You've read (and watched) survivor testimony from different genocides, you're learned about the founding of the UN, and the ideas behind having international human rights protection. Now I want you to answer ONE of the following TWO questions:
1) Using materials from both this week and last week (primary and secondary sources), to what extent do you think ordinary people, such as low ranking soldiers, should have been held accountable for the crimes that occurred during World War II, and WHY? Please use evidence from the readings to support your answer.
...OR...
2) Do you think the trials after WWII were a fair way to deal with the crimes of the war? Why or why not? Do you think that the idea of international intervention for human rights was executed well through the establishment of the UN, or do you think its creation was problematic, and WHY?
The trials following WWII were the best way possible to deal with the numerous crimes of war committed by various countries, though it didn't effectively address all the crimes of war, namely those committed by the Allied countries. Even if it is after the fact, individuals need to be held responsible for their actions during war and a precedent needs to be set for future wars. For those worried about soldiers being unfairly punished for their orders, Charles Wyzanski brought up a good point, "And no one would expect a tribunal to mete out its severest penalty to a defendant who yielded to wrongdoing only out of fear of loss of his life or his family's." The Nuremberg trials were mainly meant for the high ranking officials, whose power was used to order these war crimes. In this sense, the trials were more than fair, seeing it was those most responsible for the crimes that were facing the charges. And while, like mentioned before, not all crimes were addressed, the Nuremberg trials needed to happen.
ReplyDeleteIn the establishment of the UN, the idea of international intervention for human rights was well executed. The 29 or so articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights were a step in the right direction in establishing an international norm for human rights expectations. In practice, though, the UN's execution of the Declaration has been problematic. In the international system, state sovereignty is still more highly valued than individual rights, and this prevents countries from getting involved in each other's affairs, allowing for human rights violations to continue. The UN had good intentions, but without the action to follow through, trials like Nuremberg will seem like nothing more than grandstanding and countries will continue to violate human rights without real worry for repercussion. Human rights violations need to be given more precedent so that countries will act on them without fear of being looked down on in the international stage.
Meghann Horst
The trials of World War 2 were biased. Although they did a good job of persecuting the losers of the war - Germany especially - it must be taken into account that the trials were led by an American judge and were run by the Allies. There were several horrors committed by the victors that were not considered during the trials. For example, the Soviet gulags had about 18 million people in them. However, no international action was taken, arguably because the Soviets were on the winning side of the war. Also, Churchill and the British facilitated the Bengal famine in 1943 in which about 1.5-4 million people died. Because Great Britain held much power in international terms, nothing was done to punish the British for this crime.
ReplyDeleteThe UN intervention in human rights was executed well. The articles included in the Declaration of Rights are thorough - including rights that range from the right to marry to the freedom of movement to the right to a nationality. Although this may have stopped some countries from joining the U.N., these are still basic rights that every human should have.
Mina Kim
WWII was a crucial turning point in human rights throughout the world. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA remain to this day the only use of nuclear weaponry in war time against another nation. The atrocities witnessed as a result of the bombings has led to disarmament movements with the goal of convincing national governments to dispose of nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project and its impact in the war drastically changed international policy and the way nations conduct diplomatic relations. The sheer threat of nuclear capability has led to massive economic embargoes and preemptive strikes against nations threatening nuclear attack, such as the current case of Iran, Israel, and the USA. The capabilities to use nuclear weapons has for the most part remained in the hands of WWII victors and other western powers. In many periphery nations, this has caused resentment and hostility towards the west.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the atrocities committed in Europe led to the official recognition of the act of genocide, and ultimately the idea of Human Rights. The establishment of the United Nations following the war has been vital in the recognition of universal Human Rights. With a platform to perform diplomatic negotiation in the presence of the international community, nations have been more able to de-escalate conflicts instead of waging war. Since WWII, there haven’t been many (if any) significant wars between democratic national powers. The post-war world witnessed a transition into proxy-wars during the Cold War era, where the USSR and the USA were trying to gain influence in foreign parts of the world by supplying military means and soldiers to political groups, rather than directly engaging each other. With nuclear capabilities, the USSR and the USA could potentially have started a catastrophic conflict, possibly resulting in the destruction of the habitable world. In more recent history, Old Wars (wars between nations) have been overtaken by New Wars – wars between political factions, ethnic groups, religious militias, and other various non-state actors. This shift has been utterly influential in world conflict, as national militaries are no longer fighting armies of other nations, but groups that are often difficult to identify and target. This shift has caused drastic changes in alliances and military strategy.
