The Yamashita trial

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,380
Sydney
.
That's the often misquoted
"the end justifies the means " which is in fact "the end is the measure of the justice of the means"

Like the theological notion of being "justified" ..... to have been found just
 
Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
It's NOT rocket science or quantum physics- if and when an enemy soldier comes out waving a white flag or with their hands up, they are AUTOMATICALLY entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention( which cover even the likes of the Taliban as saw in the recent court case of Alexander Blackman), irrespective of whether their side respects or observes said Geneva Convention(which obviously excludes the Wehrmacht or SS, the North Korean, North Vietnamese Armies/Viet Cong) even if they had just killed your fellows in an ambush or massacre- doing anything less devalues the cause that you fight for).

Terry
 
Jul 2019
1
uk
Yes, but did Yamashita exercise control over his troops during the Battle of Manila- he claimed he could not and was therefore unaware of any war crimes committed by them until afterwards(just as Eisenhower could have made the same claim about the "take no prisoners" order issued during the Battle of the Bulage)? As the French would put it- c'est la guerre- one is regarded as a reviled war criminal and the other a revered statesmen simply because "Ike" ended up on the winning side and Yamashita on the losing one!

Terry
Make it simple, mate, and forget about how the french will put it! He was responsible, and he had to pay! Back in times all his family should share his fate! C'est la guere!
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,380
Sydney
Yamashita ordered his Army troops to evacuate Manila , however the Japanese Marines claimed they were Navy as such he had no authority over them and decided to fight
 

xander.XVII

Ad Honorem
Nov 2009
3,888
Outer world
Wasn't the Nuremberg Trials essentially a "kangaroo court" created with the specific (and commendable) aim of punishing Nazis? If I'm not mistaken, article 19 of the Nuremberg Trials specifically states (I'm going by memory) that the court rejects the notion of "need of evidence" and basically accepts anything as a proof?
As for the rest, yes, victors' justice does indeed exist but what makes the various American, British and other users from former Allies' nations, is that they equate the notion of "victors' justice" to US = Nazi Germany, which actually is quite a ludicrous claim.
There was indeed victors' justice: cases of Italian prisoners of war summarily executed were ignored, many German prisoners of war in the ETO (especially after Malmedy and during the initial phases of the battle of Normandy) were executed as well and no one was punished for that ( they even show such an episode in Saving Private Ryan and the fact is presented as nothing more than usual business). Bombings were highly debatable but they were hardly punished, the Laconia incident was simply brushed under the carpet.
Now, the difference in the end lies in both numbers (even though it's sad to measure in evil in pure numbers) and overall intentions between Nazi Germany, Japan and the Allies.
Finally, international law applies if there is someone to enforce it, otherwise it often is moot (has anyone punished the US for invading Iraq in 2003? Has anyone taken any US personnel to The Hague tribunal? Has anyone processed any Soviet general?).
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,491
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Wasn't the Nuremberg Trials essentially a "kangaroo court" created with the specific (and commendable) aim of punishing Nazis? If I'm not mistaken, article 19 of the Nuremberg Trials specifically states (I'm going by memory) that the court rejects the notion of "need of evidence" and basically accepts anything as a proof?
How many kangaroo courts acquit defendants?
 

xander.XVII

Ad Honorem
Nov 2009
3,888
Outer world
How many kangaroo courts acquit defendants?
That was why I was asking and why I specifically mentioned article 19, which is the main element I remember about objecting to the nature of the Nuremberg trials. I asked because Legalese English is quite contorted and ambiguous even for native speakers, let alone for non-native ones.
As per your question, I was not in fact making a statement but asking for confirmation for a supposed statement (was or was it not a kangaroo court?): the fact that some newly-created crimes were basically retroactively punished or bending the judgment to political reasons (Katyn for example, disregarding bombing of civilians or even the absurd attempt to punish Doenitz for doing his job) have been often cited as motivations clouding the full objectivity of the trials.
That being said, I understand that often even discussing this subject is rejected as the thesis is too often construed as defending or justifying Nazis (and indeed it has been the case), but mine is not. Not being a lawyer or a law expert, I was asking the question and I'd like to have it answered properly, if possible.
 

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,448
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
That was why I was asking and why I specifically mentioned article 19, which is the main element I remember about objecting to the nature of the Nuremberg trials. I asked because Legalese English is quite contorted and ambiguous even for native speakers, let alone for non-native ones.
As per your question, I was not in fact making a statement but asking for confirmation for a supposed statement (was or was it not a kangaroo court?): the fact that some newly-created crimes were basically retroactively punished or bending the judgment to political reasons .
Here's Article 19

.
Article 19.
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. .
I assume that not adhering to "technical rules of evidence" means lesser standards for things like chain of custody, hearsay rule etc
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,380
Sydney
Of course the Nuremberg trials were a propaganda show , that was the whole point
it's main function was to separate the guilt from the Nazi apparatus from the German people as a whole
the Versailles treaty hadn't done it too well and the Germans nation was punished , which many thought as unfair

the alternative to Nuremberg would have been to shoot every German soldier and officers