Germany had signed the Hague conventions 1907, which ruled actions such as murder of POWs and civilians, forced labor etc. as war crime.Furthermore, germany had broken a number of treatys, such as the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.This formed part of the legal basis of trials against germans after the war.
The german occupation did not make countries such as Poland a part of germany (in the de iure sense) since those annexations were not acknowledged in the rest of the world.
2007-03-10 08:53:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
One, the Officer in question had to actually take part in, or sanction the commission of something considered a crime. I'm not sure if merely having knowledge is enough to charge.
Two, you have to have a court in which to try him. In recent (the last fifty) years, it has become in vogue for the UN to make decisions about what nations can and cannot do. Though I do not support the actions Of the National Socialist Workers Party, and believe that each man must answer for his transgressions, I do not believe any one organization or group has any sovereignty over the entire world, only to those territories which they own. Unfortunately the UN behaves otherwise. Between them, the so called Hague, and Israel, you have people who will allow transgression against other nations and their citizens.
Remember, however, the national law in Germany during that time provided for the eradication of various groups. Just because it's law, that does not mean it's right. Same case here.
Even directly after WWII, there were executions. Of all of them, I say we made one mistake. Rudolf Hess. The man never *did* anything, he was not what you would call mentally stable either.
Now we have the last of the generation that was in the concentration camps still screaming for blood. they have been screaming for blood since 1945. They have been getting blood since 1945. In some cases, like that of Rudolf Hess, they got blood they should not have. These are aged people. I think that age and senility could take their toll on a few more people, not innocent, but neither culpable.
2007-03-08 22:12:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by jenklowiecz 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Nazis who were put on trial and executed were judged for crimes against humanity. Murder is a crime and remains a crime even if a criminal regime says it isn't. Those who were sentenced were involved in war crimes and the Holocaust and they deserved to be executed for this. I don't know how murdering millions of innocent and defenceless people could be defined as "serving your country".
No one was punished just because they fought for Germany in World War II, although I think no member of the Wehrmacht is innocent in a moral sense because Germany attacked other countries without provocation and millions of civilians were killed in the occupied countries, especially in East Europe, including the Holocaust victims, without World War II the Holocaust would not have been possible as most of the victims were from countries that were occupied by Germany in the war.
2007-03-10 06:42:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elly 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
well I think it depends on the person especially if there is a trail.
They served their country but they were not forced to obey blindly orders. And those orders,as history shows, were not human and they were against human rights. So they are judged for that. I think it matters what those Nazi officers did individually and not as a whole.
2007-03-08 21:54:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Theta40 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
don't know the answer to that one, but kind of makes you wonder if the officer's serving the united states could be done that way to.
2007-03-08 21:50:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by plhudson01 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
you are wrong, it WAS illegal. they get tried for crimes against humanity. its not illegal in the sense of national law but a more general humanitarian law.
watch the movie called Apt Pupil. its a pretty good movie and this event takes place.
2007-03-08 21:49:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by xyz 3
·
2⤊
1⤋