All of these changes would not have occurred if it were not for the course WWII took during, and after, the war. The severity in which the trials at Nuremberg were handled, with the prosecution of post de facto crimes, has established the firm foundation of support for global Human Rights by the United Nations. Although I believe that the agreements on what Human Rights are, and how they can be achieved, by the UN have been successful; the actions taken to maintain Human Rights, especially in developing nations, is far below that what it should be.
Jack Nemeth
The trials seemed to be a fair way to deal with the crimes of war. When dealing with any case or problem, it's best to handle it in a courtroom. However, the way the trials were handled seemed to be controversial. With the Allies running the trials, it seemed that the trials were tampered. Even though they were seen as controversial, the Nuremberg trials can be regarded as a benchmark toward establishing a permanent international court, and an important precedent for dealing with later instances of genocide and other crimes against humanity. The idea of international intervention for human rights was executed well. It finally created a guideline of laws or rules, which everyone can follow and understand.
ReplyDeleteNZ
World War II saw some of the most brutal treatment of humans thus far in history. Millions of people perished during combat, but also because of bombings and genocide. According to Duiker and Spielvogel, the civilian death toll is estimated around 40 million.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to say whether or not the trials following WWII were fair because laws stating that crimes against humanity did not exist until after WWII. The people were being tried for acts that were not illegal at the time of their committing. However, the crimes against humanity committed during WWII by both sides are clearly tragic and could not go unpunished. The Nurembourg Trials were the best possible way to deal with these crimes against humanity. A trial was the most humane and respective way to deal with people capable of committing such horrendous crimes. It would be more inhumane to let them go with out any trial at all. There was unfairness though, in that the crimes committed by the Allied powers, such as the U.S. Japanese internment camps and the Soviet gulags were not tried.
The establishment of the UN was semi-successful. Their intents were very great, in establishing clear lines against crimes against humanity. However, genocides and inhumane acts have occurred since its establishment, an example would be the Rwandan genocide. While the UN was present, they also evacuated all westerners quickly and had orders to not take any Rwandans with them. This was an abolishment of their own laws. I think the UN has instituted guidelines to tell the world what constitutes inhumanity, however I think they have growing to do.
World War II saw some of the most brutal treatment of humans thus far in history. Millions of people perished during combat, but also because of bombings and genocide. According to Duiker and Spielvogel, the civilian death toll is estimated around 40 million.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to say whether or not the trials following WWII were fair because laws stating that crimes against humanity did not exist until after WWII. The people were being tried for acts that were not illegal at the time of their committing. However, the crimes against humanity committed during WWII by both sides are clearly tragic and could not go unpunished. The Nurembourg Trials were the best possible way to deal with these crimes against humanity. A trial was the most humane and respective way to deal with people capable of committing such horrendous crimes. It would be more inhumane to let them go with out any trial at all. There was unfairness though, in that the crimes committed by the Allied powers, such as the U.S. Japanese internment camps and the Soviet gulags were not tried.
The establishment of the UN was semi-successful. Their intents were very great, in establishing clear lines against crimes against humanity. However, genocides and inhumane acts have occurred since its establishment, an example would be the Rwandan genocide. While the UN was present, they also evacuated all westerners quickly and had orders to not take any Rwandans with them. This was an abolishment of their own laws. I think the UN has instituted guidelines to tell the world what constitutes inhumanity, however I think they have growing to do.
