- Apr 2010
- T'Republic of Yorkshire
Katyn was not considered as part of the judgment, as the non-Soviet judges didn't really believe the Germans were responsible.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.
And Doenitz was not punished for waging unrestricted submarine warfare, because Nimitz testified that the Allies had done the same thing.
The standards of evidence applied both to the prosecution and defence.