denazification efforts.

>>1006598
Absolutely little to no legitimacy in the trial.
Article 19 and 21.

>>1008290
The trial was far from airtight.

>>1008513

It was certainly airtight in that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did the things they were convicted of, but it was a sham in that there wasn't really any legal basis to prosecute anyone.

>>1008567
Exactly. It was an unprecedented thing, but the point was to prove to the world (and especially Germans) that the Nazi leadership were as a whole responsible for horrible things.

The legal basis for the trials may have been shaky, but it was never about justice so much as aiding the denazification process, which it did an excellent job at.

>In Nuremberg at that time something was taking place that I personally considered a disgrace and an unfortunate lesson for the future of humanity. I became certain that the Argentine people also considered the Nuremberg process a disgrace, unworthy of the victors, who behaved as if they hadn't been victorious. Now we realize that they [the Allies] deserved to lose the war.