Although human suffrage and persecution by the state are nothing new in human history, the levels in which these were taking during WWII were. Never before had the world seen such systematic and efficient oppression be enacted upon a specific group of people. The reasons for this is that mass murdering techniques had been given a modern touch, bringing about new methods like poisonous gas, which could not only kill more, but do it with frightening speed. Thus, once the world had been shown what was going on within the Nazi regime on the Eastern front, no one could have predicted the true magnitude of it. Moreover, following the Age of Enlightenment, Liberalism had become widespread in the West, seeking for human rights and to fight against oppression. Which once ousted, the Nazi's must have known that the punishment was going to be great (a reason why so many high ranking officers fled). Furthermore, the Nazi's were not the only one's who engaged in serious acts of Human rights violations. Although not as widely talked about, the man made famines in Communist states like the Soviet Union and China, were in fact, enacted on a much larger scale. As a result, ramifications were needed, punishments needed to be dealt out, and it all needed to be swift and stand as an example that the Free World would not tolerate such violations.
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect though, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy in all of it. Much like WWI, Germany found itself, although justified this time around, as the one's facing stiff punishment at the hands of the Allied forces. Taking place in Nuremberg, the trials which took place sought to punish many of Germany's highest ranking officers. The “war crimes” that these men committed, later saw them hung as a result of their convictions. Nevertheless, in spite of the Allied states' stance as democratic and liberal, the Germans were not exactly given a fair trial. Many of the laws that were seen as having been broken, were not in place prior to the trials themselves. Although not entirely, it seemed as if new laws were being created as the trials went on. The Soviet offenses were also not tried upon, which is probably the main reason its not as widely talked about as the Holocaust. And of course no mentioning of the Atomic bomb against Japan was ever made. Needless to say, even though these men were absolute monsters and they deserved nothing less than death, the trials themselves proved to be not only biased, but also somewhat hypocritical.
Nonetheless, following WWII, the Allied forces once again faltered in their attempts to create a create a truly efficient peace keeping international organization. Given the great failure of the League of Nations, the Allies wanted to create something more efficient. The result was the United Nations and at its inception, featured around 50 members. But despite the steps taking to keep from committing previous mistakes, their passiveness once again proved to be its downfall.
Human rights violations are still committed world wide, especially in dictatorships and the United Nations does not have the necessary power to prevent it. State sovereignty still holds more weight than international law and unless overthrown, repercussions are not something which need to be worried about. So if there is ever a third World War, given that the victors are hopefully liberal states, perhaps we will finally see efficient implementations of international law. Because at the current moment, the United Nations serves as little more than a guideline for states to follow. Even the United State, which was key in its creation, was able to go against it when it declaring War on Terror.
In addressing the first prompt, the extent to which I think a punishment should have been delivered to "ordinary" people is this, if you were an active member of the Nazi party in any way, punishment is appropriate, deserved and necessary. I know this may seem harsh coming right out, but the degrees of punishment would of course vary depending upon the activities said supporter participated in; a model form of "eye for an eye" so to speak. For instance, a simple swastika-dawning cook providing meals to Nazi soldiers should have post-war been assigned to prepare meals for returning civilians (Jewish or otherwise) and occupying Allied forces, or something equivalent to the actions he committed which in some way aided the Nazi party. In another instance a guard at a concentration camp, while he may never have personally induced physical harm on a victim via firing squad or otherwise, he was still an active member of the oppressing regime and therefore contributing intangibly to the cause. A suitable punishment post war for a soldier like this could be to help rebuild bombed out cities and restore the homes of the victims. They monitored the manual labour in the camps for instance, therefore a fitting penalty would be to endure manual labour in the same manner. I know this was not possible considering the literal hundreds of thousands of Nazi supports, either military or civilian, but if there existed a realm post-WWII where justice was served fairly, I believe this is how it should've and would've been handled. And the reason as for why, for me, is simply this... in class you kept repeating "punishment for a crime that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed", but here is how I see it; the persecution and oppression felt by all in whatever capacity it was in, were a crime the exact moment they were happening in the same capacity it was deemed a crime after the Axis powers surrendered and the Allied forces declared them so. From start to finish these actions were crimes. The only reason they weren't deemed crimes at the moment of execution (literally) is because the power delivering these blows was precisely that, IN power; they ran the government, military, economy, social realms, they owned it all. Therefore, their word was law. A law which horrendously violated all basic human rights. And a law which will, with all hope, never be in place again.
ReplyDeleteThe trials after World War 2 were not fair for many reasons. One reason was the Allies did not have to go to trial. It would be very difficult to punish someone after they were on the winning side of the war. The United States held Japanese internment camps and even dropped bombs killing thousands of people, and they were not punished at all. Also, allowing an American be the judge during these trials makes it sound a little bias as well. The United States fought against Germany, so there was a higher probability that the judge wanted to punish the German people. The people at these trials were being tried for laws that were not in effect until after World War 2. It seems unfair that these people were being tried for acts that were technically legal at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe UN has been successful for the most part. The principles of the United Nations make it clear that they want a peaceful world. Countries are coming together to form this group and express different ideas and rights. However, genocides and inhumane acts are still happening. Once the UN steps in and stops these horrible acts, then it will be extremely successful.
Matt B
The crimes that took place during the years of World War II were inhumane, and unacceptable. Countless amounts of innocent people were mistreated, mutilated, and even killed. That being said, I feel that the trials that took place after the war came to an end were unfair. I believe they were unjust because they were biased towards upper ranking officers and were unfairly prejudiced towards the German perpetrators. Although, in no way am I saying that what these German high ranking officers did is justifiable, but the trials, known as the Nuremburg Trials fell victim to ex post facto laws. Ex post facto pertains to the idea that these officers were being punished for something that was not considered a crime until they had already committed it. In our Constitution, it blankly states that one cannot be tried for an ex post facto crime. This very fact undermines a lot of the legitimacy that the trials held. In my opinion, these officers should have paid for the horrendous crimes they committed, but I believe it should have done in a just, fair, legitimate manner.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the establishment of the United Nation’s creation of international human rights was a step in the right direction at this point in time. After the world witnessed the horrifying realities of genocide the implementation of universal human rights was deeply needed, I believe, for the sake of the people afflicted by these war atrocities. That being said, I do believe that the UN forgot to take into account that all of the world lives in places were differing cultures are present. The United Nations imposing a single, intolerant document of human rights to span all different ways of life could back fire and lead to more conflict. The establishment of international human rights created some solace and comfort for many, but it also may have lead to more disagreement and struggle.
Sydney Butz
SECOND OPTION
ReplyDeleteThe Nuremburg Trials represented an a number of firsts for the Allies. This naturally created many problems in its proceedings. Having in mind that a genocide of this scale had never before been seen, it is easier to see why some decisions were made. However, I add that the human element must also be taken into account as to why violations such as ex post facto law were blatantly used. While the decision to even go to court I regard as triumph of reason over anger and emotion, I believe emotion still seeped its way into the courtroom. A psychological need for closure along with the lack of precedence prompted many of the proceedings to go into more controversial territory.
The trials also presented an interesting phenomena in International Relations. Before World War II, it was assumed that states lived in a state of pure anarchy, wherein actors had a legitimate monopoly over the use of violence and force. Never before had this idea been questioned. In fact, it was used as a defense by some of the accused, claiming that their charged violated the principles established by the Westphalian treaty. However, if the nations were to cling to this antiquated notion, an appropriate response to such horrific crimes could not have come about. Since then. the UN has been formed as has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, much like the League of Nations and the Kellog-Briand pact, the two seem logical in theory but in practice do not work. Not only does the UN have a hypocritical view towards nations that are clear human rights abusers (i.e Russia and Saudi Arabia), but it also lacks a necessary power structure to where it can effectively respond to human rights violations. The Rwandan genocide reminds us of this, and of the fact that no organization can fully address the issue of human rights.
Option #2
ReplyDeleteThe trials after WWII were rather fair because in a way, it’s “karma.” Those who committed these cimes were inhumain and they could knew what they were doing. Even if those who committed these thought that they were doing their people a good deed, they were violating the rights to those people. Just because they have a different religion or a lifestyle that they have no control over what so ever, doesn’t mean that they aren’t human. They still have the same biologic make up and they’re human. That being said, the trials were completely fair because the international system had to make it a point that these crimes were not okay and that they were just the wrong thing to do.
I think that the idea of international intervention is a good thing because it shows that the international system will not just let things happen. It shows that there is a system that wants to protect the international world form harm. The creation of the Human Rights Declaration shows that the international system found a way to try and protect the individuals that make up this so called international system. As for the creation of the UN, I think that the idea is a very good idea. However, there are many issues with the UN that the UN has no control over. A perfect example of this is the issue that happened in Rwanda, the UN could only go in a try to make peace. They were failing because the UN had no military power and couldn’t get the help they needed from the other major powers in the world that helped establish the UN. From the video, it was proven that other countries had “other priorities” that they thought were more important than hundreds and hundreds of innocent people being killed by their own government. Therefore, I can see that the UN can be problematic because they have no real power to enforce things and people don’t take their peacemaking skills seriously. But if they were more capable of enforcing things, maybe they could maintain more peace throughout the international system and continue to protect the individuals that are apart of this system.
The question of those soldiers that were following orders are guilty of war crimes is the question that interests me the most about the Nuremburg trials. There is a fine line between those who were simply following orders and were only doing so to keep themselves and their families safe, which is not a crime just a soldier doing his duty. Then there are those who made their own decisions to kill the innocent. That is what the Nuremburg trials were trying to discern, who was following orders and who was making the decisions. In the Nuremburg trials in the primary source written by Wyzanski is explicitly asks this same question.
ReplyDeleteI believe that for the most part only the head officers should have been tried and convicted. The guards I believe as long as they were not doing any activities that were outside the orders given to them they would not be guilty of war crimes. There were instances where the guards got caught up in their job and killed people without being ordered to do so. That is a war crime. They should be tried for their crimes and then judged on what severity of a penalty they should receive. The main people who were at the Nuremburg trials were the main Nazis who were near Hitler and near the decisions to commit the war crimes. These men knew what was happening and were giving the orders. They were rightfully tried and for the most part convicted. These men knew what they were doing would cause them trouble if their side lost. That is why many of them fled and hide in Argentina for the rest of their lives.
Daniel Moratt
I do not believe that ordinary or low-ranking soldiers should be held accountable for crimes committed during WWII. It is hard to define where exactly the line should be drawn as to whether or not someone is accountable for the crimes committed, but there definitely gets to a point where someone is simply following orders. It is often argued that "simply following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for mass murder, but there are a large number of reasons why a soldier would follow orders even if they are to commit mass murder. A low ranking soldier who goes against his orders would probably be killed or imprisoned for disobeying orders, and would be replaced by someone more than willing to follow his orders. As a result, the only good that is done by this is simply according to principle. As was discussed in the Nuremburg trials, high ranking officers were in a far better position to actually change something if they wanted to. It is true that the officers might not have been at the very top of the totem poll, but even if just a few kommondants at concentration camps across Germany would have come together and decided to take a stance against the crimes being committed, there could have been some actual change that took place.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Nuremburg trials were fair in the way that they dealt with the war crimes. Although many argue that a law created ex post facto should become null and void, laws could never exist unless someone did something wrong in the first place. Seeing as the world had to create a new definition for what had happened in Armenia and Germany, it would be hard to believe the crimes would fall under a past law. The alternative would have been to wait until Germany was a state again and hold the trials by German law but finding a group of people who were unbiased after a world war would nearly be impossible. As for the Allies who also committed what could be described as war crimes, while I believe that it is easy to compare in hindsight, they felt that their actions were justified and saved lives in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of international intervention for human rights in the UN has been a bumpy road at best. Although the UN makes many progressive international laws, not every state is forced to ratify them. The US is a great example, just take a look and see if they signed the declaration against torture. With the Declaration of Human Rights the UN basically opened many countries up to the idea of breaking from their invading or occupying countries. Although this was nothing new, for example the Haitian revolution after the French Declaration of Rights, it led to a massive decolonization and many shift in the world which can probably still be related to many of the revolutions and rebellions we read in the news today. Thankfully the UN is getting better at protecting these rights through their new peacekeeping missions throughout the world.
Alex Coe
I don't think the war trials after WWII were truly a fair way to deal with the crimes of the war. The most glaring issue is that they did not confront the atrocities the Allies also committed before and during the war. Great Britain ignored and directly affected the famine that occurred in Bengal, as well as the U.S.'s Japanese internment camps. The biggest offense was done by Stalin as being the one that resulted in millions of Russians dead. Despite his death count being on par with the Holocaust, nothing was the Russia never had to face consequences.
ReplyDeleteIn all, the war tribunals were not executed well because of these instances of the Allies running it. They charged people with the conspiracy to commit aggression over Germany's plan on the invasion of Poland. Russia, though, was part of a secret pact with Germany to both take their own parts of Poland, so they too would be guilty of crimes against peace but were not charged.
Elisabeth Wright
Option #1 Aaron Wang
ReplyDeleteI believe that during the terrible crimes during WWII that all those involved with the atrocities are guilty and deserve punishment. I think that even the lowest solders that followed orders of killing non-combative people should not gain pardon from the deaths of their victims. According to the 'Jew Butcher,' Hans Frank, "Don't let anybody tell you that they had no idea. Everybody sensed there was something horribly wrong with the system." The people involved knew of what they were doing and the consequences that followed. I believe in a life for a life so in which these personnel considered their lives more important to save that it results in the deaths of others that beneath justice their lives are forfeit in reparation to the victims.
Our opinions on this blog post are very uneducated, as we are not presented with all the necessary data and evidence to make sweeping judgements on those involved even in the slightest manner in genocide. Taking the example of the holocaust in Germany, every individual must be treated differently down the ranks. To claim that the SS should have been dealt with in a certain manner is also using generalization. The SS was made up of hundreds of individuals, and their motives and decisions were not all the same. I think when it comes to war trials, it is very important to take a step back and understand that we are not the jury. Those who are affected directly by these atrocities can obviously have strong opinions, but as bystanders, it is necessary we be very just.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Roman
ReplyDeleteWorld War II was a defining moment in the world of human rights. A long with the common terrors of war, new atrocities such as the atomic bomb and large-scale genocide were brought to the world stage. This new cavalier and inhumane treatment of human lives forced the United Nations to respond by holding various trials post bellum World War II, as well as executing international intervention for human rights.
While the trials after the war were necessary, they were not conducted in the fairest possible way. This was due to the many controversies surrounding the trials. The United Nations sought out accountability for the atrocities committed during war, yet some of the atrocities were never even conceived in the minds of the UN lawmakers, thus there were no preceding specific laws pertaining to genocide. This issue forced the UN to create ex post facto laws which were discriminating to genocide offenders, which included crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. However, without ex post facto laws, how were the defendants to be punished? Another questionable action by the UN was the “victors” justice. The winning powers from WWII were the jurors deciding the fate of the defendants, and they were not held accountable for any of their crimes against war or humanity (i.e. US and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, US Japanese interment cams, the British Bengal famine, etc.). The trials were biased and solely persecuted the losers of WWII, ignoring the atrocities committed by the victors.
The United Nation’s establishment of human rights in the Declaration of Rights were comprehensive and well executed. The declaration detailed a range of human rights that were all inclusive, and established a guideline that describes what constitutes as inhumane acts. In the creation of the Declaration of Rights, the UN established a standard for members to follow. However, the Declaration of Rights has only been semi-successful, since there have been human rights violations and genocides (i.e. Rwanda) after its creation in which the UN failed to act or lacked the necessary preventative and responsive power.
#1 Matt Ishkhan
ReplyDeleteThe trials that occurred after WWII both in Europe and Japan were by no means a solution to the mass atrocities that had occurred at the hands of both Germany, Japan and Italy, however they were the appropriate measures to take by the international community. It is important for high-ranking military and government officials to be held accountable for their actions, as opposed to most ordinary soldiers/people carrying out the acts of violence. Furthermore, it is also very crucial for the international community conducting the trial to have a clear understanding of a government's or military's chain of command for best judgment handing out the proper sentence to different individuals. The international intervention that we saw after WWII had potential to be executed thoroughly and become a precedent in the event of future military conflicts and genocides, however failure to get a full involvement from all countries was one of its' flaws. If the International Community had taken actions against the Ottoman Turks that committed the Armenian Genocide after WWI, would that have affected Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews? The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials were important movements because they signaled the intolerance of such atrocious acts, however it was the international community's failure to fully generate awareness and a proper plan of intervention in such situations which consequently led to the unfortunate events in Cambodia, Rwanda and The Balkans. It is one thing to enact justice and another to raise awareness as a means of prevention; It is the international community's responsibility to do both.
Option #2
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that the Holocaust was not a small incident in which a few people were killed off. However, it is tough to discern whether or not these trials were just in relations to other mass killings of individuals. People in other genocides or Stalin’s “Great Purge” were not put on trial for their heinous acts against the human race. This being said, I believe that the trials were just in their own way because of the mass effects this event had on the world as a whole. This being said, as we discussed in class, I still question to what extent individuals who were involved in aiding the Holocaust should be tried. During this time the Declaration of Human Rights was being created. I think there was no better time to create this. Why would we wait to create a document that defends human rights when such a heinous act against the human population was committed. Waiting till a time of peace would do individuals no good. Thus I believe that the UN was valid in creating this document when they did.
Abby McGonagle
Mircea Lazar - Option #2
ReplyDeleteWorld War II was the most destructive conflict that the world had ever seen, and the Holocaust constituted the most efficient, mechanized, and industrial genocide in history, resulting in the brutal deaths of millions of Jews and other oppressed minorities, including Roma, gays, Communists, etc. As such, an organized, ad hoc tribunal was needed after the end of the war to pass judgment on those responsible for the carnage. The Nuremberg Trials were indeed the legitimate and right method of carrying out justice. However, as journalist Charles E. Wyzanski pointed out, one cannot say that the Nuremberg Trials were not without problems. Among other things, there are questions surrounding the issue of how many people can share the blame for an organized killing such as the Holocaust that was generated and orchestrated from above. Is it legitimate to try such offenders in the context of a military tribunal? What about the issue of ex post facto and charging Nazi leaders with human rights violations that had not necessarily existed prior to the Second World War? Without a doubt, the National Socialist leaders had to be tried at Nuremberg and held accountable for their gross human rights violations. But the effectiveness of the Nuremberg Trials is not a black-and-white question. Few things in history ever are.
The post-war political environment also saw the creation of the United Nations and of a codified, coherent human rights law in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These actions saw the world finally recognize that all human beings, universally, are endowed with certain natural rights which cannot be abridged, given up, or taken away, voluntarily or involuntarily. The thirty articles of the Declaration iterated a clear, progressive vision of a world without moral relativism or oppression of others due to cultural, historical, or religious justifications. The United Nations has been fundamental in bringing human rights abuses into the limelight. The shortcomings of the UN can be attributed to the fact that it lacks sufficient power, not because of any illegitimacy in its mission. In fact, only a single, united world state can ensure the total triumph of human rights and of the environmental health of our planet.
Mircea Lazar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn general I do not believe ordinary civilians and low ranking soldiers should have been punished too severely. However, I believe each case should be considered on a case by case basis and that the largest determining factor for condemning an individual should depend on the degree of freedom he or she had and the crimes committed. The common German soldier represents a difficult situation. Although the defense that a soldier was only following orders does not excuse a crime, it should soften the severity of punishment. To a degree soldiers are often indoctrinated and taught military values and policies before officially becoming part of a military branch. This means that soldiers are taught to follow orders to prevent the break down the unit during a conflict. Also, soldiers may be punished for defecting or failing to obey orders. I believe this greatly limits the amount of freedom a soldier has to disobey an order if he or she does not agree with it. Soldiers should not be punished for serving in the military and should be punished based on their actions, especially if one went outside of what they were ordered to do to mistreat prisoners of war or civilians.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Hitler established Nazi schools and organizations like the Hitler Youth that indoctrinated highly impressionable young individuals to Nazi doctrines. These individuals should be given special consideration they likely had a warped sense of morality. Charging individuals is tricky and I believe that it is wrong to charge them with crimes ex post facto. I believe individuals should have been charged with crimes that were already established and harshen the severity of punishments to better suit the crime. For example, there was no precedent to charge an individual for crimes against his or her own people, but the individual likely committed crimes that there was a precedent for. While I do agree that many of the crimes committed by the Nazi’s were wrong and outright unforgiveable for those responsible for the Holocaust, charging individuals with crimes ex post facto is dangerous for the continuation of just and fair legal system in the future. World War II should have been and was the basis for a body of international laws that forbid the wrongs against mankind that were perpetrated.
Lucas Downing